Comment: I get where you're coming

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks (see in situ)

I get where you're coming

I get where you're coming from. I might see some new information that makes me go "What if" but a little more research shows that it is usually smoke and mirrors.

The truth is that acting on warnings is seldom done. The intelligence officer is always whispering the day's happenings and threats into the leader's ears. This is filtered from the hundreds and thousands of warnings and claims that are unearthed daily.

My father was due in WTC for a conference in February 1993 but due to an some information he received he cancelled it. My sister and I were pretty disappointed because we had already made out our 'What we want from New York" lists. Then the bombings happened. So you can say there was some intelligence. But why wasn't WTC shut down and areas around it secured?

The cost.

Why aren't airports shut down on warnings.

The cost.

There are too many warnings for someone to take the call of creating losses of millions of dollars. It would be like an albatross around your neck for the rest of your career.

Anyway, so a new investigation would entail a new commission, allocation of funds, more govt spending and EVEN IF it turns out that the 9/11 truthers are right, what is the likelihood that a GOVT funded operation would reveal it?

Thus, I find the reasoning for a new investigation circular as well. These decisions shouldn't be take on such spurious evidence. If you have good reasons for suspecting foul play please present them.