If I Was An Evil Genius... Refuting Conspiracy Theories via Motive

R.Mackey · 21st March 2007, 12:44 PM

For almost a year now, I've shared my scientific opinions on why every known conspiracy theory surrounding September 11th is total nonsense. Today, let me depart from the tack of method, and instead consider an argument from motive.

To the untrained eye, the issue of motive is potentially equivocal between the two camps. It is immediately clear that radical Islamic terrorists, who have repeatedly issued calls to kill Americans and inflict damage upon the United States in any way possible, would have a motive in carrying out the attacks. But it is also plausible, at first glance, that a totally unrelated force would have an equally valid if different motive.

As I will demonstrate, this seeming plausibility is an illusion, caused by the indeterminacy of the hypothetical responsible party. Upon closer examination, the motive disappears completely, and we are again left with the conclusion that the only rational theory -- given the current state of the evidence -- agrees with the hypothesis of the 9/11 Commission¹.

Defining the Alternate Hypothesis

The so-called Truth Movement, consisting of those who reject the commonly accepted hypothesis, are consistently vague in describing their suspect. A few within the Movement will identify an individual or organization, for example President George W. Bush, but these few arrive at no consensus. Some figures named are entirely mythical, such as Leo Wanta, or blown out of proportion, as in the case of the Freemasons. More typically, any figure named is a "middleman," a stooge or patsy for the "real operators" who remain unidentified.

For purposes of this discussion, the precise identities of the perpetrators are not necessary. Furthermore, we need not consider the virtually unassailable results of various legitimate investigations into what happened, such as the NIST investigation² into the collapse of World Trade Center 1 and 2. Our argument is sufficiently elegant to handle the entire space of conspiracy theories, e.g. bombs in towers, fake airliners, and so on. The only relevant quantity is the defining characteristic of the party responsible, loosely defined as that of an Evil Genius. Consider:

The responsible party engineered an enormous, intricate plan
The plan was carried out to satisfy unknown, sinister, and obscure needs
The plan succeeded and escaped detection, leaving only a handful of innocuous clues
The true architects successfully planted an alternate explanation and framed Al-Qaeda for their deeds

These characteristics define the traits of a Machiavellian mastermind. We shall, therefore, consider the motivations of such a mastermind, but our speculation will go beyond the superficial.

The Problem of Genius

The Evil Genius hypothesis poses a subtle problem for the Truth Movement, which is this: The general public is unfamiliar with Evil Genius. It is difficult for an ordinary person to predict how such a character will behave, given the scarcity of opportunity to observe such an individual in action. Similarly, virtually all of the Truth Movement expects this operation to have been carefully orchestrated over many years, perhaps a part of a "master plan," and such planning therefore exceeds the resources available to practically anyone.

The natural consequence of this is for the Truth Movement to vastly underestimate the capacity of Evil Genius. While the variety of speculation seems imaginative, sadly, it is not, but rapidly falls into cliche. This is perhaps inevitable, given the ready availability of criminal mastermind cliches available to the public. It is reasonable to suppose the imagination of the Truth Movement in concocting a speculative arch-villain is no more refined than that of Hollywood script writers, who are paid to do precisely that. And just as no one should automatically assume all movie villains are realistic -- not even freed of real-world constraints, as movies are -- no one should assume the Truth Movement's villains are properly cast.

It comes as no surprise that movie villains bear little resemblance to reality, simply because complex plots are rare in real life. While there is no shortage of small, tight-knit conspiracies, most of them involve only a few people; few involve drama, confrontation, or exchange of weapons fire; and most are only concerned with money.

Assuming an Evil Genius would willingly entertain complexity and risk, with no direct path to financial gains, is folly. Such plots are the rare exception, and are therefore almost unheard of, certainly unfamiliar to the average person.

As an aside, consider the wealth of Evil Geniuses presented in the James Bond 007 movie franchise.^* The genre is replete with improbable megalomaniacs, each with a plan more intricate than the last -- so intricate, in fact, that it winds up leaving critical loopholes that allow the hero to escape, and inevitably dooms the project itself. This stereotype is so laughable that numerous parodies exist as a result, notably the recent Austin Powers series. It goes without saying that a true Evil Genius would behave quite differently.

Indeed, the most accurate Evil Genius portrayed was featured in the ultimate movie of the series, "Goldfinger." This villain was realistic in that he attempted a plot that was within his means, and indulged in only a few superfluous embellishments. It is not a coincidence that this movie contained the only workable evil plot of the entire series.^** It is also not a coincidence that its antagonist, Auric Goldfinger, was not defeated by James Bond at all, but rather brought down by a turncoat in his acceptably small operation.

*: No nasty letters, please. I am a fan, even of the Dalton movies, if grudgingly.
**: Honorable mention to Octopussy, some elements of which were small and elegant enough to be plausible, in my opinion.

