Hi, Hawk -
"I don't present lightly, the theory that the Israelis might have possessed actual knowledge of the Sept 11th attack and the target."
Let's examine your statements:
(1) You are presenting a theory (but not lightly)
(2) The Israelis might have possessed...
(3) actual knowledge (as opposed to...what kind of knowledge?)
OK, we have a theory, in which the Israelis might have possessed actual knowledge, not lightly presented, by you. Not one demonstrable fact - just gossamer conjecture.
____________________________________
"They apparently knew enough to notify US intelligence that there were over 200 Al-Qaida agents operating in the US planning some big event (and we're not talking Ramadan celebrations..."
"Apparently" Don't want to get too emphatic, here, Hawk. The US had already been tracking hundreds of these people. In less than a week, they had them behind bars. What was the big gain implied by this non-news from the Israelis?
___________________________________
"For them to have that kind of knowledge, it's quite possible they obtained more in depth knowledge about the exact nature of the attack given their tremendous HUMINT resources in the region, as well as their significant SIGINT."
This is a beauty. This statement relies for its truth on acceptance of the preceding two statements. However, there is, by your choice of words - no certain truth in those preceding statements: only a possibility, a theory, hedged by qualifications. It also requires us to accept, at face value, that Israeli SIGINT is "significant" and Israeli HUMINT is "tremendous". And finally after posting a string of vague, unsupported statements, hedged by qualifications, you tell us "it's quite possible".
________________________________________
"And the fact that certain parties had prior knowledge of the Sept 11th is pretty compelling, given the inordinate short-selling in re-insurance and airline stocks in the days prior to the attack, two industry sectors which would be IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED by such an attack."
What "fact"? The only "fact" I know of, about "prior knowledge" is the clear fact that the people who committed these acts obviously must have known they were going to do so. There is no other "fact" about foreknowledge. The only assumption I might make about this solitary "fact" is that it is not illogical to assume that these same persons might have sought financial gain. In other words, I can accept the possibility that Al-Qaida may have shorted in sectors where they had foreknowledge of what they would do. That is the one known fact and the one possible deduction from that fact.
____________________________________
"I believe the intelligence they derive from those short-selling activities will likely provide some of the most compelling evidence of who knew what and when they knew it. As always, when launching an investigation, one must "follow the money"."
Probably the only indisputable statement in your post: a grain of truth and logic, in a sea of conjecture and fallacy.
Some inferences might be made about the known facts, and whatever evidence is discovered. So far, I have seen nothing that suggests that anyone but Al-Qaida, and Al-Qaida alone, had the foreknowledge, and therefore the means, to profit from these terrorist acts.
So far, I have not seen one fact that leads me to suspect that anyone but Al-Qaida was involved.
___________________________________
"But I can almost guarantee you (minus some tremendous security leak) that I doubt any evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of the attacks will ever see the light of day."
Ah, there you go again... you can "almost" guarantee.
You "doubt" "any evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of the attacks will ever see the light of day."
Yes, it's hard to bring forth evidence that doesn't exist.
In fact, as things stand - there is no such evidence. None. Just a half-baked collection of "ifs", "possiblys", "mights", "coulds", "beliefs", "apparentlys", logically unsatisfactory statements, and half-baked suggestions, smothered in conspiratorial innuendo.
The whole thing is a crock. I'm sorry Hawk, no offense, but I don't buy it for a minute.
Regards,
Jim |
