Just how difficult would it be to pull off 9/11?

[1337m4n]

Truthers are always skeptical about the fact that "arab cavemen" pulled of this "grandiose and complicated plan" to "overcome the defenses world's most advanced nation". They essentially believe that the 9/11 plot would have been "too hard" and "too expensive" for these "cavemen".

Even granting, for the sake of argument, that they are "cavemen" (which they are most certainly NOT), just how hard would it be to do what al-Quaeda did to the US? How much would they seriously have to do?

The "Official Story"

--Send some dudes to the US
--Learn to fly planes
--Train in hijacking techniques
--Locate targets of economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and political (White House) importance.
--Coordinate a date and time
--Bring boxcutters (which were legal at the time) onto planes
--Hijack planes
--Crash planes

Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?

Meanwhile, let's examine the difficulty of various CTs:

Bombing the Towers

--Fake passports
--Fake Osama videos
--Fake "hijacker" identities
--Develop airliner remote-control technology
--Develop passenger voice-morphing technology
--Develop "stealth" explosives technology
--Brainwash/bribe/silence eyewitnesses
--Brainwash/bribe/silence first responders
--Brainwash/bribe/silence air traffic controllers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence steel handlers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence Protec
--Brainwash/bribe/silence bomb-planting crews
--Brainwash/bribe/silence the media
--Fake seismic readings
--Fake attack audio
--Fake attack video
--Plant "stealth" explosives on all the floors where "squibs" were seen, without being noticed
--Plant a bomb in the basement and set it off an hour before the scheduled collapse for no [rule10]ing reason
--Use secret remote-control technology and secret voice-morphing technology to take over planes mid-flight and land them in a secret base somewhere, then brainwash/bribe/silence all the passengers
--Fly remote-controlled planes into towers
--Detonate explosives in the EXACT sequence and with the EXACT timing that would give the appearance of a progressive gravity-driven collapse
--Toss fake passport into the wreckage

Bombing WTC7

All of the above PLUS:

--Destroy Towers in such a way that debris damages the WTC7 just enough to make firefighters think it was coming down, but not enough to destroy the "stealth" explosives planted within
--Fake even more seismic recordings
--Brainwash/bribe/silence even more people
--Brainwash every single demolition expert on the face of the planet into believing that "pull" does NOT refer to explosive demolition
--Tell the BBC what was going to happen in advance for no [rule10]ing reason
--Demolish building AFTER the dust had settled and people would be able to see
--Demolish building so that penthouses collapse first
--Have a motive?

MercLyte's Magical Pentagon Flyover

--Fake Osama videos
--Fake "hijacker" identities
--Brainwash/bribe/silence first responders
--Brainwash/bribe/silence air traffic controllers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence every single eyewitness except for three dudes at a gas station that the government carelessly forgot about
--Cut down light poles on flight path A in the middle of the night to fake a damage path
--Prevent anyone from noticing that there are light poles lying in the middle of the road
--Jab a light pole into some poor sap's cab, then brainwash/bribe him
--Prevent anyone from noticing a cab with a light pole jabbed into it
--Fake damage to the lawn, generator, and Pentagon (all 5 rings) such that it looks like the plant impacted from flight path A
--Fly plane on a totally different flight path B for no [rule10]ing reason
--Plant bombs in Pentagon powerful enough to blow huge holes in it, but not powerful enough to damage a plane flying 3 inches overhead
--Brainwash/bribe some poor C-130 pilot to just fly around doing absolutely nothing
--Fly plane so close to the top of the Pentagon that it's almost scraping the roof, but within a second suddenly gain enough altitude that nobody notices a flyover
--Detonate explosives at EXACTLY (margin of error less than a tenth of a second) the right moment to conceal the plane from viewers at the local Citgo , which the conspirators must have known existed in order to have a motive to perform this magic trick, but whose existence they apparently forgot about when it came time to start brainwashing eyewitnesses
--Fake a bunch of videos
--Plant jet fuel all over the place
--Brainwash/bribe Russell Pickering as soon as CIT begins their investigation


Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?

[Gravy]

Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?The one in which the Israeli mock-Arab hijackers jump out of the planes through the wheel wells?

Am I close?

[Drudgewire]

The one in which the Israeli mock-Arab hijackers jump out of the planes through the wheel wells?

Am I close?
Yeah, those were real planes. :rolleyes:

[Brainster]

But Smacco's Rozar says that the most complicated explanation is true.

[jhunter1163]

You left out all the people that would have had to be bribed/brainwashed/silenced around Shanksville, PA.

[Undesired Walrus]

Whilst I agree with your opening statements, I caution you to not fan the flames of trutheritis, which feeds on the statements in which you simplify the event.

They love to hear people around them say 'It was just a simple event, get over it', as it makes them feel incredibly special at carrying around this different narrative in their pocket, one that infiltrates the exterior panels of the planes, which was only witnessed in full horror by the passangers.

It interested me how Avery completely missed the point in his latest interview in which he states;

'I'd love to be convinced it was just these Arabs, but I cannot. It would be like 'Al Qeada did it, get back to watching American Idol'

Now, this statement really gets on my nerves, as it seems to simplify the true horrific nature of what happened on that day, and what has happened since, as it far outways any 'complexity' the truthers bring to the table.

The narrative of 19 hijackers doing this is the most complex and terrible story of all, not the concept of a bunch of rich white men putting hidden messages on the dollar.

Am I right?

[LastChild]

What's your point here? It was easy for 19 terrorist but impossible for anyone else?

[Drudgewire]

What's your point here? It was easy for 19 terrorist but impossible for anyone else?
...and get away with it for six years? Yes, Mr. Exposition. ;)

[1337m4n]

What's your point here? It was easy for 19 terrorist but impossible for anyone else?

My point is that the Truther argument that "THERE'S NO WAY A BUNCH OF CAVEMEN COULD HAVE PULLED OFF SUCH A COMPLICATED PLAN ALL BY THEMSELVES" is bunk, and that if you're going off difficulty or complexity the "official story" is a hundred times more likely than anything the Truth Movement has presented.

Isn't that one of your arguments, LastChild? Isn't one of your arguments that it would be too difficult for "cavemen" to pull off such an attack?

[Bell]

I've posted a link to this video a few times before, and I'll keep on posting it whenever this 'cavemen' et al discussion comes up"

The Usual Suspects - A 9/11 Documentary (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=1619489)

[1337m4n]

Isn't that one of your arguments, LastChild? Isn't one of your arguments that it would be too difficult for "cavemen" to pull off such an attack?

Perhaps it wasn't you...but I know for a fact this is a common argument used by the Truth Movement.

I remember this one guy we had, 28th Kingdom. He posted this:

You all believe that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters - out-smarted the most powerful and sophisticated defense system the world has ever known... a defense who has access to the most advanced weapons and technologies ever created.

This is really what you all think. I'm not making this up... I promise. You think the most powerful country in the world is so incompetent (of course, we all know...the quickest and most effective way to become the richest and most powerful country in the world is through incompetence) that 19 cavemen with cavemen tools can pull off a successful attack on one of the countries most recognized and famous landmarks... not to mention a little thing known as The Pentagon i.e. THE HEADQUARTERS FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

Still not making it up... you believe this... wait, not only do you believe this, you believe anyone who thinks this is impossible is a low-grade moron.

Anyone who thinks that it's impossible for an army of amateur cavemen with cavemen weaponry to pull off a successful attack on the world's most powerful military defense system equipped with billions of dollars of weapons and technologies... is a moron.

We're still just discussing the truth here... you believe that anyone who thinks it's impossible for a group of 4/5 men with carpenter tools - to attack the headquarters of the most elite military defense system in the world is a loon.

A military backed with an intelligence agency who told the defense that these men were planning an attack... and that this defense knew hijacking airliners and turning them into weapons was a possibility... so much so that they conducted regular exercises simulating such attacks... including ones on the WTC.

This is all very interesting stuff indeed.

[Brainache]

Perhaps it wasn't you...but I know for a fact this is a common argument used by the Truth Movement.

I remember this one guy we had, 28th Kingdom. He posted this:...

Yeah, but don't forgot 28K used his right brain, unlike us left brainers. Or something...

[Dr Adequate]

What's your point here? It was easy for 19 terrorist but impossible for anyone else? I think you'll find that's not his point.

Why don't you sit quietly and think until you figure out his point? Here's a hint: his point is sensible, so if you come up with some more crazy nonsense, that's not his point either.

[Gravy]

I think you'll find that's not his point.

Why don't you sit quietly and think until you figure out his point? Here's a hint: his point is sensible, so if you come up with some more crazy nonsense, that's not his point either.Good point.

[Sabrina]

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

The reason a conspiracy succeeds is only because it is shared among a limited amount of people. The more people you add to a conspiracy, even if they only know part of it, the more difficult it is to actually maintain the necessary secrecy to carry out the conspiracy. I have made some past estimates at how many people would need to know at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to succeed as the truthers think it did; the number was over 100,000. Statistically and fundamentally impossible to maintain BEFORE the plot was carried out, much less for six years after. As the saying goes, "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead." The idea of a group of relatively low-tech, yet extremely fanatical and highly motivated men being able to carry out an attack of this type is far from impossible. Our mistake was in underestimating their fanaticism and motivation to hurt us. I rather doubt we'll make that mistake again any time soon. (Although give us time; God knows as human beings we forget things like this far too quickly, or so it seems)

[pomeroo]

But Smacco's Rozar says that the most complicated explanation is true.