In order to disprove the adequacy of the Truth Movement's proposed super-villains, all we have to do is compare them to a better one. We shall invent such a character in the following section.

Evil Genius At Large

I propose to the readership that I am at best an adequate Evil Genius, and at worst hopelessly overmatched by the supposed mastermind of September 11th.

Unlike many readers, I have had some real-life training in evil leadership, through the amateur theatrics afforded by the curious sport of scenario paintball. In this sport, players experience a live-action, real-time role-playing and combat scenario, complete with simulated military and scientific hardware, an underlying storyline and shifting allegiances, and small factions of plotters within a larger "army." See here for a production company specializing in these games, and here for a magazine writeup of such an event. I have led "the forces of evil" in such games, including the one referenced above, and I have traded numerous stories with others. This exchange of tactics, combined with testing them in a chaotic environment, naturally sharpens one's abilities.

In stating this, I do not wish to claim that my capacity for Evil Genius exceeds that of others. I only wish to stress my belief that Evil Genius is a learned ability, and to identify one such avenue in which these skills can be acquired. Fortunately, I don't have to outperform any real Evil Genius -- I only have to outperform the fake one supposed by the Truth Movement.

On the basis of my experience, I will now explain how a genuine Evil Genius would have handled September 11th, and highlight the important differences between that and the claims of the Truth Movement.

Claims, Motive, and the Mark of Genius

1. No Planes Hit The Towers³

In order to claim planes hit the Towers, without actually doing it, one has to fool literally thousands of people in New York City who would see it with their own eyes. This is simply unnecessary. An Evil Genius would use at least one of the following ploys to reduce or eliminate this risk:
Hit the Towers at night

Use less easily identified aircraft

Wait for fog or obscure the target area with smoke

Choose different high-profile targets, either with relatively hidden flightpaths, or with so many aircraft plausibly in the area as to confuse witnesses

Dive steeply onto the targets

Don't use planes at all, but shift to a simpler truck-bombing story

2. 767's Couldn't Have Destroyed The Towers⁴

This argument supposes that the Evil Genius would know this ahead of time, and would thus have to have weakened the buildings or employed a secondary attack to finish them off -- because the towers did in fact fall, eventually.

Rubbish. A true Evil Genius would simply upgrade to 747's. Why not?

3. Fires Couldn't Have Destroyed The Towers⁵

See above. It would have been simple to concoct an equally compelling story in which the Towers were finished off at once, either through a larger aircraft or a successful truck bombing, after the 1993 attempt. If there was any risk of the planned attack mode failing to achieve the desired effect, the solution is simply to escalate -- not to complicate the scheme with pre-placement, which is time-consuming, prone to discovery, more expensive, and requires more workforce and more expertise.

4. WTC 7 Collapsed, But Wasn't Hit By A Plane⁶

If WTC 7's demise was a requirement, an Evil Genius would have made certain that it withstood crippling damage rather than relying upon chance dispersal of flaming wreckage. A fifth plane would be the obvious solution. If one can hijack four, why not five?

Similarly, WTC 7 absolutely would not have contained explosives, for similar reasons to 1. and 2. above. There is no reason to plan for a two-stage attack when a single stage can do the job just as well, and without any risk of discovery.

5. Osama bin Laden Is A CIA Patsy⁷

This is the most intricate argument. Several possibilities:

Created by the Evil Genius: Too risky, too long-term. Such an infamous figure loose in the Islamic world would have been exposed. This also requires a plan of over 20 years duration, which is simply not needed.

Genuine, but Contracted by the Evil Genius: Exposes the Evil Genius to unnecessary risk. bin Laden can further his aims by revealing his connections after committing Sept. 11th. Better options exist for the Evil Genius.

Genuine, but Captured / Killed: Second best option, but in this case the Evil Genius would have performed this step prior to carrying out the operation, and it involves some risk in that the attempt could fail and be exposed. If successful, this would be indistinguishable from bin Laden going into hiding, but there would then be no need to issue a conflicting statement through the Taliban in the early days following the operation.

Genuine, Unconnected with the Operation in Any Way: Extremely risky. bin Laden and his operatives are likely to have alibis -- the "hijackers are still alive" scenario, except it wouldn't be a reporting mistake this time.

Don't Pin This on bin Laden At All: Best option. If bin Laden is real and the specter of terrorism furthers the Evil Genius's aims, let him continue with no interference or assistance. Manufacture a simpler competitor, one without the notoriety and under better control. As we have seen since with figures such as al-Zarqawi, this doesn't take very long at all.

