I do agree with that, except that I wonder just how unified the CIA is. I mean if there are things going on that even the POTUS is not supposed to know about, that already implies some fragmentation of control.
Yes - I also expected them to 'find' something in Iraq.
Since we are all here because of our interest in ψ-subjexts, I do wonder if that is relevant to some of these questions. Remember that we both accept that the Syrian gas attacks were frame-ups!
David
Oh what the heck....I mean we're discussing marriage....so I guess it's ok...
Here's the problem with what you say for the conspiracy nuts -
Either the "CIA" is unified or it isn't.
The conspiracy nuts want it both ways. They shift back and forth as needed to keep their crazy theories going and cognitive dissonance at bay.
If it's unified, then, of course they would have "found" evidence of WMD in Iraq (or, IMO, they would have planted it there instead of killing thousands of American citizens in America, etc). Anyone who could pull off 9/11 without a word leaking out or any responsibility for almost 18 years most certainly could get away with planting WMDs in Iraq, right?
If they aren't unified and some "rogue element" of stone cold psychopaths managed to pull off an elaborate plan that involved working with terrorists to destroy airplanes and iconic American structures and kill thousands of innocent civilians just so they could start a war (or whatever), then the NON-Rogue elements would have found and exposed the evidence. There'd be no cover-up possible as conspiracy theorists say there is. The non-rogues would be horrified beyond what they ever imagined their capacity for horror could be and they would get the rogues.
As an American, I can assure that we were all mad as Hell on 9/11 and for years afterward. Every member of the Armed Forces wanted to kick some ass. Young men were signing some up for the military so they could go kill the people that did 9/11. Every member of the IC wanted in on getting the perpetrators. If they discovered evidence that rogue elements of their own were involved, they would beaten those involved to death in public and then shot them repeatedly before hanging them. Period. Full stop.
The BS (= conspiracy theory) doesn't add up.
Just like it doesn't add up that CIA wanted to dose the country on LSD to turn them into zombies when everyone who has worked with LSD knows it doesn't make zombies and, in fact, didn't make govt controlled zombies out of the 60s generation.
The Syrian gas thing makes no sense on its face for equally obvious reasons. Why would Assad do the one thing that would cause the US to make trouble
at the very point that the tide was turning and he had begun winning against the jihadists? Why would the Russians, who had a lot to lose if things got hot between the USA and Syria/Russia, allow Assad to do the one thing that the US and the world would condemn just when the tide is turning favorably?
Assad wouldn't. He's a smart guy. And he is in charge.
I also have sources. But they are not required to understand the situation.
I don't think psi has anything to do with it (but you never know). I think it has to do with understanding how the world works and having a high degree of ability to objectively and intelligently look at things, but not be so open minded that your brain falls out.
On top of that we had assholes like McCain (lots of veterans don't like him BTW) saying things that were obviously over the top and, thus, obviously a tell; like "Assad has killed 100,000 of his own people" (the number that had died at that time in the fighting) - his forces killed everyone who died? The "rebels" didn't kill anyone? I actually asked McCain about that (written correspondence). His reply was that is was Assad's fault because Assad should have stepped down. Well, we all saw videos of the "rebels" killing innocent Christians and Shia is disturblingly barbaric ways. Assad should let such people take over his country? McCain repeats his "message".
The problem with the ironically named 911 "truthers" is that not only do they not have any real evidence that stands up to multiple expert scrutiny, but their entire concept makes no sense from a motive standpoint. It assumes irrational chaotic psychopathic madness on the part of the conspirators. The motive doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Motive is always important when analyzing. You have to explain
why someone or some group would do the thing. As I have said, if the motive was to start wars in the MENA, then, even from a psychopath's perspective, there were much simpler, less costly, more feasible, less risky means of doing that.
And I don't have to wildly speculate that what I offer as alternative means for starting the war could be. We already had a war with Iraq based on the invasion of Kuwait. After that, Iraq wasn't allowed to have WMD. WMD and some exposed plot to attack Israel or Saudi Arabia would have been sufficient. Since lots of people here think the VN started over the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then we could have added on an Iraqi torpedo boat attack on a US ship, etc, etc. How hard is that? Hell of a lot cleaner and easier than 9/11.
Bin Laden had already done plenty to justify going after him. Heck, photo shop him and Saddam having an evil doer lover fest. So much that could be done and it's all effective and all far short of 9/11.