Fetzer's razor: Entities should be multiplied until they resemble clowns tumbling out of a tiny car.

[PhantomWolf]

Whilst I agree with your opening statements, I caution you to not fan the flames of trutheritis, which feeds on the statements in which you simplify the event.

They love to hear people around them say 'It was just a simple event, get over it', as it makes them feel incredibly special at carrying around this different narrative in their pocket, one that infiltrates the exterior panels of the planes, which was only witnessed in full horror by the passangers.

It interested me how Avery completely missed the point in his latest interview in which he states;

'I'd love to be convinced it was just these Arabs, but I cannot. It would be like 'Al Qeada did it, get back to watching American Idol'

Now, this statement really gets on my nerves, as it seems to simplify the true horrific nature of what happened on that day, and what has happened since, as it far outways any 'complexity' the truthers bring to the table.

The narrative of 19 hijackers doing this is the most complex and terrible story of all, not the concept of a bunch of rich white men putting hidden messages on the dollar.

Am I right?

I disagree here, the plan in itself was remarkably simple, get 20 guys, put 5 on each plane, one of whom had been trained to fly a plane well enough that he could manipulate the controls and point the plane in the right direction, then pick 4 flights that were taking off at about the same time, hijack them and have the hijacker pilot change the autopilot so as to take the plane close to a target, then fly into it. Not one part of that plan is at all difficult, or complex, but it still managed to go wrong in a number of places.

They couldn't get a 20th person into the US so had to send in one team under manned. They had huge trouble in finding a 4th pilot, and one they were considering got arrested before the plot could take off (which could have resulted in the whole plan failing.) Two of the planes suffered serious delays taking off meaning that both could have been intercepted had all things gone right for the US forces. Luckily for the Hijackers they took over the plane in an area without primary radar before it was common knowledge in the ATC what had gone on with flights 11 and 175, which delayed any action against flight 77, while Flight 93 was crashed due to the passangers actions prior to the US forces intercepting, but had they not done so it likely would have been shot down. Had all things gone to plan, all 4 attacks would have happened a few mere minutes from each other, the whole thing would have been over before anyone knew what was happening and before NORAD even got close to having planes in the air.

In the end a simple plan that was executed well, and a bit of luck was all that was needed to pull off what really was a sucker punch. Having said that though, at the same time the idea of saying 'Al Qeada did it, get back to watching American Idol' is completely idiotic. What people need to be thinking is "Al Qaeda did it, why did they do it and how can we prevent them from doing it again? What can we do to prevent young Islamic men from wanting to take this sort of action against us?" Going off to watch American Idol is just as much burying your head in the sand and ignoring the real issues as decided that Bushie and Co did it and thus Islamic Terrorist is all a big have.

[Olowkow]

Our mistake was in underestimating their fanaticism and motivation to hurt us. I rather doubt we'll make that mistake again any time soon. (Although give us time; God knows as human beings we forget things like this far too quickly, or so it seems)

More like, failing miserably even to try to estimate their motivation. Our politicians are clueless when it comes to any sort of cultural awareness, and as for "God knowing we forget things like this", well, then why doesn't he just give a hint to our leaders who seem to have a direct line to him?

Edit: by the way, Bell,thanks for the video. I seem to remember at the time I first saw this, part of the translation had Osama saying something about most of the hijackers did not know they were going to crash the plane. Anyone else recall this part?

[Thunder]

Funny how conspiracy theorists always think the more outrageously complicated story is always the more likely one. Is there a name for such backwards thinking?

[PhantomWolf]

Our mistake was in underestimating their fanaticism and motivation to hurt us. I rather doubt we'll make that mistake again any time soon.

Honestly? I still don't believe that the US administration, nor most of the US population understand their fanaticism and motivation to hurt you. Everytime I see someone claim "They hate us because of our freedoms" I know for a fact that they don't understand. I honestly believe that if Prez Shrub and his cohorts truely had any idea of the mind of the hijackers and those that sent them, they wouldn't be in Iraq today because all they are doing is playing directly into the hands of their enemy. Learn about the Afghanistan War and you'll start to understand the minds of those that stand against the Western World, and you'll start to understand what they really, really, want.

[gumboot]

The sole difficult part of 9/11 is finding 20 guys willing to commit mass murder and suicide for the sake of your own ideological goals.

That's one particular area where Radical Islam has an enormous advantage over any Western government, nefarious or otherwise.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

The sole difficult part of 9/11 is finding 20 guys willing to commit mass murder and suicide for the sake of your own ideological goals.

That's one particular area where Radical Islam has an enormous advantage over any Western government, nefarious or otherwise.

-Gumboot

I disagree, they had no trouble finding them, where they had difficulty was actually getting them into the US (though apparently a few of the ones they wanted chickened out or told their families and were prevented from going to the US, but still most of the ones that failed to gain entry couldn't because they were able to get a visa to go as they were deemed to be likely economic migrants.)

[gumboot]

I disagree, they had no trouble finding them


Yes that's what I said. In general terms, finding such people is the difficult part of the operation. However for Radical Islam specifically, this is relatively easy, whereas most other organisations or entities would find it close to impossible.

-Gumboot

[EventHorizon]

Funny how conspiracy theorists always think the more outrageously complicated story is always the more likely one. Is there a name for such backwards thinking?

Rozar Smacco?

[uk_dave]

I disagree here, the plan in itself was remarkably simple, get 20 guys, put 5 on each plane, one of whom had been trained to fly a plane well enough that he could manipulate the controls and point the plane in the right direction, then pick 4 flights that were taking off at about the same time, hijack them and have the hijacker pilot change the autopilot so as to take the plane close to a target, then fly into it. Not one part of that plan is at all difficult, or complex, but it still managed to go wrong in a number of places.

They couldn't get a 20th person into the US so had to send in one team under manned. They had huge trouble in finding a 4th pilot, and one they were considering got arrested before the plot could take off (which could have resulted in the whole plan failing.) Two of the planes suffered serious delays taking off meaning that both could have been intercepted had all things gone right for the US forces. Luckily for the Hijackers they took over the plane in an area without primary radar before it was common knowledge in the ATC what had gone on with flights 11 and 175, which delayed any action against flight 77, while Flight 93 was crashed due to the passangers actions prior to the US forces intercepting, but had they not done so it likely would have been shot down. Had all things gone to plan, all 4 attacks would have happened a few mere minutes from each other, the whole thing would have been over before anyone knew what was happening and before NORAD even got close to having planes in the air.

In the end a simple plan that was executed well, and a bit of luck was all that was needed to pull off what really was a sucker punch. Having said that though, at the same time the idea of saying 'Al Qeada did it, get back to watching American Idol' is completely idiotic. What people need to be thinking is "Al Qaeda did it, why did they do it and how can we prevent them from doing it again? What can we do to prevent young Islamic men from wanting to take this sort of action against us?" Going off to watch American Idol is just as much burying your head in the sand and ignoring the real issues as decided that Bushie and Co did it and thus Islamic Terrorist is all a big have.

Nice one.

It should be pointed out to 'truthers' again and again that just because 9-11 played out the way it did on the day, this does not necessarily mean that everything went according to plan, or even that the terrorists believed it would go according to plan.

'Truthers' think the buildings were hit precisely where they were intended to be hit and that flightpaths and timings etc were precisely as planned. This is patent nonsense.

[tomwaits]

'Al Qeada did it, get back to watching American Idol'

the real issue is....did anyone say this or make a statement remotely like this one?

[uk_dave]

the real issue is....did anyone say this or make a statement remotely like this one?

Unlikely, but it's the typical 'truther' arrogance which attempts to make it seem as if they are the only ones who care about what's happening in the world and that everyone else are just mindless sheep who'd rather watch trash tv than consider difficult concepts, and then, of course, the 'truthers' go off and watch yet another amateur film on youtube, made by someone the veracity of whom they know little or nothing, and yet they believe every bloody word because it tells them what they want to hear, rather than giving them some difficult concepts to come to terms with.

[tomwaits]

no kidding....my tv watching pretty much consists of futurama, c-span, and the chicago bears. most of my info comes from internet news sites.

[stilicho]

Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?
You forgot "pull it", trying to scam your insurance company, manipulating the derivatives markets, and being "Buzzy" Krongard.

None of these things would work but, of them, I would gamble that it's easiest to have worked for (say) a pharmaceutical company and also having worked for the CIA.

The least difficult thing to pull off is just making up stuff and pretending you've exposed a US government plot to murder 3,000 of your voters--including a lot of good Republicans. Stealing copyrighted images and videos and putting them in your own "production" and selling it comes a close second.

[StickMan2008]

When people promote the OS they always ask, why is it so hard to believe that Islamic fundamentalists who hate our freedoms would pull off 9/11?

No one is saying that they didn't have the motives.

But you also have to have the means and opportunity


And those terrorists would have needed a lot of help


First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

This is possibly the most difficult step of all.


And it's one they didn't pull off.

CIA/FBI agents warned their superiors of these men
Other foreign intelligence warned the US of impending attacks to the specifics of the week of September 9th.

They couldn't even get VISAs without someone's superiors telling them to issue them.


There is widespread complicity that had to take place.

Also there is no explanation for the warnings not to fly which shows some foreknowledge.

Insiders and public officials warned not to fly yet this country didn't think it was important enough to heighten airport security?