6. The Pentagon Wasn't Hit By A Plane⁸

This is similar to the WTC argument, except the Pentagon is within line-of-site of air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport -- who can be counted on to correctly identify an aircraft -- and the Pentagon is a more resilient structure. The Evil Genius would definitely not risk exposure by using an aircraft that did not match the story.

7. Planes Were Remote Controlled⁹

No Evil Genius would enact a plan that required remote control, simply because of the technical risk involved. If for whatever reason aircraft were required but no sacrificial pilots were available, some simpler variant would be found:

At the very least, use fly-by-wire aircraft

Use aircraft with the most advanced autopilots, such as the 777

Do not choose single building targets, but rather aim aircraft at broader areas, achievable without requiring control beyond simply pointing it in the general vicinity

Bailout at low speed, perhaps over the ocean, leaving the aircraft to accelerate on its own toward the target

8. NORAD Was Stood Down¹⁰

The surest way to arouse suspicions of the military, which stands the best chance of anyone of stopping the Evil Genius, is to mess with its processes. Such a risk would be foolish in the extreme.

Rather than stand down NORAD, if interception was a risk, the Evil Genius would compensate by reducing the intercept window available even further than was done on September 11th. NORAD cannot possibly react instantaneously, no matter how sophisticated it becomes. Furthermore, apart from beating NORAD, it could also be confused with false signals, or overwhelmed with additional aircraft. Either option is superior, both in risk and effect, to that of forcing NORAD to stand idle.

9. Flight 93 Was Shot Down¹¹

It isn't clear to me what value Flight 93 being shot down or not adds to the story. Supposing it was, it isn't clear what value there is to hide this fact. If the shoot-down was part of the plan, but had to be hidden, the Evil Genius would take steps to ensure the shootdown was not observed, and wreckage not recovered. The aircraft could have been shot down over a large lake or the open ocean. The FDR and CVR would certainly have been disabled by innocuous means -- power or data lines severed in a way consistent with poor maintenance.

More likely, the shooter was not part of the conspiracy. In that case, the aircraft would have been flown as to give NORAD the maximum chance to intercept and destroy the aircraft. This was not done either.

If the aircraft was shot down to give the illusion of the "Hero Story," when in fact no such on-board heroics existed, the shoot-down is totally incongruous. The plane would simply have been crashed on purpose.

10. Flight 77 FDR Is Inconsistent¹²

I should point out that there is no evidence that it is, in fact, inconsistent. However, this is perhaps the most obvious case of underestimating the Evil Genius. Why an incorrect FDR would have been planted in the rubble, when no FDR or one too damaged for readout (like its companion, the CVR) would suffice, is totally inexplicable. Likewise, if spoofing an FDR was somehow required, the Evil Genius had resources at its disposal to spoof it correctly.

And as pointed out in 6, there is no compelling reason not to crash the Pentagon. Simplest approach is to crash a fully-functional aircraft and not adjust the FDR in any way.

11. Telephone Calls From the Planes Were Faked¹³

An Evil Genius would need no fake phone calls. The operations did not require any phone calls at all. If, for some reason, such calls were desirable, it would be a simple matter for the hijackers to order passengers to make such calls. The alternative, either using actors or electronic trickery to fake voices, is expensive and pointless, and brings a new technical element into the conspiracy. Like many other items here, anything that involves more people adds risk, and risk without reward would not be tolerated.

12. The Follow-Up Anthrax Attack Proves Government Involvement¹⁴

The anthrax attacks were clumsy and ineffective in the eyes of an Evil Genius. The lack of coordination is startling. Had this been part of the Conspiracy, there are several better uses:

Carry spores on the planes, contaminating the impact zones and making cleanup much more difficult

Mail spores to high-ranking government officials at the same time, not a week afterward

Mail spores to a broader distribution and higher profile individuals -- an out-of-date address for the National Enquirer? Are you serious?

13. The News Is All Corrupt¹⁵

If the Evil Genius has total control over the US Media, then it is uncertain if it can be challenged at all. Regardless, an Evil Genius would not rely on its control of the US Media simply for fear of contradiction by foreign media. Discrepancies of fact would not be hidden, but rather highlighted.

If the Evil Genius has control over foreign media as well, then we may assume its supremacy is assured, and no conspiracy is even warranted.

As before, the best option is to let the Media function as expected. This adds legitimacy to the operation.

14. All The Engineers In the World Are Corrupt¹⁶

This is an extension of 13. If the Evil Genius has influence over all of the world's engineers, then no conspiracy is needed. Even if it was, engineers are capable of wreaking a far more sophisticated event with lower risk. Virtually any building and any device in the world could be rigged to turn on anyone at any time, if all of us are in on it.

15. The Towers Were Destroyed By Nuclear Devices¹⁷

Similar to the Anthrax case, if the Evil Genius had control of nuclear devices, a simpler and equally effective plan would be to just detonate them. No planes, no hijackers, nothing at all would be needed. You start the countdown, dump the bomb in a garbage can, drive away, and prepare a list of your demands. That's it.

