Discussion in '9/11' started by Mick West, Sep 23, 2017.
I bet they don’t. Care to make a more specific wager?
It seems the pending release of the JFK files was established by Congress in 1992. Trump can extend the withholding or he can let the law release date take place. No conspiracy on Trump or others part.
"But under a 1992 law on the JFK files, all records previously withheld either in part or in full are to be released on Oct. 26, 2017, unless the president authorizes that they be withheld longer."
It's true that you said events could happen...and some events did happen. Did I miss the Nostradamus angle?
I said there were certain events which were predictable which could by their nature draw uncomfortable attention to 9/11. I didn't express a millenarial faith that the end times of the 9/11 lies were upon us.
There is a dynamic at play in US politics which could get out of hand when the Russia investigation comes to a head.
Hillary Clinton has claimed that Russian interference in the presidential election was a 'cyber 9/11', which is to say, an attack by state-backed external actors on US institutions.
In the context of the ongoing FBI investigations into Trump campaign/Russia links, Trump has suggested that a dossier of allegedly compromising material could have been paid for or commissioned by factions within the US working with Russian officials in order to discredit him.
So one side is openly speculating that the security services conspired with politicians and external actors in an attempt to engineer political change, while the other is evoking 9/11 analogies.
Add to this that Trump has to defend against internal opponents and rivals among the Republicans. One line he has already used against George Bush and Jeb Bush was that the former was weak on terrorism because he had the worst terror attack in living memory take place on his watch. Trump's campaign manager skirted across the line between failure and deliberate 'incompetence' previously:
I interpreted the 5x funny and 3x disagree reactions to my post to mean that those MB members did not find my analysis at all plausible. I said some events were predictable, and they have come to pass. That shows the analysis was plausible.
Yes, which is indicated in the subheading I quoted:
Oh, my mistake. I thought you'd made a claim of something significant occurring re. WTC 7...
So again: you said events could happen...and some events did happen.
But you're choosing to interpret events happening as vindicating your posts (?)
Yes, events show that my analysis was plausible.
Tell ya what: We see a major investigation into WTC because of these "events," and I'll say you were right.
On facebook someone posted this on a friend's wall:
Along with this pic.
Separate names with a comma.