At the very least we can say our government was criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and made more actions to thwart an investigation of any kind rather than willingly having an objective exhaustive one

[tomwaits]

And those terrorists would have needed a lot of help


no they wouldn't have. is this another corollary of the "how can a bunch of cavemen hijack planes?" argument? pure ignorance.

[einsteen]

13, you gave a nice list of outrageous theories, but there is an other way to look at it, for an official story to be false there is only one thing needed to be incorrect. It is not the AND operator but the OR operator. And the list is much bigger.

[tomwaits]

13, you gave a nice list of outrageous theories, but there is an other way to look at it, for an official story to be false there is only one thing needed to be incorrect. It is not the AND operator but the OR operator. And the list is much bigger.

that is certainly an "other" way of looking at it, no doubt about that.:D

[Gazpacho]

Make no mistake, the conspiracy theorists want a complicated explanation. It's all about reassuring themselves that the same thing won't happen again, and maybe didn't even happen the first time.

[Dave Rogers]

13, you gave a nice list of outrageous theories, but there is an other way to look at it, for an official story to be false there is only one thing needed to be incorrect. It is not the AND operator but the OR operator. And the list is much bigger.

That's what really convinced me the conspiracy theory was BS. I looked at this enormous mountain of supposed evidence and thought, "How can all this be wrong?" When I then started patiently looking through it, and found that every single piece of evidence was invalid, it gradually became clear that it's possible to make up more false leads than anyone can track down. Basically, you can add as many zeroes as you want, and you'll still get zero.

And, of course, it's not true that "for an official story to be false there is only one thing needed to be incorrect". We don't know all the details about everything that happened on 9-11, nor ever will. FEMA's pancake hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. NORAD's initial timeline turned out to be incorrect. Neither of these invalidated the overall narrative. It's the belief that one minor error invalidates the whole story that prompts the sort of nitpicking about which fireball happened when and where that's going on in that thread at the moment. In fact, it requires that something significant should be found to be in error, and the truther threshold of significance is generally set several orders of magnitude too low.

Dave

[Dr Adequate]

First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

This is possibly the most difficult step of all.


And it's one they didn't pull off. Er ... yes they did.

Hence the thing, y'know, where they carried out their plan.

[terra]

I have read, watched and listened to I guess most of the conspiracy theories. But for some reason most gloss over the question of where are the passengers? If they weren't on the planes etc etc where are they? Friends and lovers saw them off, ATC sent them on their way. If flight 93 really landed somewhere else, if the Pentagon flight was only a bomb, if the twin towers aircraft were non civilian with bombs strapped to the underneath, where are the original passengers?

No one ever mentions that. Were they lined up and shot? Were they bribed like the 8,000 people involved in the moon landings? Where are they now?

[chillzero]

I have read, watched and listened to I guess most of the conspiracy theories. But for some reason most gloss over the question of where are the passengers? If they weren't on the planes etc etc where are they? Friends and lovers saw them off, ATC sent them on their way. If flight 93 really landed somewhere else, if the Pentagon flight was only a bomb, if the twin towers aircraft were non civilian with bombs strapped to the underneath, where are the original passengers?

No one ever mentions that. Were they lined up and shot? Were they bribed like the 8,000 people involved in the moon landings? Where are they now?

Anyone I have seen asked this question claims it doesn't matter. To them, the point is that they believe the passengers weren't on the plane, and they don't consider it a necessary part of their role in sending out this CT information to provide any proof or logical conclusion as to the 'little details' of the bigger picture.

[Undesired Walrus]

Unlikely, but it's the typical 'truther' arrogance which attempts to make it seem as if they are the only ones who care about what's happening in the world and that everyone else are just mindless sheep who'd rather watch trash tv than consider difficult concepts, and then, of course, the 'truthers' go off and watch yet another amateur film on youtube, made by someone the veracity of whom they know little or nothing, and yet they believe every bloody word because it tells them what they want to hear, rather than giving them some difficult concepts to come to terms with.

Because they want to feel special.

[bonkey]

When people promote the OS they always ask, why is it so hard to believe that Islamic fundamentalists who hate our freedoms would pull off 9/11?

No one is saying that they didn't have the motives.

But you also have to have the means and opportunity


What means or opportunity did they not have?


And those terrorists would have needed a lot of help

Why?


First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

This is possibly the most difficult step of all.

Why?

We know that prior to 911, the US had downsized a lot of its HUMINT capability, and was concentrating more and more on ELINT. Lack of ability to even process the quantity of ELINT gathered meant that they had a superb ability to track information once they knew what they were looking for, but a significantly weakened ability to sniff new stuff out.

Regarding foreign intelligence...it may come as a surprise to you, but most countries don't go looking around wondering "I wonder who's gonna attack the US". If they happened to come across information they thought was sufficiently important, and they happened to be on good enough terms with the US, they'd have shared it. We know this happened...but the information was so vague that the American intelligence - with its diminished manpower and HUMINT capabilities - did little / nothing with it.



CIA/FBI agents warned their superiors of these men

Can you specify who was warned, about whom, and what that warning consisted of.

In the pre-911 world, you couldn't just pick people up on a suspicion and disappear them off for special rendition.



Other foreign intelligence warned the US of impending attacks to the specifics of the week of September 9th.

How many warnings do the US typically get from foreign intelligence? Of such warnings, how many pan out? How specific were these particular warnings? In the pre-911 world, what mechanisms were in place to deal with such warnings?


They couldn't even get VISAs without someone's superiors telling them to issue them.

That holds true of every visa granted. What are you trying to suggest? What was unusual about these visas, and how unusual a situation was it?


There is widespread complicity that had to take place.

Currently, thats merely a bald assertion that you wish to be taken as true. Even taking the points you've made as being true and representative (i.e. ignoring the questions I've posed in return), there is still no requirement for anything more than widespread incompetence or negligence.


Also there is no explanation for the warnings not to fly which shows some foreknowledge.

Unsurprisingly, there is also no evidence for same which withstands scrutiny.


At the very least we can say our government was criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and made more actions to thwart an investigation of any kind rather than willingly having an objective exhaustive one

I notice that despite saying it must have required complicity, you then back down in the very same post and allow that it could be gross negligence instead. Thank you for refuting your own argument.

But while we're on the subject of negligence...

American ports currently scan a tiny, tiny percentage of what comes through them for things such as nuclear material, bombs, chemical weapons.....

How is it that you can be so focussed on what you see as criminal negligence in the past, rather than being focussed on what must qualify as ongoing criminal negligence.

If the US gets attacked via its ports, will you shoulder some of the blame, for being aware of the problem and doing nothing to fix it? Or will you blame others, because "thats not my job"?

If you're not willing to do everything in your power to fix what you know to be an explotable weakness, then what possible right do you have to hold others accountable for doing exactly the same.

[Sabrina]

When people promote the OS they always ask, why is it so hard to believe that Islamic fundamentalists who hate our freedoms would pull off 9/11?

No one is saying that they didn't have the motives.

But you also have to have the means and opportunity

They did have means; terrorist funding was rather substantial, and pre 9/11 it wasn't all that difficult to get flight training, even if you were a foreigner. Opportunity they had as well, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that THEY PULLED OFF THEIR PLOT.


And those terrorists would have needed a lot of help

I won't dispute that, but it's probably a lot less than you think.


First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

This is possibly the most difficult step of all.

Actually, at the time, it wasn't. US Intelligence was notably poor at connecting the dots, plus, due to the lack of communication and information sharing across the IC, what one agency knew another agency had no clue of, and it would have required the agencies pooling their information in order to be able to spot the necessary patterns. That didn't happen. Arrogance, ignorance, and a severe underestimation of what terrorists would be willing to do to further their cause led to the IC essentially ignoring the warning signs. Now, in the post 9/11 world, it would be more difficult, as the new DNI is aggressively fostering a system of communication between the agencies, but it is still very possible. The US intelligence system is far from infalliable, as you seem to be implying; it wasn't then, and it sure as heck isn't now.


And it's one they didn't pull off.

CIA/FBI agents warned their superiors of these men
Other foreign intelligence warned the US of impending attacks to the specifics of the week of September 9th.

Virtually none of the intelligence you mentioned contained anything actionable. Plus, while I am not disputing that some FBI agents submitted warnings to superiors, you're forgetting that those superiors then decided there wasn't enough information there to do anything about. Yet again, not actionable. I reiterate; if the IC had actually shared information across agencies, there might have been a slightly different story, but that did not happen, and so we got caught with our pants down.

They couldn't even get VISAs without someone's superiors telling them to issue them.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Even now the US government issues hundreds, perhaps thousands of visas each year. Each of the 19 hijackers gave legitimate reasons for requesting their visas, and while there were a couple being investigated by intelligence agencies for various reasons, what on earth makes you think Customs and Immigration knew anything about that, bearing in mind that, I reiterate yet again, information was pretty much not shared between agencies.


At the very least we can say our government was criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and made more actions to thwart an investigation of any kind rather than willingly having an objective exhaustive one

You'd have a tough time proving criminal negligence in a court of law, my friend. Just ask any of the lawyers on here.

[Sunstealer]

Arrogance, Ignorance, Superciliousness and a distrust of central government.

I often see people who think that because America is a "superpower", a world power and because it has technology that the "logic" used by truthers is one of, "no one could possibly get past our defences because we are so powerful/technologically advanced/geographically isolated etc.