What is claimed for nuclear devices, typically, is that the conspiracy used "micro-nukes" capable of destroying only a city block and releasing no detectable radiation. No such weapons exist. Development of such weapons would be incredibly expensive, fraught with technical risk, would have to be tested -- covertly, somehow -- before use, and confer no discernable benefit.

16. Holograms Fooled Everyone¹⁸

It is difficult to gauge the seriousness of such a theory. Would this hologram fool people inside the building? How about those whom the holographic plane would have hit? Would they die from shock? Were the resulting fires holographic?

As above, development of such a technology would be frightfully expensive, even assuming it is theoretically possible. Even if a reality, one may assume that many, large, unusual emitters would have to be positioned within line of sight of the holographic projection. Construction of these facilities would be an unbelievable security risk, one that no Evil Genius would possibly contemplate, even if this option offered any benefits over using aircraft or truck bombs. It does not.

17. Beams from Space Destroyed The Towers¹⁹

As a would-be Evil Genius, I described the design constraints for a space beam here, concluding that a beam capable of destroying the Towers would require thousands of tons of orbital throw-weight, and is therefore impractical and grossly inefficient. My calculations suggest that a satellite with the ability to fry a single person or perhaps start a car on fire is technically feasible, but horrifically expensive.

The revised claim suggests that some undreamed-of physics allows total conversion of steel into energy, thus requiring a much lower beam power. If this device exists, and is in the hands of Evil Genius, then your worries are over. Such a device would be the most significant scientific advance since fire. Consider the implications:

Reconfigured into an electrical generator, this device would immediately solve the world's energy problems. There's no longer a need for "blood for oil," not now or ever.

Reconfigured into a propulsion system, the Human Race now has a genuine star drive.

Used militarily, all the Evil Genius has to do is point it at the Earth and issue demands.

Conclusions

As I have shown above by considering a wide range of Truth Movement hypotheses from the standpoint of a hypothetical actor, strictly concerned with motive, the Truth Movement has no argument that Sept. 11th was anything other than it appears. The Truth Movement consistently underestimates the capability and sophstication of their imagined adversaries. A more accurate accounting of motive leads to the conclusion that their "evidence" does not support any credible hypothesis, regardless of who the actors may be.

We may safely assume that the "New World Order," whatever form it takes, is at least as insightful as I am, and thus, if they were capable of the things the Truth Movement claims they did, they would not have done those things, but instead forged a vastly superior plan.

In other words, if a single word of the Truth Movement's claims is true, then it should be frightened indeed. The Truth Movement cannot even imagine what such individuals could accomplish, if they are correct. As a consequence, the Truth Movement stands no chance whatsoever to detect, interpret, predict, or prevent any ongoing or future conspiracy.

References

The majority of references are to Truth Movement sites, in an attempt to document that the claims I list above are actual claims made by the Truth Movement, and not mere "strawman" arguments. Others in the Truth Movement will be quick to claim that these are "disinfo," maybe even created by the Government specifically to discredit the Movement, but this, too, is moot. No Evil Genius would conduct "disinfo." Why tamper, when the lunatics of the world will create these stories for free?

1: 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/
2: NIST Report: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
3: http://www.911hoax.com/
4: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
5: http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Ap..._WTC_Fire.html
6: http://www.rense.com/general65/911m.htm
7: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/articlesosama
8: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/
9: http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/remote.html
10: http://standdown.net/
11: http://letsroll911.org/articles/flight93shotdown.html
12: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
13: http://www.911lies.org/cell_calls_91..._morphing.html
14: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/framingarabs.html
15: http://www.areawtc.com/
16: http://www.rense.com/general70/tjere.htm
17: http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm
18: http://www.orbwar.com/ufo-photos-wtc-attack-9-11.htm (Note: To be fair, the "hologram" theory has been savagely discredited by virtually all of the Truth Movement, but it still has its stalwarts.)
19: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...nergybeam.html

Disclaimer

All opinions are mine alone. All work done with my own materials and on my own time. I do not represent the JREF or any other agency. I am also not, in reality, an Evil Genius. If I was, would I show you how it should be done?

Alareth · 21st March 2007, 01:12 PM

I don't recall ever seeing the Leo Wanta stuff connected to 9/11 thoeries.

Horatius · 21st March 2007, 01:22 PM

Well, I don't know about Genius, but you're definitely Evil.

Let's hope Evil wins the day.

T.A.M. · 21st March 2007, 01:35 PM

Mackey:

As per usual a common sense, well articulated argument to a truther fallacy. Well done.

