A Question for Truthers

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't mind answering this question or questions, even at the risk of being labelled a "twoofer." I will say this kind of response seems counter to an intellectual debate, and suffers from the ad hominem logical fallacy.In what way? There are visitors to and members of this site who label themselves as such. And given the accepted definition -- that the events of 9/11 were the work of insiders of one degree or another and not 19 religious extremists under the direction of OBL -- I'm interested in their take on the question as provided in the OP of this thread.

Also, I'd hope Reg will answer my follow up question. Thanks.

IF 9/11 is an inside job, it's not hard to speculate why there have not been additional attacks. IF 9/11 is an inside job, the planners likely envisioned a ten year plan, perhaps, starting with an enormous and catastrophic event that would keep the population in a state of fear while all foreign policy goals are being met (read: war), until the end of the decade.Well, "likely" and "perhaps" are wonderful words in that they get you out of any commitment to a most likely order of events.

And what "state of fear" are we living under? I'll grant you that there's a low-level unease with regard to possible future acts of terrorism. And people in high places (such as presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani) are not shy about using this spectre. But how much more "likely" would any of the so-called neocons' goals be if in the six years since their September 11 they carried out a significantly easier faux terrorist attack such as blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge?

Obviously, orchestrating such an event is a tremendous risk and not something that is likely to be repeated.Circumventing security and planting charges on the Golden Gate would be laughably simple.

However, it would be necessary to perpetuate a series of "reminders."Correct. So where are they?

It would also be possible that plans are on the table for another event, if necessary.So Mr. Bush winning reelection (which he barely did) was not necessary? The Republican party maintaining control of congress (which they did not) was not necessary? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other high govt. officials staying in power for the duration of this administration's two terms was not necessary?

[Regnad Kcin]

Now, if you don't mind answering the reverse of your question:

If 9/11 was not an inside job, then it exposed the US intelligence community, national security agencies, and the entire military as catastrophically inept.I believe you're assuming a conclusion. We don't know how many disasters of an unusual magnitude (in the modern, post-WWII age) have been prevented by the organizations you list. That a sneak attack by a very small team of guerillas, dedicated to their cause, was successful* only means that no system is watertight. No open society can 100% prevent killers from killing.

Moreover, the "entire" military was not (and is not) engaged in defense against the kind of tactic used on 9/11. Your terming the uniformed services "catastrophically inept" is hyperbole.

The entire system allowed four airliners to be hijacked by 19 Arabs, including four marginal pilots, to fly around for an hour and a half in the most protected airspace in the known world, into economically crucial targets, and the center of our military.- The 19 Arabs held passports.

- Their piloting skills were more than adequate for their mission.

- "The most protected airspace in the known world" (is there some "unknown" world you'd like to discuss?) was, and is, primarily shielded against attacks from without, not within. The terrorist team of 9/11 did not fly over from their base in their own air force; they simply took advantage of the fact that a strength of the US (relative individual freedom of movement) is also a security weakness. Also, comandeering civilian aircraft to use as suicide weapons was no small component in the plan.**

So why hasn't Al Qaeda struck again? If it's possible to strike the Pentagon, how hard would it be to mess with water supplies, food supplies, medicines, agriculture, more hijackings, chemical and nuclear plant security breaches?

We're told that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, they're everywhere, and our security hasn't improved all that much. It's still very easy to sneak dangerous materials through our airports and ports.

Does Al Qaeda not know that the Mexican and Canadian borders are wide open?I answered this question in another form earlier: I don't know. I don't know what they're planning and what means they're using to ensure success. I also don't know in what way these extremists may have been hampered by security forces of the US or its allies.

You've eaten a turkey dinner before. Why haven't you eaten one today?



*And we know that 9/11 wasn't entirely successful, given that one or maybe two aircraft did not reach their targets.

**Keep in mind, even if the four highjacked airliners flying in "most protected airspace in the known world" were shot down, the passengers and crew on board would be dead (not to mention anyone on the ground beneath the wreckage. This would still be a victory for the religious extremists under the direction of OBL.