Culturally Americans generally think of themselves as being superior to other cultures, they are not worldly wise and tend to be isolationists. Ok I know I'm generalising and most reading this will be the exact opposite, however, but what this does lead to is a complete lack of, or misunderstanding of, how secure of how powerful the United States actually is. 11/9 (yes I like to use the UK way of dates even with regard to 9/11) really shook the US to it's core. There had never been a serious mainland attack but low and behold here it was. How can Goliath be wounded by David?

I think alot of truthers are simply in denial that a plan so SIMPLE and EASILY executed could have such success and subsequently a huge psychological effect on a nation.

We in the UK have had numerous threats that could have destroyed our nation for hundreds of years, the most recent being WWII. We have also had a 30 year struggle against the IRA (ironically funded from the US) so this type of warfare is not an unknown and we tend to take it with a "Blitz spirit". America has no such psychy.

This leaves a mindset of "only one possibility and that is the most powerful government on the planet must have caused the wounding of the most powerful nation simply because no-one else could". Throw in a bit of anti "government of the day" rhetoric as well and bob's your uncle.

It's not the first time such ludicrous conspiracy theories have been produced and it won't be the last. Healthy distrust of the government is one thing, but it can border on the paranoid sometimes.

[~enigma~]

Funny how conspiracy theorists always think the more outrageously complicated story is always the more likely one. Is there a name for such backwards thinking?
Rozar Smacco :)

Damn you phony black hole dude...revenge for beating me to this joke shall be mine :)

[Sabrina]

Arrogance, Ignorance, Superciliousness and a distrust of central government.

I often see people who think that because America is a "superpower", a world power and because it has technology that the "logic" used by truthers is one of, "no one could possibly get past our defences because we are so powerful/technologically advanced/geographically isolated etc.

Culturally Americans generally think of themselves as being superior to other cultures, they are not worldly wise and tend to be isolationists. Ok I know I'm generalising and most reading this will be the exact opposite, however, but what this does lead to is a complete lack of, or misunderstanding of, how secure of how powerful the United States actually is. 11/9 (yes I like to use the UK way of dates even with regard to 9/11) really shook the US to it's core. There had never been a serious mainland attack but low and behold here it was. How can Goliath be wounded by David?

I think alot of truthers are simply in denial that a plan so SIMPLE and EASILY executed could have such success and subsequently a huge psychological effect on a nation.

We in the UK have had numerous threats that could have destroyed our nation for hundreds of years, the most recent being WWII. We have also had a 30 year struggle against the IRA (ironically funded from the US) so this type of warfare is not an unknown and we tend to take it with a "Blitz spirit". America has no such psychy.

This leaves a mindset of "only one possibility and that is the most powerful government on the planet must have caused the wounding of the most powerful nation simply because no-one else could". Throw in a bit of anti "government of the day" rhetoric as well and bob's your uncle.

It's not the first time such ludicrous conspiracy theories have been produced and it won't be the last. Healthy distrust of the government is one thing, but it can border on the paranoid sometimes.

I have to agree wholeheartedly.

Someone, might have been on this forum, I'm not sure, once linked to a paper written by a psychologist on the mental state of people who believed in conspiracy theories. This psychologist theorized that conspiracy theorists can't comprehend that relatively small actions can have far-reaching consequences (i.e. "the shot heard 'round the world" sort of thing); to them, huge consequences have to have a huge cause. Hence the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy(tm) surrounding 9/11, the moon landing, JFK, aliens, the Illuminati, the NWO, Skull and Bones, etc and so forth. It made a lot of sense to me. I recognize that psychology is difficult to quantify in many ways, but this man's conclusions seemed logical. Conspiracy theorists can't comprehend that something as small as forgetting to buckle your seat belt can have severe consequences in the future (i.e. your child being killed along with numerous others in a car accident, all because you set the example of not fastening your seatbelt to them when they were younger). It's because of this that they espouse these theories. It doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally ill (although I'd argue that quite a few are, but that applies to just about any group in the population); it just means that some of their wiring either got crossed or uncrossed, as the case may be. They're wired to think differently, and what makes sense to us may not make sense to them.

[1337m4n]

13, you gave a nice list of outrageous theories

You'd be surprised how many people promote them.

, but there is an other way to look at it, for an official story to be false there is only one thing needed to be incorrect. It is not the AND operator but the OR operator.

No offense, but none of that made any sense at all.

And the list is much bigger.

I don't see how. Did al-Quaeda have to do anything other than send guys into the country, learn to fly, learn to hijack planes, hijack the planes, and crash them? If so, is it something that would make the "official story" too incredible to believe?

[1337m4n]

But you also have to have the means and opportunity


And those terrorists would have needed a lot of help


As I asked in the OP: what's so difficult about the official account? What part of the 9/11 plot is so expensive and so hard to do that al-Quaeda couldn't have possibly had the resources to pull it off?

First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

Why? If the guys they sent into the US had perfectly legit reasons for acquiring visas, and immigration workers didn't turn up anything serious on any background checks, who would they still have to outsmart?



CIA/FBI agents warned their superiors of these men
Other foreign intelligence warned the US of impending attacks to the specifics of the week of September 9th.

Did these warnings contain any information specific enough that it could be acted upon?

Also there is no explanation for the warnings not to fly which shows some foreknowledge.

Insiders and public officials warned not to fly yet this country didn't think it was important enough to heighten airport security?

This is news to me. Where did you hear this?

(please don't say PrisonPlanet)

[Bell]

I have read, watched and listened to I guess most of the conspiracy theories. But for some reason most gloss over the question of where are the passengers? If they weren't on the planes etc etc where are they? Friends and lovers saw them off, ATC sent them on their way. If flight 93 really landed somewhere else, if the Pentagon flight was only a bomb, if the twin towers aircraft were non civilian with bombs strapped to the underneath, where are the original passengers?

No one ever mentions that. Were they lined up and shot? Were they bribed like the 8,000 people involved in the moon landings? Where are they now?

That's what the government needs to answer!

[Panhead56]

First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

This is possibly the most difficult step of all.


Ignorance is bliss.

This is in fact the most easy part. You only need to keep your mouth shut. (I know, I know.. for some people this would be like climbing Mt. Everest). But if you do not communicate, there is nothing for the intelligence agencies to intercept. Plan first in a safe location, then split up and keep communication to a minimum. And do all in pre-agreed code, like "Hi Bob, got you the tickets for the big match on 9/11. Looking forward to seeing you". Messages such as these are impossible to extract any meaning from, unless you view them in the light of hindsight.

Pick up any spy-thriller or a WWII history book and you can find loots of tips and hints of how to do this. Unfortunately, is not difficult to pull of acts of terrorism. Fortunately, most people don't want to.

[fezzic]

1337m4n,

I think the reference is to various claims that some people (I think a mayor in CA and some other(s) in the government) got warnings to not fly on commercial flights. I don't recall the details.

[Vincent Vega]

What's your point here? It was easy for 19 terrorist but impossible for anyone else?

Why do you assume it was easy? Because it happened?

People climb Everest every year. Must be 'easy'.

[StickMan2008]

Make no mistake, the conspiracy theorists want a complicated explanation. It's all about reassuring themselves that the same thing won't happen again, and maybe didn't even happen the first time.

Bulverism doesn't even make any logical sense.

Reassuring it won't happen again???

So if the USG is behind it, it assures it wouldn't happen again???

Yeah so if the people who are supposed to be protecting you are the ones you think are the ones doing the harm, then you surely are assured to be safe.

That is not the line of thinking at all.

If anything the idea that it was just incompetence that can simply be corrected, THAT is the easier thing to accept.

[StickMan2008]

Ignorance is bliss.

This is in fact the most easy part. You only need to keep your mouth shut. (I know, I know.. for some people this would be like climbing Mt. Everest). But if you do not communicate, there is nothing for the intelligence agencies to intercept. Plan first in a safe location, then split up and keep communication to a minimum. And do all in pre-agreed code, like "Hi Bob, got you the tickets for the big match on 9/11. Looking forward to seeing you". Messages such as these are impossible to extract any meaning from, unless you view them in the light of hindsight.

Pick up any spy-thriller or a WWII history book and you can find loots of tips and hints of how to do this. Unfortunately, is not difficult to pull of acts of terrorism. Fortunately, most people don't want to.

Except it wasn't just average joes who planned it.

It was people who were on WANTED LISTS

Men who were known Al Qaeda operatives who were living openly in the US with their real names

Men who were known operatives getting granted VISAs

They pretty much didn't do any step in secrecy.

They were identified multiple times by multiple levels of intelligence because quite frankly these men didn't have the intelligence themselves to outsmart everyone.

[Vincent Vega]

Men who were known operatives getting granted VISAs

.


Are you forgeting that the INS granted some of the hijackers VISAs AFTER 9-11-01????

After their names were plastered all over the place?

After they were all dead?

What part of in-comp-i-tence don't you understand?

[StickMan2008]

Are you forgeting that the INS granted some of the hijackers VISAs AFTER 9-11-01????

After their names were plastered all over the place?

After they were all dead?

What part of in-comp-i-tence don't you understand?

The one where:

Springmann said "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets." the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [BBC 11/6/2001; Associated Press, 7/17/2002; Fox News, 7/18/2002]


So 15 of 19 hijackers received their VISAS through the same program where a man was fired for trying to deny known Mujahideen terrorists Visas

Yeah I think they knew what they were doing

[StickMan2008]

Prior to September 11th JW Clients and FBI Special Agent Robert Wright tried to launch a criminal investigation of terrorist financial networks in the United States
His supervisors blocked his efforts

"FBI management intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed Agent Wright's attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation that would identify terrorists, their sources and methods of funding before they attacked additional US interests, killing more US citizens."