TAM

ellindsey · 21st March 2007, 01:44 PM

This has always been my biggest reason for not believing in an inside job. Not because I trust the government - I actually have no difficulty believing the Bush administration to be morally capable of killing thousands of innocents to further their goals. Not because of the physical evidence, though it does overwhelmingly support the official explanation. But because an evil government conspiracy competent enough to pull faking 9-11 off would have done a better job of it. I can think of many ways September 11 could have been tweaked to better support the Bush administration's goals, and many ways it could have been done more simply or with lower risk of the conspirators being caught.

ihaunter · 21st March 2007, 01:45 PM

[Mr. Burns]

Ex-cel-lent!

[/Mr. Burns]

Architect · 21st March 2007, 01:49 PM

SO amusing, I ain't even going to complain about this one:

Quote:

14. All The Engineers In the World Are Corrupt16

This is an extension of 13. If the Evil Genius has influence over all of the world's engineers, then no conspiracy is needed. Even if it was, engineers are capable of wreaking a far more sophisticated event with lower risk. Virtually any building and any device in the world could be rigged to turn on anyone at any time, if all of us are in on it.

Spindrift · 21st March 2007, 01:54 PM

[TRUTHER MODE]
So you're not saying it's impossible it could have happened that way?
[/TRUTHER MODE]

Remember, truthers don't choose between the probable and improbable, they choose between the probable and every other possibility no matter how remote and then some.

Brainster · 21st March 2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Alareth

I don't recall ever seeing the Leo Wanta stuff connected to 9/11 thoeries.

James B has covered the Leo Wanta/9-11 connection at SLC here and here. Sander Hicks mentions him in The Big Wedding as well.

CHF · 21st March 2007, 02:09 PM

Great post Mackey.

As you demontrated, the bottom line with the twoofers is that they believe the 9/11 conspirators pulled off a massive false flag op and decided to make things way more risky and complicated that necessary.

Why would they do this? No reason. They just did.

And of course the only people who see this are a bunch of paranoid lunatics who, were it not for 9/11, would be searching for Big Foot.

In addition to your points, a real evil genious would:

1) Blow up WTC7 at 10:30am - with the area covered in smoke and dust. Why wait until 5:20 pm when everyone has a clear view?

2) If Osama works for the CIA then make sure he's reading off the same script as you are! The President says the US was attacked because of its freedoms. So why is the CIA's Osama talking about Israel, sanctions on Iraq and US troops in Saudi Arabia?

3) Make sure the targets of the false flag op correspond with what you tell people afterwards. If 9/11 was all about US freedom and way of life then why attack clear symbols of US military and financial might? Why not attack some random residential areas or a football stadium? Hiting the WTC towers could even work (lots of potential civilian victims), but the Pentagon? C'mon.

4) Identify the hijackers as Afghan or Iraqi. If those are the countries you want to go after in respose to 9/11 then why blame the attack on Saudis living in the US legally? Fabricating some "Iraqi terrorists" would have saved that whole "WMD in Iraq" fiasco.

5) Stage lots of follow up attacks! If the goal is to justify constant war, keep the people in a state of fear and to impliment a police state then no real Evil Genious would stage 9/11 and then hit the American people with nothing for 5+ years. Car bombs in US streets, random shooting sprees, hostage crisis (like Beslan), planes blown up.... The possibilities are endless. The more scared and under seige the population is, the more likely they are to turn to the government to do whatever is needed to halt the attacks.

So why do twoofers believe the government does things in such complicated, illogical ways?

Simple: they MUST believe it! It's the only way their theories make any sense.

Brainache · 21st March 2007, 02:10 PM

I thought we were dealing with an Evil Oligarchy of "European Globalists". I imagine some kind of Evil Comittee, complete with an Evil Boardroom and someone to take Evil Minutes. Presumably they drink Evil Coffee as well.

Babbylonian · 21st March 2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Brainache

I thought we were dealing with an Evil Oligarchy of "European Globalists". I imagine some kind of Evil Comittee, complete with an Evil Boardroom and someone to take Evil Minutes. Presumably they drink Evil Coffee as well.

It's probably the Evil Non-Dairy Creamer that put them off their Evil Game, causing them to leave so many Evil Clues.

busherie · 21st March 2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

12. The Follow-Up Anthrax Attack Proves Government Involvement¹⁴

The anthrax attacks were clumsy and ineffective in the eyes of an Evil Genius. The lack of coordination is startling. Had this been part of the Conspiracy, there are several better uses:
Carry spores on the planes, contaminating the impact zones and making cleanup much more difficult

Mail spores to high-ranking government officials at the same time, not a week afterward

Mail spores to a broader distribution and higher profile individuals -- an out-of-date address for the National Enquirer? Are you serious?