[RedIbis]

In what way? There are visitors to and members of this site who label themselves as such. And given the accepted definition -- that the events of 9/11 were the work of insiders of one degree or another and not 19 religious extremists under the direction of OBL -- I'm interested in their take on the question as provided in the OP of this thread.


I'm new to the site, perhaps people do jump in to a very challenging forum and say, "hi, I'm a twoofer" or "Truth Squadraneer." I'll have to look out for that.


Well, "likely" and "perhaps" are wonderful words in that they get you out of any commitment to a most likely order of events.

Exactly. I don't pretend to be committed to a theory. I don't pretend to have all of the information. I've looked at various hypothesis and I see the official story as one of several. Yes, there are bizarre and implausible theories coming out of the "9/11 Truth Movement" for lack of a better term and expediency. Honestly, some of the official stories are somewhat bizarre as well. Gen Ahmed, Hani Hanjour, Barbara Olsen, Tod Beamer, Anthrax. Research uncovers interesting "coincidences."


And what "state of fear" are we living under? I'll grant you that there's a low-level unease with regard to possible future acts of terrorism. And people in high places (such as presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani) are not shy about using this spectre. But how much more "likely" would any of the so-called neocons' goals be if in the six years since their September 11 they carried out a significantly easier faux terrorist attack such as blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge?

This is verging into a political or sociological discussion, but briefly, and just one very small example out of millions, Bush gave a speech recently telling us that terrorists are planning to kill our children, right now. Seriously, terror warnings, abstract, unspecified threats, liquid bombers, jihad doctors. It's everyday, just check the news.




Circumventing security and planting charges on the Golden Gate would be laughably simple.

Indeed. Speculation is tempting, but ultimately it's pointless. I will say this. 9/11 is the result of a plan. Whether Inside Job or Al Qaeda, this was a tremendous undertaking. What we study is the result of that plan. Part of the plan worked, perhaps part of the plan didn't. We can only speculate.

I'm much more interested in getting a full account of the official version of events and then holding that up to available evidence. A pure fantasy, I know, but a noble one, no?


Correct. So where are they?

See my earlier response. For example, whatever happened to that Anthrax business?



So Mr. Bush winning reelection (which he barely did) was not necessary? The Republican party maintaining control of congress (which they did not) was not necessary? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other high govt. officials staying in power for the duration of this administration's two terms was not necessary?

I may not be clear on the question you're asking here. Admittedly, if I say "what I think," it's just speculation. Again, It's illogical to think of 9/11 as exactly as was planned. IF 9/11 is an Inside Job, then I can certainly imagine the perpetrators as scared, desperate, paranoid, and worse. I would imagine they would make Freudian slips, unintended admissions, contradictions in their story, and on and on. I could post examples of all that if necessary.

[RedIbis]

I believe you're assuming a conclusion. We don't know how many disasters of an unusual magnitude (in the modern, post-WWII age) have been prevented by the organizations you list. That a sneak attack by a very small team of guerillas, dedicated to their cause, was successful* only means that no system is watertight. No open society can 100% prevent killers from killing.

You asked a hypothetical question, and I followed up with one. My question asks if our security is so vulnerable and our borders are open, why hasn't Al Qaeda struck again? One thing research verifies is that Hani Hanjour in particular was not a particularly bright guy or skillful pilot.

Unfortunately, our airports and ports are not impervious to truly dedicated terrorists.



Moreover, the "entire" military was not (and is not) engaged in defense against the kind of tactic used on 9/11. Your terming the uniformed services "catastrophically inept" is hyperbole.

You're right and I should be more precise in my language. The "entire" military was not tasked with protecting and responding to such an event. However, whether inside job or not, those responsible for preventing and responding to such an attack were catastrophically inept.