In January of 2001 Wright is told that an active investigation is being closed and that “it’s just better to let sleeping dogs lie.”

Wright tells ABC:
“Those dogs weren’t sleeping, they were training, they were getting ready…”



Especially troubling to intelligence experts, the testimony of FBI Special agent Harry Samit who warned his superiors over 70 times that Moussaoui was planning a terrorist attack.

In this memo to FBI headquarters in August of 2001, Samit accuses Moussaoui of plotting international terrorism and air piracy over the US



And then there is the strange case of Sibel Edmonds
Translator for the FBI has had more government gag orders placed on her than anyone n the history of the United States
But what she has said is damning
"I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes"
I gave the Commission details of specific investigation files, specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation, I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up.
This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. Things that can be established very easily
The 9/11 commission failed to mention Sibel Edmunds in their final report (with the exception of a single footnote)


In August 2005, an Army Intelligence Officer told staff members from the September 11th Commission that a Secret military unit had identified two of the three cells involved in the September 11th attacks more than a year before the attacks.

Lt. Colonel ANthony Shaffer a Bronze STar Recipient who said that he was associated with the Able Danger Unit said that during 2003, in a meeting in Afghanistan he mentioned that the unit had identified the September 11th ringleader Mohammad Atta along with three other hijackers

Shaffer said that Able Danger identified Atta and three other September 11th hijackers in 2000 but that military lawyers stopped the unit from sharing information with the FBI


Yeah if you qualify competence as complicity I agree

[Vincent Vega]

The one where:

Springmann said "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets." the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [BBC 11/6/2001; Associated Press, 7/17/2002; Fox News, 7/18/2002]


So 15 of 19 hijackers received their VISAS through the same program where a man was fired for trying to deny known Mujahideen terrorists Visas

Yeah I think they knew what they were doing

So it part of the deal to issue them after they were dead?

[D'rok]

Opportunity they had as well, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that THEY PULLED OFF THEIR PLOT.

I'm totally on your side, but as a lurker/spectator, I think it would be a good idea to shy away from circular logic. The JREF ninjas wouldn't let this slide if it came from a truther.

[DGM]

The one where:

Springmann said "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets." the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [BBC 11/6/2001; Associated Press, 7/17/2002; Fox News, 7/18/2002]


So 15 of 19 hijackers received their VISAS through the same program where a man was fired for trying to deny known Mujahideen terrorists Visas

Yeah I think they knew what they were doing
Stick:
You are forgetting to post the links where you get these cut and pastes. How do we know the context if you don't give a source?

[StickMan2008]

Stick:
You are forgetting to post the links where you get these cut and pastes. How do we know the context if you don't give a source?

Gladly

Officer: 9/11 panel didn't receive key information
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/sept.11.hijackers/
 
Muzzling FBI's whistle
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/19/column.novak.opinion.fbi/

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Agent who arrested Moussaoui blasts FBI
Defense questioning brings out fact that headquarters wasn’t interested
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11923151/

Lost In Translation
FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

[DGM]

Gladly

Officer: 9/11 panel didn't receive key information
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/sept.11.hijackers/
 
Muzzling FBI's whistle
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/19/column.novak.opinion.fbi/

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Agent who arrested Moussaoui blasts FBI
Defense questioning brings out fact that headquarters wasn’t interested
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11923151/

Lost In Translation
FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
Thank you:
Is this more than what we already knew? That the FBI and the CIA wouldn't give each other the time of day.

You need a lot of reading between the lines to get "inside job" out of this.

[StickMan2008]

Thank you:
Is this more than what we already knew? That the FBI and the CIA wouldn't give each other the time of day.

You need a lot of reading between the lines to get "inside job" out of this.

There is a difference between two different agencies not sharing information and agents for a single agency being denied to investigate potential terrorist suspects by their own agency or blatantly ignoring key information given to them.

It took a pretty big effort for them to categorically ignore information about a terrorist plot involving Massoui 70 TIMES

[stateofgrace]

Except it wasn't just average joes who planned it.

It was people who were on WANTED LISTS

Men who were known Al Qaeda operatives who were living openly in the US with their real names

Men who were known operatives getting granted VISAs

They pretty much didn't do any step in secrecy.

They were identified multiple times by multiple levels of intelligence because quite frankly these men didn't have the intelligence themselves to outsmart everyone.

I am curious at to what you would have done stick. Beofre you answer please read this.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=758&id=1718092007


A HARD core of 20 Islamic extremists with links to foreign terror groups is operating north of the Border and poses a "significant" risk to public safety,



the terror threat is now so great that up to 1,000 Scottish Asians will be placed under surveillance in coming months because they associate with known radicals.



The 20 are under round-the-clock surveillance and their e-mails and mobile and landline calls are being monitored by GCHQ. Provided they do not pose an immediate risk, security officers are unlikely to make arrests until more evidence is gathered and associations with others are fully examined.
Sources say the larger group of 200 have come under scrutiny because they associate with the hard core and their behaviour gives cause for concern.


What should we do Stick, arrest them ? Oh wait..............


Arun Kundnani, of the Institute for Race Relations, echoed that view. He said: "There are lots of cases of British Asians being arrested for wearing Islamic clothing or growing a beard, but the number of people who end up being convicted for terror offences is miniscule. It just creates the impression that the state is targeting a community and a religion and that cannot be helpful."


Now, this is your call stick, pray tell me how you wish to deal with this.

[StickMan2008]

I am curious at to what you would have done stick. Beofre you answer please read this.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=758&id=1718092007







What should we do Stick, arrest them ? Oh wait..............



Now, this is your call stick, pray tell me how you would deal with this.

Is everyone on this site a sophist?

So you're comparing men who happen to be Islamic to people who have been linked to Al Qaeda cells?

Comparing the information as specific as that organization these men are under planning a terrorist attack?

You must be joking

[stateofgrace]

Is everyone on this site a sophist?

So you're comparing men who happen to be Islamic to people who have been linked to Al Qaeda cells?

Comparing the information as specific as that organization these men are under planning a terrorist attack?

You must be joking

No I am quite serious.

Now please answer the question, what would do with these people who appear to pose a significant threat to public safety?

Arrest them? yes or no.

ETA I have bolded the part I missed before, No I am not, now please answer the question

[StickMan2008]

No I am quite serious.

Now please answer the question, what would do with these people who posse a significant threat to public safety?

Arrest them? yes or no.

If people in the intelligence community could link them to a terrorist organization with a known terrorist plot then how the hell could you not at least detain them and question them?

Isn't that what the Patriot Act was designed to be anyway?

Hell you could do that even before the Patriot Act if you had information of such a plot

[stateofgrace]

If people in the intelligence community could link them to a terrorist organization with a known terrorist plot then how the hell could you not at least detain them and question them?

Isn't that what the Patriot Act was designed to be anyway?

Hell you could do that even before the Patriot Act if you had information of such a plot

I take it your answer is yes, you would arrest anybody who you deemed a threat to public safety? Yes or no.

Ps the patriot act does not apply in Scotland.

[StickMan2008]

I take it your answer is yes, you would arrest anybody who you deemed a threat to public safety? Yes or no.

That's a false dichotomy

That's why there are things called warrants.

You're supposed to have a legit reason why they pose a threat beyond guilt by association

Otherwise you could arrest anyone you suspected of being in a gang.


Hell prison stock would really be good then.


But if you knew that certain men were part of a terorrist cell and you knew of SPECIFIC terrorist attacks, it would be criminal negligence TO NOT attempt to prevent it

[stateofgrace]

That's a false dichotomy

That's why there are things called warrants.

You're supposed to have a legit reason why they pose a threat beyond guilt by association

Otherwise you could arrest anyone you suspected of being in a gang.


Hell prison stock would really be good then.


But if you knew that certain men were part of a terorrist cell and you knew of SPECIFIC terrorist attacks, it would be criminal negligence TO NOT attempt to prevent it

It was a simple yes or no answer, please let me re ask it, would you arrest anybody who you deemed a threat to public safety? Yes or no.

[PhantomWolf]

When people promote the OS they always ask, why is it so hard to believe that Islamic fundamentalists who hate our freedoms would pull off 9/11?

Everytime I see someone claim "They hate us because of our freedoms" I know for a fact that they don't understand.

No one is saying that they didn't have the motives.

But you also have to have the means and opportunity

And those terrorists would have needed a lot of help

Rubbish, The only opportunity they needed was to buy a plane ticket, and means was buying a short knife or boxcutter. The most help they needed was instruction on flying a plane.

First of all they would have had to outsmart US AND Foreign Intelligence of every kind.

This is possibly the most difficult step of all.

Nonsense, Al Qaeda deliberately used unknowns in the operation, none of the pilots was known to the US as a member of Al Qaeda. The closest to being picked up was that one was stopped in Dubi on the way back from Afghanistan and was flagged as a possible Jihadi, but since there was no law against such activity previous to 9/11, he was placed on a basic watch list and that was it.

And it's one they didn't pull off.

CIA/FBI agents warned their superiors of these men
Other foreign intelligence warned the US of impending attacks to the specifics of the week of September 9th.