R. Mackey, interesting post. The technique is original and quite efficient.

However, about the anthrax follow-up, it doesn't work. You are showing how details of the attacks are not the most efficient and therefore cannot be related to any government action.

But the goal was not to inflict max damage, through planes etc. Rather, the idea was to scare people like Daschle, and the media, in order to go on with the Patriot act for instance.

So the argument "they did to spread fear among the general population, politicians and media" still holds.

_________

Moreover, it all might be a lot simpler. Some people in the administration had plans, about IQ, other strategic goals as well. 9/11 was a chance to implement it all. They saw it was coming, they let it happen (even no using NORAD, actually doing almost nothing) and that's it. Not more complicated than it.

Is it impossible?

Busherie

Gravy · 21st March 2007, 03:48 PM

R. Mackey: nominated. Well done. I'm going to refer to this as "Mackey's WWEGD post" (What Would Evil Genius Do?).

Busherie, what's that about NORAD?

twinstead · 21st March 2007, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by busherie

R. Mackey, interesting post. The technique is original and quite efficient.

However, about the anthrax follow-up, it doesn't work. You are showing how details of the attacks are not the most efficient and therefore cannot be related to any government action.

But the goal was not to inflict max damage, through planes etc. Rather, the idea was to scare people like Daschle, and the media, in order to go on with the Patriot act for instance.

So the argument "they did to spread fear among the general population, politicians and media" still holds.

Or, it could be some kook with access to anthrax taking advantage of the 911 attacks to bring attention to his actions. You are stating what the goal was when you could never know that.

R. Mackey's analysis stands IMO; the anthrax attacks were ineffective and had no lasting additional impact on that day. In fact it is very seldom ever brought up. A devastating, wide-spread anthrax attack just a week later would have been huge.

Quote:

Is it impossible?

IMO,The question more suited to a rational and unbiased investigator is 'is it more probable than the official account?', not 'is it impossible?'

busherie · 22nd March 2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Or, it could be some kook with access to anthrax taking advantage of the 911 attacks to bring attention to his actions. You are stating what the goal was when you could never know that.

R. Mackey's analysis stands IMO; the anthrax attacks were ineffective and had no lasting additional impact on that day. In fact it is very seldom ever brought up. A devastating, wide-spread anthrax attack just a week later would have been huge.

IMO,The question more suited to a rational and unbiased investigator is 'is it more probable than the official account?', not 'is it impossible?'

Yeah you've stated it clearly:

- is the official story more probable than LIHOP? Certainly not.

- given that, for instance, the P act was ready before 9/11, given the warnings, given what they used 9/11 for, it is more probable that they knew it was coming and then used it.

Remember Rumsfeld saying 9/11 was a "blessing".

So thats fondamentally where we disagree.

The theory "oh we couldn't either predict it or stop it" is very clearly a big BS, IMHO.

PS: for the anthraxt, again, the goal was not to cause wide spread damage, but rather to cause fear in order to get the P act passed.

But It could also be that crazy guy we heard about. Could he be manipulated? Remember it was the first time any chemical attack was launched on US citizens, it you don't count the numerous exercises (where the powder was NOT anthrax).

The Doc · 22nd March 2007, 12:18 AM

Mackey,

You're work never ceases to amaze me. Very nice job!

- Doc

Coritani · 22nd March 2007, 12:38 AM

Excellent post, R.Mackey. Nominated.

gumboot · 22nd March 2007, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by busherie

(even no using NORAD, actually doing almost nothing) and that's it. Not more complicated than it.

NORAD did not do nothing. They undertook the largest single combat air patrol operation in history, they implemented a modified version of the SCATANA Plan - again, first time ever, and within 12 hours of the attack had over 300 fighter aircraft patrolling the skies above every single major US city. These combat air patrols, in reduced form, continue to be maintained to this very day as part of Operation Noble Eagle, which official commenced on September 14th, 2001.

-Gumboot

busherie · 22nd March 2007, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

NORAD did not do nothing. They undertook the largest single combat air patrol operation in history, they implemented a modified version of the SCATANA Plan - again, first time ever, and within 12 hours of the attack had over 300 fighter aircraft patrolling the skies above every single major US city. These combat air patrols, in reduced form, continue to be maintained to this very day as part of Operation Noble Eagle, which official commenced on September 14th, 2001.

-Gumboot

Sorry, i wasn't clear. I wanted to say, even if if they did not stand down NORAD, just hoping it wouldnt' work anyway.

B

Mr.D · 22nd March 2007, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by busherie

PS: for the anthraxt, again, the goal was not to cause wide spread damage, but rather to cause fear in order to get the P act passed.

What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator?

busherie · 22nd March 2007, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.D

What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator?

Getting specific people scared: daschle (dem, congress) and the media.

