berlin seems to be a real magnet for resistance against america. the money and meetings surround 9/11 trace to berlin, as do a number of "terrorist" drug laundering networks.

the germans nearly started a war over echelon in the 90s. they were livid. and they know what's going on.

...or maybe it's just the cheap russian gas? who knows...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/sarah-harrison-edward-snowden-berlin

the question of 9/11 is something that comes up all over the internet. anybody that spends a lot of time on the internet is necessarily going to have at least pondered it.

i have to accept that i think the idea of a false flag attack is a valid question. nor would i put it beyond the americans to do that. there are historical precedents - gulf of tonkin is the most blatant, but also the bombing that set off the spanish american war. lusitania and pearl harbour are similar, but not exact analogues. in the context of the project for a new american century? there's some logic to this. yet, if you follow those precedents, 9/11 seems too extreme. one would think they'd fake an attack on a ship outside of yemen or something.

i've never been comfortable with bin laden's complete rejection, and the media circus that tried to skew statements into a confession. nor has the state department ever released any evidence. where the truthers are right is in pointing out that the investigation was trying to cover something up.

but, if you accept that 9/11 is too extreme for a false flag, what might they have been trying to cover up? a lack of evidence, perhaps? maybe. maybe they were trying to shield an ally, or actually *prevent* a larger world war type scenario.

i think a real investigation of 9/11 would begin with the assumption that the sophistication of the attacks suggests involvement from a state. i've rejected a false flag offhand as too extreme. the question is, then, which states have that kind of sophistication.

let's note that israel has the sophistication, but reject the idea outright. too much power in washington. too much to lose. too careful and methodical for that kind of risk.

the saudis have stronger motives and are much less methodical, but i doubt they have the sophistication. likewise with cuba, venezuela, iraq, iran and all of the other smallish states with uneasy relationships with america.

the french could conceivably do this. it's well known that they have deep intelligence networks in the united states. yet, i don't see a motive.

nor do i see a motive from india, whether they had the sophistication at the time or not.

the russians and chinese seem far more interested in preventing conflict than creating it. especially in the 90s. they wanted into the wto, apec - integration. they've retreated from this position since then in favour of bilateral co-operation to build a power in opposition to washington. but this wasn't the case at the time. they would have been acting against their own interests; it doesn't make any sense.

that leaves the germans, through a process of elimination. a motive? there were talks of a trade war between germany and the united states throughout the 90s as a consequence of adopting the euro. one way to make the dollar crash would be to send the americans on a military adventure against an enemy they can't define.

this is a deductive argument, but i find it compelling.

when you add the circumstantial evidence that sets the entire process as being planned in berlin, my eyebrows raise.

regarding intelligence sharing, i obviously have no idea what actually exists. i do, however, know the following.

1) the americans do NOT want to let the germans into the world war two era intelligence sharing agreements that still define everything. the entire network was set up to spy on germany during the war. it's still functioning. the germans are massively spied on. they're not invited.
2) american intelligence eaves dropping is industrial in nature. that is to say that the nsa spies on german companies and sells the information to american companies. you have to understand that the nazi state was largely run by large industrial cartels like ig farben and thyssen steel. it made sense to spy on them. why dismantle a functioning network?
3) the germans hate everything about this. they hate the fact that they're spied on. they hate the fact that american business spies on them. they hate the fact that they're not invited. and they've threatened economic sanctions / tariffs to fight back.

so, again, we see a reason why the germans might want to do this sort of thing...

entirely deductive. entirely circumstantial. but, of all the cities in the world, why did they all end up in berlin?

there are currently free trade agreements being worked out between europe and canada, and europe and the us. national security motives aside, it would eliminate an economic weapon from germany's disposal. there may be a hope that it would lead to greater intelligence sharing, and maybe less spying.

but germany is also very interested in deep economic integration with the countries to it's east. it's a balancing act that has the potential to turn ugly.

we usually think of germany as one of the central pieces in the western alliance, but this is a racial perception rather than one based on reality, economics or history. they've been purposefully kept at an arm's length and treated as a client state, and it's never been clear that they won't up and bounce - because they don't like that treatment.

historically, europe has been broken into at least three spheres of influence, never two. germany has usually dominated it's own sphere, and has rarely been aligned with either france or england.

well, not since charlemagne, anyways.

so, yeah. this is kind of out there. all deduction; no evidence. i wouldn't suggest any action based on this analysis....

but i'm usually right about these sorts of things.