Again, incorrect. A memo, which wasn't read until after 9/11, did indicate that it was possible that Jihadists were being trained in US Flight Schools, but it mentioned none of 4 9/11 pilots (who by that stage weren't training any more anyway) but rather that there was a large number of middle eastern students attending and that it was possible some has Jihadist connections. None of the foreign intelligence agencies gave specifics on the 9/11 attacks, there was warnings of an imminent attack against US interests, but it was assumed by virtually everyone that it would be overseas, like the previous USS Cole or the Embassy bombings.

They couldn't even get VISAs without someone's superiors telling them to issue them.

Again untrue. Visas were issued or denied based on if the person was considered a risk of trying to stay on illegaly in the US. Many of those that Al Qaeda tried to send in werte denied Visas for exactly this reason (most of the Yemenise, since at the time they were seen as potential economic migrants.) The reason that they went with 19 is because they had a lot of trouble getting a 20th person into the US due to their Visas being denied. Those that were denied entry include Saeed al-Ghamdi (not to be confused with the successful hijacker of the same name), Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Saeed Ahmad al-Zahrani, Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Baluchi, Qutaybah al-Najdi, Zuhair al-Thubaiti, and Saud al-Rashi.

Also there is no explanation for the warnings not to fly which shows some foreknowledge.

Insiders and public officials warned not to fly yet this country didn't think it was important enough to heighten airport security?

Again this is bulldust,Try[url] [url=http://www.911myths.com/html/willie_brown.html]some (http://www.911myths.com/html/ashcroft_commercial_flights.html) facts. (http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_officials.html)

It was people who were on WANTED LISTS

Osma and KSM were the only ones involved in the planning who were on wanted lists, and they weren't eaxctly standing out in the open waiting to be grabbed.

Men who were known Al Qaeda operatives who were living openly in the US with their real names

None of the pilots had any links to Al Qaeda that were known to US authorities at the time of the attacks. These links have only been uncovered following the attacks and tracking their movements, a lot of it with the help of german investigators who dealt with uncovering the Humbug Cell connections. The two (covered below) that did, weren't on a detain list until well after they arrived in the US and were put on because of connections they had with the USS Cole Bombers.

Men who were known operatives getting granted VISAs

The two persons in question were, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were known to have been in contact with Al Qaeda operatives previously and as a result were put onto a CIA watchlist that would basically alert them if they come through customs. They spent time in San Deigo before moving to New York, though did fly in and out of the country a few times. By the time it was determined that they, especially al-Mihdhar needed to be found (mostly because of his believed involvement in the USS Cole incident) and were placed onto a "stop them at the border" list they were not able to be located, despite the FBI and CIA's attempts to track them down. It wasn't even known if they were still in the US or not and agents were still busy trying to find out where they were or if they had left on Sept 11.

They pretty much didn't do any step in secrecy.

You are assuming they had too. If no one was looking for them, then there was no need for secrecy, and since there were no alerts on them, and they had no reason to believe that anyone even knew about them, why should they have bothered with secrecy?

They were identified multiple times by multiple levels of intelligence because quite frankly these men didn't have the intelligence themselves to outsmart everyone.

Very few of them were identified by any Intelligence group at the time of the attacks, and for those that were you're assuming that they had to outsmart people. If no one was actually looking for them at the start, and even more so, if they didn't know they were being looked for, then there was little need to hide. The FBI didn't get info on most of the 19 and the two it did had vanished into the population long before they started the hunt, and even that was to do with the Cole, not with the coming attacks. When they started looking, the trail was cold and the places that had been given as residences were no longer being used. Most of the group were totally unknown to the US, or were at most just a name on a peice of paper. Tracking them down once they were inside the US was all but impossible, and stopping them would have required the US to be on a similar footing and having a similar attitude to terrorism that it has has since 9/11. Quite simply, until 9/11 it didn't take such threats seriously, and as a result, paid the price.

[PhantomWolf]

But if you knew that certain men were part of a terorrist cell and you knew of SPECIFIC terrorist attacks, it would be criminal negligence TO NOT attempt to prevent it

But there is your problem. They didn't know about specific terrorist attacks and they didn't know that certain men were part of a terrorist cell. The only two they did have that information on, had already disappeared into the population before they started after them, they were looking for them when 9/11 happened.

[tomwaits]

Anyone I have seen asked this question claims it doesn't matter. To them, the point is that they believe the passengers weren't on the plane, and they don't consider it a necessary part of their role in sending out this CT information to provide any proof or logical conclusion as to the 'little details' of the bigger picture.



It really shows where the CTers' interests lie, eh? They always claim that they are doing this for the victims of 9/11, yet they don't seem to care about what actually happened to the victims! If there never was a plane or the people were moved somewhere, theoretically those people could be alive. But, of course, they would rather spend their time protesting at ground zero and talking about how the NWO is using mind control.

[AMTMAN]

Truthers are always skeptical about the fact that "arab cavemen" pulled of this "grandiose and complicated plan" to "overcome the defenses world's most advanced nation". They essentially believe that the 9/11 plot would have been "too hard" and "too expensive" for these "cavemen".

Even granting, for the sake of argument, that they are "cavemen" (which they are most certainly NOT), just how hard would it be to do what al-Quaeda did to the US? How much would they seriously have to do?

The "Official Story"

--Send some dudes to the US
--Learn to fly planes
--Train in hijacking techniques
--Locate targets of economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and political (White House) importance.
--Coordinate a date and time
--Bring boxcutters (which were legal at the time) onto planes
--Hijack planes
--Crash planes

Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?

Meanwhile, let's examine the difficulty of various CTs:

Bombing the Towers

--Fake passports
--Fake Osama videos
--Fake "hijacker" identities
--Develop airliner remote-control technology
--Develop passenger voice-morphing technology
--Develop "stealth" explosives technology
--Brainwash/bribe/silence eyewitnesses
--Brainwash/bribe/silence first responders
--Brainwash/bribe/silence air traffic controllers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence steel handlers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence Protec
--Brainwash/bribe/silence bomb-planting crews
--Brainwash/bribe/silence the media
--Fake seismic readings
--Fake attack audio
--Fake attack video
--Plant "stealth" explosives on all the floors where "squibs" were seen, without being noticed
--Plant a bomb in the basement and set it off an hour before the scheduled collapse for no [rule10]ing reason
--Use secret remote-control technology and secret voice-morphing technology to take over planes mid-flight and land them in a secret base somewhere, then brainwash/bribe/silence all the passengers
--Fly remote-controlled planes into towers
--Detonate explosives in the EXACT sequence and with the EXACT timing that would give the appearance of a progressive gravity-driven collapse
--Toss fake passport into the wreckage

Bombing WTC7

All of the above PLUS:

--Destroy Towers in such a way that debris damages the WTC7 just enough to make firefighters think it was coming down, but not enough to destroy the "stealth" explosives planted within
--Fake even more seismic recordings
--Brainwash/bribe/silence even more people
--Brainwash every single demolition expert on the face of the planet into believing that "pull" does NOT refer to explosive demolition
--Tell the BBC what was going to happen in advance for no [rule10]ing reason
--Demolish building AFTER the dust had settled and people would be able to see
--Demolish building so that penthouses collapse first
--Have a motive?

MercLyte's Magical Pentagon Flyover

--Fake Osama videos
--Fake "hijacker" identities
--Brainwash/bribe/silence first responders
--Brainwash/bribe/silence air traffic controllers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence every single eyewitness except for three dudes at a gas station that the government carelessly forgot about
--Cut down light poles on flight path A in the middle of the night to fake a damage path
--Prevent anyone from noticing that there are light poles lying in the middle of the road
--Jab a light pole into some poor sap's cab, then brainwash/bribe him
--Prevent anyone from noticing a cab with a light pole jabbed into it
--Fake damage to the lawn, generator, and Pentagon (all 5 rings) such that it looks like the plant impacted from flight path A
--Fly plane on a totally different flight path B for no [rule10]ing reason
--Plant bombs in Pentagon powerful enough to blow huge holes in it, but not powerful enough to damage a plane flying 3 inches overhead
--Brainwash/bribe some poor C-130 pilot to just fly around doing absolutely nothing
--Fly plane so close to the top of the Pentagon that it's almost scraping the roof, but within a second suddenly gain enough altitude that nobody notices a flyover
--Detonate explosives at EXACTLY (margin of error less than a tenth of a second) the right moment to conceal the plane from viewers at the local Citgo , which the conspirators must have known existed in order to have a motive to perform this magic trick, but whose existence they apparently forgot about when it came time to start brainwashing eyewitnesses
--Fake a bunch of videos
--Plant jet fuel all over the place
--Brainwash/bribe Russell Pickering as soon as CIT begins their investigation


Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?

Don't forget braisnwash the airlines into thinking that it was their aircraft that hit WTC and the Pentagon.

[PhantomWolf]

Funny how conspiracy theorists always think the more outrageously complicated story is always the more likely one. Is there a name for such backwards thinking?

Over on the BAUT we've been using this one:

Illuminati's Razor - The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer.

[Sabrina]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but weren't only two or four of the 19 hijackers on any kind of watch list prior to 9/11? I know for a fact that it wasn't all of them; I'm just curious to know if the exact number's been identified.

[Corsair 115]

Over on the BAUT we've been using this one:

Illuminati's Razor - The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer.Might I suggest another possibility?

The Rube Goldberg Hypothesis — the more nefarious an organization, the more complicated its plans must be.

[stateofgrace]

Stickman your silence is deafening, maybe you forgot the question, please allow me restate it.

In Scotland there are


A HARD core of 20 Islamic extremists with links to foreign terror groups


They are a

"significant" risk to public safety,


Now, with your wonderous hindsight, pray tell me, what should be done?