--> patriot act and beyond

Mr.D · 22nd March 2007, 01:34 AM

I asked,

What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator?

Originally Posted by busherie

Getting specific people scared: daschle (dem, congress) and the media.

--> patriot act and beyond

"Getting people scared" is not evidence.

Don't dodge the question.

busherie · 22nd March 2007, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.D

I asked,

What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator?

"Getting people scared" is not evidence.

Don't dodge the question.

If a 1000 FBI guys couldn't find the evidence, neither can I.

SO that makes us even then?

MG1962 · 22nd March 2007, 01:42 AM

I have to agree - great post. It's been one of my major arguements agains the whole 911 thing is human behaviour. Bad, crazy evil genius actions will repeat in a person, it can't be helped, it is the sum what they are. I am not a fan of GWB or the administration as a whole. But put simply you cant rise to those positions in a free country displaying Stalin like behaviour.

A couple of years ago we had a major politican here in Australia. On the surface he seemed like exactly what we needed. Said the right thing, made the right moves, but there was always a cloud over his past. Anyway the voters lost confidence in the final weeks and he lost the election.

His subsequent behaviour could only be described as Charles Manson wearing a tie. I dont see the Australian people being any more or less smarter than the American electorate. If GW or other elected officals were capable of engineering 911 - The people would have sensed it and followed another politcal path.

All that aside the one thing CTers have never answered for me is why? What did the American Gov hope achieve by such actions. What could they achieve, that could not be done any other way? When they answer that question, I might pay attention for 5 or 6 seconds

Mobyseven · 22nd March 2007, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by busherie

If a 1000 FBI guys couldn't find the evidence, neither can I.

SO that makes us even then?

That doesn't make you even. If you have no evidence for it, why do you believe the LIHOP hypothesis?

Mr.D · 22nd March 2007, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.D

What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator?

Originally Posted by busherie

If a 1000 FBI guys couldn't find the evidence, neither can I.

So you admit to having no evidence for the motive behind the anthrax mailings and a link to the Patriot act.

Originally Posted by busherie

PS: for the anthraxt, again, the goal was not to cause wide spread damage, but rather to cause fear in order to get the P act passed.

Are you going to retract this or at the very least restate it as conjecture?

peteweaver · 22nd March 2007, 02:29 AM

brilliant points.

ref · 22nd March 2007, 03:53 AM

Great post, Mack

Dave Rogers · 22nd March 2007, 04:46 AM

Nicely argued. The over-complexity of 9/11 conspiracy theories is one of their most obvious logical failings. This post does a great job of exposing that, with thoroughness, grace and humour.

Dave

apathoid · 22nd March 2007, 08:05 AM

Great post Mackey. We're too used to looking at the conspiracy claims strictly based on evidence, or more correctly - the lack thereof, rather than motive. If ones looks at the theories head-on, as you have done, they become even more ludicrous as no one, no matter how evil, would be stupid enough to attempt the 9/11 conspiracy as argued by the Deniers.

We know that for most Deniers, WTC7 is the smoking gun, but looking at it head-on, the demolition of that building on 9/11 made ZERO sense.

In addition to your ideas, the evil genius in me would simply make sure the building was consumed by fire(

), especially the "command center" and that should be enough to destroy whatever needed to be destroyed. But even if it was necessary to demo the building - why not just let the fire burn itself out, turning the building into a shell. Then declare the building unsafe/unusable and have the very same alleged demo team rig it for demolition without the need for all the secrecy and coverup. Evil cohort Larry Silverstein still gets to collect his insurance money and the building still gets destroyed. No need to make it a big secret plot. That would be my "Plan A" for WTC7.

"Plan B" would be to have WTC 1 fall at a slight angle, right on top of it. Saves time, money, manpower and is about 1000X safer and less conspicuous than rigging it with charges while the building was occupied and then secretly blowing it up while the world was watching.

Jennie C. · 22nd March 2007, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ellindsey

This has always been my biggest reason for not believing in an inside job. Not because I trust the government - I actually have no difficulty believing the Bush administration to be morally capable of killing thousands of innocents to further their goals. Not because of the physical evidence, though it does overwhelmingly support the official explanation. But because an evil government conspiracy competent enough to pull faking 9-11 off would have done a better job of it. I can think of many ways September 11 could have been tweaked to better support the Bush administration's goals, and many ways it could have been done more simply or with lower risk of the conspirators being caught.

Bolding is mine. What is it about the administration that make yoo have no difficulty believing that they are this despicable? Are you saying they are terrorists (defined as killing innocent people to further an agenda).

ellindsey · 22nd March 2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Jennie C.

Bolding is mine. What is it about the administration that make yoo have no difficulty believing that they are this despicable? Are you saying they are terrorists (defined as killing innocent people to further an agenda).

