Youth for 9/11 Truth

Lord Tsukasa · Joined: 10 Feb 2008 Posts: 7 Karma: 0 (0)

Public Officials expressed hope for a major terrorist attack before 9/11 happened so that they could advance their agenda. Was this just a coincidence, or were they just showing all the motive that they had.

Michael Ledeen of American Enterprise (AEI) and Heritage, 1999: “…of course, we can always get Lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”

James M. Lindsay formerly of CFR and Brookings, 2000: "But how to raise the political stakes in foreign policy? A renewed threat to American security would clearly do the trick."
"Absent a clear and present danger, the temptation to dismiss foreign policy as a trifle will remain powerful."

WaPo, James Fallows, 1991: "I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to "invent a security threat" and turn the job over to the military."

PNAC, 2000: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long (unfavorable) one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Brzezinski, 1997 and earlier: The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.

================

So all of these goons announce that they want a major bloodbath in the US before it happens, then one happens, and then we can see a bizarre cover-up and indications of an inside job. Then we also see them using it for their gain.

Pretty obvious.