Should these individuals be arrested, yes or no ?

[PhantomWolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but weren't only two or four of the 19 hijackers on any kind of watch list prior to 9/11? I know for a fact that it wasn't all of them; I'm just curious to know if the exact number's been identified.

It was two, and they were on it because they had been to an Al Qaeda meet in early 2000, they weren't actively sought until after the USS Cole was bombed though, and that was because it was suspected they may have been involved in that plot.

There are claims that Mossad gave the CIA a document with 19 names on it, but the CIA disputes this claim and it seems to be rather tied up with the whole Israeli Art Students claims which are about as bogus as the rest of the 9/11 claims so there is no real evidence of any such document existing let alone naming the terrorists.

[gumboot]

It was two, and they were on it because they had been to an Al Qaeda meet in early 2000, they weren't actively sought until after the USS Cole was bombed though, and that was because it was suspected they may have been involved in that plot.


This is the key link that caused the problems.

The CIA knew these guys were linked to Al Qaeda and were in the USA, but once they were in the USA they couldn't pass on any information to the FBI and couldn't follow them anymore.

Meanwhile NSA had pages and pages of intercepts of their communications, but again because one party to the conversation was on US soil they were prohibited from passing this information on.

These are the specific things that the "Patriot" Act was designed to address.

-Gumboot

[EventHorizon]

Rozar Smacco :)

Damn you phony black hole dude...revenge for beating me to this joke shall be mine :)

:p

[Zlaya]

--Send some dudes to the US
--Learn to fly planes
--Train in hijacking techniques
--Locate targets of economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and political (White House) importance.
--Coordinate a date and time
--Bring boxcutters (which were legal at the time) onto planes
--Hijack planes
--Crash planes

Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?

I hope that you realize how absolutely insane this sounds, especially when you consider the spy underworld, intelligence assets, black ops that are oh so prevalent in United States history.

Ever google "Able Danger"??

Goodness...

[Dr Adequate]

I hope that you realize how absolutely insane this sounds, especially when you consider the spy underworld, intelligence assets, black ops that are oh so prevalent in United States history. The 19 hijackers theory is "insane" because you can vaguely allude to some other ways that it might have been done?

"Black ops", eh? And what did they actually do?

[Gravy]

I hope that you realize how absolutely insane this sounds, especially when you consider the spy underworld, intelligence assets, black ops that are oh so prevalent in United States history.Then you won't have any trouble pointing out what the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong.

Or are you just here because you think whining on the internet will change the world for the better?

[Tippit]

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

The reason a conspiracy succeeds is only because it is shared among a limited amount of people. The more people you add to a conspiracy, even if they only know part of it, the more difficult it is to actually maintain the necessary secrecy to carry out the conspiracy.



That's only true where the success of the conspiracy depends upon secrecy. What if the conspiracy were so audacious, and diabolical that it would be vehemently disbelieved by default, by a public with an emotional investment in disbelieving it at almost any cost? In this case its success is not a function of secrecy, but of believability when the "secret" is inevitably revealed.

Would you be likely to assign any credibility to someone who decided to confess for being part of such a conspiracy? Would the media? What is the threshold of evidence you would require in order to believe the unbelievable?



I have made some past estimates at how many people would need to know at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to succeed as the truthers think it did; the number was over 100,000. Statistically and fundamentally impossible to maintain BEFORE the plot was carried out, much less for six years after. As the saying goes, "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead." The idea of a group of relatively low-tech, yet extremely fanatical and highly motivated men being able to carry out an attack of this type is far from impossible. Our mistake was in underestimating their fanaticism and motivation to hurt us. I rather doubt we'll make that mistake again any time soon. (Although give us time; God knows as human beings we forget things like this far too quickly, or so it seems)

Your 100,000 conspirator figure strikes me as arbitrary. Perhaps that number would be reasonable if we're to assume that every single 9/11 conspiracy were true, which is a ridiculous assumption to make.

There is another aspect to a successful conspiracy which doesn't require secrecy, and that is lack of accountability. You don't have to commit the perfect crime, but merely be in charge of the investigation that follows. If you're in a position to cover up crucial evidence of a conspiracy, then even if there is open doubt about the investigation, there is little accountability since you were in control to begin with.

Secrets are revealed all the time. It's just a question of whether or not you believe them when they are, and whether you're in a position to hold anyone to account.

[Dave Rogers]

Would you be likely to assign any credibility to someone who decided to confess for being part of such a conspiracy?

Probably a lot more than you assign to the people who have confessed several times to being part of the conspiracy that actually existed.

Dave

[twinstead]

That's only true where the success of the conspiracy depends upon secrecy. What if the conspiracy were so audacious, and diabolical that it would be vehemently disbelieved by default, by a public with an emotional investment in disbelieving it at almost any cost? In this case its success is not a function of secrecy, but of believability when the "secret" is inevitably revealed.


Are you suggesting that some things are just SO unlikely that people would have an emotional investment in not believing it, therefore ignore compelling evidence that it actually happened? Interesting view, but IMO totally rejected.

I suspect this is a rationalization to believe highly unlikely things with little or no evidence to support them, and a common fall-back last resort argument when one is exasperated that nobody seems to be taking one seriously. It could be used to support just about any ludicrous theory you could possibly imagine.

IMO the more 'audacious' and 'diabolical' the more chance it will have of being taken seriously if compelling evidence existed. What is important is the evidence one has to support something.

It's a cop out to simply call people who have looked at the same evidence as you but come to a different conclusion blind, or even worse accuse them of having an emotional investment in not believing something you believe, when actually the only issue is you are trying to shove a highly unlikely conspiracy theory down their throats on the slimmest of evidence.

[Belz...]

That's only true where the success of the conspiracy depends upon secrecy. What if the conspiracy were so audacious, and diabolical that it would be vehemently disbelieved by default, by a public with an emotional investment in disbelieving it at almost any cost? In this case its success is not a function of secrecy, but of believability when the "secret" is inevitably revealed.

Yeah, that makes no sense, whatsoever.

There is another aspect to a successful conspiracy which doesn't require secrecy, and that is lack of accountability. You don't have to commit the perfect crime, but merely be in charge of the investigation that follows. If you're in a position to cover up crucial evidence of a conspiracy, then even if there is open doubt about the investigation, there is little accountability since you were in control to begin with.

Circular reasoning and argument from ignorance.

[Sabrina]

That's only true where the success of the conspiracy depends upon secrecy. What if the conspiracy were so audacious, and diabolical that it would be vehemently disbelieved by default, by a public with an emotional investment in disbelieving it at almost any cost? In this case its success is not a function of secrecy, but of believability when the "secret" is inevitably revealed.

Would you be likely to assign any credibility to someone who decided to confess for being part of such a conspiracy? Would the media? What is the threshold of evidence you would require in order to believe the unbelievable?

Conspiracies, by their very nature, are secretive. From Dictionary.com:

con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.


The vast majority of conspiracies that have been documented in the past were kept secret from regular folks on the street until someone either slipped up and revealed something they shouldn't have, or revealed it deliberately. Please name one documented conspiracy in the entire history of the world that numerous people who were not involved in it knew about beforehand and did nothing to stop it because they did not believe it despite evidence to the contrary. Just one. Please. Otherwise, your hypothesis is nothing but speculation with no evidence to support it, not fact.


Your 100,000 conspirator figure strikes me as arbitrary. Perhaps that number would be reasonable if we're to assume that every single 9/11 conspiracy were true, which is a ridiculous assumption to make.

You're mistaken; that 100,000 figure isn't arbitrary at all. If you take the three major 9/11 conspiracy theories that I'm aware of; i.e. the towers were a controlled demolition, the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and Flight 93 was shot down, that number is very reasonable. And this is why (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/listofresponders%26investigators):