The military's response to the hijackings, and simultaneous terror drills deserves its own thread. It is a misconception that defense and security agencies were not aware of, nor prepared for domestic hijackings as suicide weapons.



- The 19 Arabs held passports.

- Their piloting skills were more than adequate for their mission.

- "The most protected airspace in the known world" (is there some "unknown" world you'd like to discuss?) was, and is, primarily shielded against attacks from without, not within. The terrorist team of 9/11 did not fly over from their base in their own air force; they simply took advantage of the fact that a strength of the US (relative individual freedom of movement) is also a security weakness. Also, comandeering civilian aircraft to use as suicide weapons was no small component in the plan.**

I don't want to parse words and get into a lengthy debate on this, but the identity of the hijackers and their pilot training is very much worthy of focused discussion.



I answered this question in another form earlier: I don't know. I don't know what they're planning and what means they're using to ensure success. I also don't know in what way these extremists may have been hampered by security forces of the US or its allies.

Agreed. You posed an interesting question, and thought it was appropriate for you to answer in kind. You did, I appreciate it.



You've eaten a turkey dinner before. Why haven't you eaten one today?



*And we know that 9/11 wasn't entirely successful, given that one or maybe two aircraft did not reach their targets.

**Keep in mind, even if the four highjacked airliners flying in "most protected airspace in the known world" were shot down, the passengers and crew on board would be dead (not to mention anyone on the ground beneath the wreckage. This would still be a victory for the religious extremists under the direction of OBL.

I moved on to smoked chicken breast.

*Agreed. I made that point emphatically.

** That's a psychological point. I was stating the reality that DC and Langley can be considered the most protected air space and the improbablility of four airliners being hijacked, with one hitting the center of our defense.

[Corsair 115]

The entire system allowed four airliners to be hijacked by 19 Arabs, including four marginal pilots, to fly around for an hour and a half in the most protected airspace in the known world, into economically crucial targets, and the center of our military. 1) The hijacked flights on 9/11 were domestic flights, that is, flights taking off from one American location and flying to another. Security on such flights prior to 9/11 was much lower than on international flights (i.e. flights into or out of the U.S.). As a Canadian, before 9/11 I flew into the U.S. numerous times and the only ID that was required was a driver's license with a photo and a birth certificate - that's it. And in fact a few times I flew in with a driver's license which had no photo on it (I had moved to a new province and had not updated my license yet).

I can remember boarding flights leaving from Florida and returning to Canada where the security was quite minimal. Granted, it was a smaller airport, but nevertheless security was not the all-encompassing thing you seem to imply it was back then.

Domestic flights within the U.S. were even less scrutinized that such international flights (Canada-U.S.) flights were.

2) U.S. air defence was established in the Cold War and revolved entirely around intercepting enemy aircraft heading for U.S. airspace. Think Soviet bombers coming in to strike American cities during WWIII - that's what U.S. air defence was all about. It was NOT about intercepting hijacked aircraft INSIDE U.S. airspace.

So why hasn't Al Qaeda struck again? If it's possible to strike the Pentagon, how hard would it be to mess with water supplies, food supplies, medicines, agriculture, more hijackings, chemical and nuclear plant security breaches? There was an eight year gap between the first Al-Qaeda strike inside the U.S. and the second (WTC bombing in 1993, and 9/11 of 2001). Large-scale operations of the kind Al-Qaeda prefers are logistically difficult to organize and perform, and take a lot of time and planning.

It is perhaps fortunate for the U.S. that Al-Qaeda prefers such spectacular, large-scale assaults, because I can think of at least one way they could spread an enormous amount of fear and consume a huge amount of law enforcement resources with just a minimal expenditure of personnel and money.

Does Al Qaeda not know that the Mexican and Canadian borders are wide open?They first have to get into Canada and/or Mexico. I can't speak for Mexico and what immigration and security procedures it has, but for Canada's part we are not an open haven for terrorists and Al-Qaeda operatives, in spite of what certain misguided and misinformed Congressmen have said.