Just one bone of contention: the claim that american intervention led to the radicalization of individuals who then carried out 9/11 attacks.
This seems logical, and I know Scott Horton takes the same position, but according to the University of Fairbanks Alaska study, building 7 could not possibly have fallen at near freefall speed only due to office fires.
I think the ignoring of evidence of explosives use is very telling and there appears to evidently have been a cover up from inside the US government.
I could follow others and say the Israelis and/or Saudis intel agencies were evidently involved, but I'd go further. From my perspective it seems the War on Terror empowers and enables global government, just as the '91 Gulf War did under the father of GW Bush (himself an ex-CIA director).
Just curious if you've seen the University of Fairbanks Alaska study and what you might think about its conclusion.
Post the study if you don't mind, I suspect if there were western intelligence agencies running interference for the 911 Islamists, they would have gladly assisted for this reason: General Wesley Clark alleged that the Bush administration planned to attack seven majority-Muslim countries within a five-year period after the 9/11 attacks, with Iraq being the first target. 911 would provide the necessary causus belli. The other six countries allegedly on the list were: Syria, Lebanon, Libya, , Iran (all Shia), Somalia, and Sudan. Clark claimed he learned of this plan from a senior military officer in November 2001. This is a concerted effort by the Saudi Wahabbists to establish total domination of the Sunni world in SW Asia in concert with Israel.
The unforeseen fissures in factional Yemen would drive a close alliance with Iran after the Saudi invasion in 2015 (another war credit to the Obama junta).
In both Somalia and Sudan, Shia Islam represents a minority within the larger Muslim population, which is predominantly Sunni. Past ties with Iran have made Sudan and Somalia complicated for Saudi hegemonic interests. Part of the beef with Somalia is the US loss of face in 1993 in Mogadishu.
I'm personally torn between two possible overarching conclusions regarding global geopolitics and warfare. Only time may tell which is correct, or if a third option exists:
One, I half believe US warfare activities may empower the UN and "enemy" nations really only work together to develop systems that will eventually be used to control all human populations.
Two, I half believe the US uses the global government system to achieve its own ends via hard power competition, and has no real desire to share control of human populations across a global network. Further, its use of such systems domestically is vague in purpose but is actually only used against perceived domestic enemies.
New favorite episode. Thanks!
Just one bone of contention: the claim that american intervention led to the radicalization of individuals who then carried out 9/11 attacks.
This seems logical, and I know Scott Horton takes the same position, but according to the University of Fairbanks Alaska study, building 7 could not possibly have fallen at near freefall speed only due to office fires.
I think the ignoring of evidence of explosives use is very telling and there appears to evidently have been a cover up from inside the US government.
I could follow others and say the Israelis and/or Saudis intel agencies were evidently involved, but I'd go further. From my perspective it seems the War on Terror empowers and enables global government, just as the '91 Gulf War did under the father of GW Bush (himself an ex-CIA director).
Just curious if you've seen the University of Fairbanks Alaska study and what you might think about its conclusion.
Post the study if you don't mind, I suspect if there were western intelligence agencies running interference for the 911 Islamists, they would have gladly assisted for this reason: General Wesley Clark alleged that the Bush administration planned to attack seven majority-Muslim countries within a five-year period after the 9/11 attacks, with Iraq being the first target. 911 would provide the necessary causus belli. The other six countries allegedly on the list were: Syria, Lebanon, Libya, , Iran (all Shia), Somalia, and Sudan. Clark claimed he learned of this plan from a senior military officer in November 2001. This is a concerted effort by the Saudi Wahabbists to establish total domination of the Sunni world in SW Asia in concert with Israel.
The unforeseen fissures in factional Yemen would drive a close alliance with Iran after the Saudi invasion in 2015 (another war credit to the Obama junta).
In both Somalia and Sudan, Shia Islam represents a minority within the larger Muslim population, which is predominantly Sunni. Past ties with Iran have made Sudan and Somalia complicated for Saudi hegemonic interests. Part of the beef with Somalia is the US loss of face in 1993 in Mogadishu.
Here is a solid copy of the study: https://www.scribd.com/document/666257748/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March-2020
Here is some background info on experts disagreeing with the NIST report: https://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html
I'm personally torn between two possible overarching conclusions regarding global geopolitics and warfare. Only time may tell which is correct, or if a third option exists:
One, I half believe US warfare activities may empower the UN and "enemy" nations really only work together to develop systems that will eventually be used to control all human populations.
Two, I half believe the US uses the global government system to achieve its own ends via hard power competition, and has no real desire to share control of human populations across a global network. Further, its use of such systems domestically is vague in purpose but is actually only used against perceived domestic enemies.
Great episode thanks!
On target Bill.