1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
ACE Bermuda Insurance
AEMC Construction
AIG Insurance
Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue
Allianz Global Risks
American Airlines
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Red Cross
Applied Biosystems Inc.
Applied Research Associates
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
Arlington County Fire Department
Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington VA Police Department
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee
ARUP USA
Atlantic Heydt Inc.
Bechtel
Berlin Fire Department
Big Apple Wrecking
Blanford & Co.
Bode Technology Group
Bovis Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville
Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept.
California Incident Management Team
Carter Burgess Engineering
Celera Genomics
Centers for Disease Control
Central City Fire Department
Central Intelligence Agency
Cleveland Airport control tower
Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee
Consolidated Edison Company
Construction Technologies Laboratory
Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Counterterrorism and Security Group
CTL Engineering
D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners
DiSalvo Ericson Engineering
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon
D'Onofrio Construction
E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews
Edwards and Kelcey Engineering
Engineering Systems, Inc.
Environmental protection Agency
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates
EYP Mission CriticalFacilities
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Falcon 20 crew in PA
Family members who received calls from victims on the planes
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Co.
FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1
FEMA Disaster Field Office
FEMA Emergency Response Team
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3
Fire Department of New York
Fort Myer Fire Department
French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department
Gateway Demolition
Gene Code Forensics
Georgia Tech Engineering Dept.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
GMAC Financing
Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers
Guy Nordenson Associates
HAKS Engineers
Hampton-Clarke Inc.
HHS National Medical Response Team
HLW International Engineering
Hooversville Rescue Squad.
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department
Hoy Structural Services
Hughes Associates, Inc
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East
hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC
Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives
Industrial Risk Insurers
Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15
J.R. Harris & Company
Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority
Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc.
KCE Structural Engineers
Koch Skanska
Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates
Laboratory Corp. of America
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Leslie E. Robertson Associates
LIRo Engineering
Listie Volunteer Fire Company
Lockwood Consulting
M.G. McLaren Engineering
Masonry Society
Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc.
Metal Management Northeast
Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue
Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Murray Engineering
Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc.
National Center for Biotechnology Informatics
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
National Disaster Medical System
National Emergency Numbering Association
National Fire Protection Association
National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute
National Military Command Center
National Reconnaissance Office
National Response Center
National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
National Security Agency
National Transportation Safety Board
National Wrecking
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
New Jersey State Police
New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force
New York City Department of Design and Construction
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Office of Emergency Management
New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York City Police Department Aviation Unit
New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
New York Daily News
New York Flight Control Center
New York Newsday
New York Port Authority Construction Board
New York Port Authority Police
New York State Emergency Management Office
New York State Police Forensic Services
New York Times
North American Aerospace Defense Command
Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew
Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists
Numerous Forensic Dentists
Numerous Forensic Pathologists
Numerous Forensic Radiologists
NuStats
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Office of Strategic Services
Orchid Cellmark
Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services
Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
Pennsylvania State Police
Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team
Pentagon Medical Staff
Pentagon Renovation Team
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Port of New York and New Jersey Authority
Pro-Safety Services
Protec
Public Entity Risk Institute
Purdue University Engineering Dept.
Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers
Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams
Salvation Army Disaster Services
several EPA Hazmat Teams
several FBI Hazmat Teams
several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company
Silverstein Properties
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Somerset Ambulance Association
Somerset County Coroner's Office
Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department
St. Paul/Travelers Insurance
State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Structural Engineers Association of New York
Superstructures Engineering
Swiss Re America Insurance
Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes
Teng & Associates
Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc.
TIG Insurance
Tokio Marine & Fire
Transportation Safety Administration
Tully Construction
Twin City Fire Insurance
Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Underwriters Laboratories
Union Wrecking
United Airlines
United States Air National Guard
United States Fire Administration
United States Secret Service
United Steelworkers of America
University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County
US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command
US Department of Defense
US Department of Justice
US Department of State
Virginia Beach Fire Department
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Virginia State Police
Vollmer Associates Engineers
Washington Post
Weeks Marine
Weidlinger Associates
Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering
Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
Whitney Contracting
Willis Group Holdings
WJE Structural Engineers
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
World Trade Center security staff
XL Insurance
Yonkers Contracting
York International
Zurich Financial
Zurich Re Risk Engineering

Taking all these people into account leads me to that 100,000 person estimate, and I'm likely being conservative, not exaggerating. Thanks to Gravy for the list, BTW.

There is another aspect to a successful conspiracy which doesn't require secrecy, and that is lack of accountability. You don't have to commit the perfect crime, but merely be in charge of the investigation that follows. If you're in a position to cover up crucial evidence of a conspiracy, then even if there is open doubt about the investigation, there is little accountability since you were in control to begin with.

And what about the individuals who discovered the information you say might have been covered up, hmmm? What's to stop them from stepping forward and reaping the rewards of exposing the biggest coverup in history? There were far too many individuals involved in the 9/11 investigations (note the plural there) for everyone to be paid off or threatened, plus that ignores the people from other countries who have no interest in keeping this government in power who found similar results.

Secrets are revealed all the time. It's just a question of whether or not you believe them when they are, and whether you're in a position to hold anyone to account.

And if there were a single SHRED of evidence of a coverup, I'd be the first in line to go after the perpetrators, but there is not. Call me an idealist if you want, but I believe in this country and what it stands for, and I will willingly fight to keep it free and prosperous; in fact, I have done so, and if I am called to do it again, I will go again. It's because of people like me that you're allowed to spout this sort of... nonsense, and because I believe in this nation's ideals, I don't try to stop you from doing so; I and others here simply offer another perspective. It's up to the people listening to us though to make their own decisions; I won't make it for them, and neither should you make the attempt to. That's not to say you are, necessarily, but I've seen that sort of mentality in most of the "truthers" I've spoken with or seen spoken to on here, so I hope you will forgive the generalization. Regardless, I feel my points stand, so I will leave it at that.

[gumboot]

Would you be likely to assign any credibility to someone who decided to confess for being part of such a conspiracy? Would the media? What is the threshold of evidence you would require in order to believe the unbelievable?


Whether we believe them or not is irrelevant. The point is no one has come forward.

-Gumboot

[Tippit]

Are you suggesting that some things are just SO unlikely that people would have an emotional investment in not believing it, therefore ignore compelling evidence that it actually happened? Interesting view, but IMO totally rejected.



No, I'm suggesting that some possibilities are or seem so unlikely (and in this case, horrific) that otherwise rational people will elect to discount what would otherwise be suspicious evidence in favor of what seems obvious. I would also add that what seems unlikely to some may be likely to others, based on different world views.



I suspect this is a rationalization to believe highly unlikely things with little or no evidence to support them, and a common fall-back last resort argument when one is exasperated that nobody seems to be taking one seriously. It could be used to support just about any ludicrous theory you could possibly imagine.



Because I don't believe the official story of 9/11 doesn't mean I believe with little to no supporting evidence everything you might consider to be highly unlikely. With regard to 9/11 I reject the attributed motives given to the alleged perpetrators, namely that they hated our freedom, and that they represented some meaningful population of violent muslims that would justify endless preemptive wars. Given this world view I was already skeptical of who was responsible for 9/11 before I even saw how symmetrically the WTC 7 building fell.



IMO the more 'audacious' and 'diabolical' the more chance it will have of being taken seriously if compelling evidence existed. What is important is the evidence one has to support something.



Evidence is only useful in the context of proof, and this requires a rational, unemotional, and disinterested provee. What 9/11 shows is that different people can see the same things and draw totally different conclusions.



It's a cop out to simply call people who have looked at the same evidence as you but come to a different conclusion blind, or even worse accuse them of having an emotional investment in not believing something you believe, when actually the only issue is you are trying to shove a highly unlikely conspiracy theory down their throats on the slimmest of evidence.

I'm not accusing you of being blind, I'm suggesting that the evidence of what exactly did or did not happen on that day is so ambiguous that what people believe about 9/11 is more a function of their previous world view and their emotions than anything else.

[stilicho]

With regard to 9/11 I reject the attributed motives given to the alleged perpetrators, namely that they hated our freedom...
And that right there is why you start off wrong. You are looking at the wrong motive--one attributed to the terrorists by someone who didn't know or didn't want to say why they did it.

David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones both append the "because they hate our freedoms" onto the reasons supplied by UBL, others in al-Qaeda, and the Arab press itself.

The terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11 because they sensed a vulnerability, detected a false sense of security, to send a strong message about American involvement in supporting regimes such as the Saudi aristocracy, to avenge perceived injustices, and to demonstrate power in a direct and unconventional manner. None of these reasons involve hating your freedoms.

[Sunstealer]

I hope that you realize how absolutely insane this sounds, especially when you consider the spy underworld, intelligence assets, black ops that are oh so prevalent in United States history.Didn't read my post did you? You think that because you have all these resources that no one can get through? No one can hurt the US? You are not invulnerable.

Forgotten the 1993 WTC bombing have we? Or was that a failed inside job?

Because I don't believe the official story of 9/11 doesn't mean I believe with little to no supporting evidence everything you might consider to be highly unlikely. With regard to 9/11 I reject the attributed motives given to the alleged perpetrators, namely that they hated our freedom, and that they represented some meaningful population of violent muslims that would justify endless preemptive wars. Given this world view I was already skeptical of who was responsible for 9/11 before I even saw how symmetrically the WTC 7 building fell.Another proof that I was correct in post #44. Your world view is at best poor. You are ignorant of these people, their culture and what drives them. I suggest that you find out a bit more about the people who perpetrated 9/11 and learn more about the specific brand of Islam they follow. Do you realise that Bin Laden probably wanted the US to go into Afghanistan? Iraq was a bonus for Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden has had a far wider education and travelled far more than the average American yet the terrorist organisation he heads is not considered smart. These people are thinking in terms 50+ years ahead. This is just the start. It will be as big a fight as the cold war was and possibly take longer.

[timhau]

Anyone who thinks the government could flawlessly pull off an intricate plot like the 9/11 conspiracy theories suggest should read about the Aldrich Ames case. Start from the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames) if you want. This is government. This is your bogeyman with the well-oiled machine.

[Sabrina]

Don't forget Ana Helen (or Belen; I've seen it spelled both ways) Montes. And there's another one who's name I'm blanking on atm... darn my faulty memory.

[HawksFan]

Ya know, I wish that our government was even HALF as efficient as the twoofers claim them to be.

[timhau]

Don't forget Ana Helen Montes. And there's another one who's name I'm blanking on atm... darn my faulty memory.

Harold Nicholson, the senior CIA agent who (allegedly) sold the Russians the names of all American agents in Russia? He was active simultaneously with Ames.

Despite this, the US and its allies managed to win the cold war, so the level of incompetence on the other side must have been mind-boggling.

[Sabrina]

Nope; I'm a dumbass and had to look it up. Robert Hanssen. You'd think I'd know this; the movie Breach was based on that case. *facepalm*

Although Harold Nicholson isn't anything to sneeze at either.

[timhau]

Oh yeah. Hanssen, the founder of Communist Spies for Jesus.