I guess I just don't have much belief in the innate goodness and decency of politicians. I don't believe anyone in the Bush administration has lost any sleep over the thousands of innocents dead in Iraq and other countries we've fought in. I don't think they'd lose much sleep about taking actions that killed thousands of innocent Americans, provided they thought they could get away with it. I might be completely wrong and unjustly cynical on this, of course, but my point is that the common truther claim that I don't believe our government would ever do such a thing is simply untrue.

Having a low belief in the morals of politicians actually works against believing in an inside job. If hoaxing 9-11 would serve to benefits of some members of our government, exposing that hoax would benefit many others. There are simply too many people who would stand to gain too much by revealing convincing evidence that the Bush administration was responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil, and a scheme of the scale of 9-11 would simply be to vast to keep the details completely secret for long. Believing that 9-11 was an inside job requires you to believe in a large group of people who are sufficiently selfish and amoral to kill thousands of innocents for personal gain, yet sufficiently loyal and devoted to never even consider turning their co-conspirators in or leaking information. That's simply not plausible human behavior. This applies to LIHOP scenarios as well as MIHOP ones.

Furthermore, as stated in the OP, anyone planning a false flag attack of this nature would make his plan as simple as possible, with the minimum number of elements that could reveal the scheme. If you want to fake an attack in which islamic terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into landmarks, your best bet would be to trick some actual real islamic terrorists into actually hijacking airplanes and actually flying them into buildings. Remote controlled airplanes, holograms, demolition charges, thermite, actually shooting one of the buildings with a missile, micro-nukes, star wars death beams, are all elements that contribute nothing to the goal yet needlessly complicate the scheme.

Regnad Kcin · 22nd March 2007, 10:59 AM

Genius OP of the highest, most evil kind.

In other words, very good stuff.

Golden Bear · 22nd March 2007, 03:39 PM

This is my first post here at JREF. Initially I was under the impression that the posters here were the same as posters over at SLC – nothing but ad hominems with little substantive analysis. While ad hominems are likely a fact of life here too, I was intrigued enough by this post to write a rebuttal.

To get a couple of matters out of the way at the outset: Yes, I believe 9/11 was likely an inside job perpetrated by criminal elements of the U.S. government. No, I will not marshal any evidence to support my belief, so don’t ask (or waste your breath asking, I don’t care). Most of you seem like capable people that can go look at the evidence and decide for yourselves. If you have looked and still don't believe what I believe, that’s fine with me. I’m not going to go out of my way here to try and convince you. What I will do is try and point out flaws in the reasoning and analysis of some official story defenders without attacking the posters themselves. Ad hominems are wholly unproductive in any setting.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

The Problem of Genius

The natural consequence of this is for the Truth Movement to vastly underestimate the capacity of Evil Genius.

In this well-written post, you have probably overestimated the capacity of Evil Genius. The first mistake is your use of the moniker “Genius” to describe the planner(s) of 9/11. While many people may assume that those who rise to power in this country are the best and brightest we have to offer, this simply is not the case. In reality, most people that come to power in this country get there because they have one or a combination of the following attributes: (1) born into or otherwise gain access to a large amount of money, (2) born into a family that has political connections, (3) adept at making and maintaining political connections, (4) reasonably good at public speaking [As an aside, the obvious exception would be our current leader. However, although he may not be what is thought of traditionally as a good public speaker, he generally comes across in most of his public speeches as likeable, ie. the kind of guy you would want to go have a beer with.], (5) appear reasonably likeable on the surface, (6) have a natural gift for leadership, (7) born into or otherwise gain access to a large amount of money. Yes, I know I listed money, twice, but money runs politics in this country.

Notice that nowhere is super-intelligence listed there (again, look at our current leader). Of course they need some modicum of intelligence in order to succeed politically. However, it hardly takes a “genius” to rise to positions of power in the U.S., and, I would argue, the most important considerations are money and political connections. In fact, judging your intelligence from this post alone, I would say you are probably more intelligent than many, if not most, of the people that run this country. Thus, I think you may have given too much credit to the Evil Genius which is the topic of this post.

You also failed to pay homage to the fact that Evil Genius is a real person, who conspired with real people, and people make mistakes. Some of the problems you have highlighted, even if the plan was perfect on paper, could be explained as mistakes being made by the person/people tasked with a particular aspect of the plan.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Assuming an Evil Genius would willingly entertain complexity and risk, with no direct path to financial gains, is folly.

Actually, the perpetrators would very likely have realized direct financial gains, to wit: Larry Silverstein’s collection of several billion dollars of insurance money on a very short term investment; the post-9/11 wars and related defense spending generating billions of dollars to defense contractors. Also, people who seek positions of power are not only money hungry – they are also power hungry. If 9/11 was an inside job, it gave those in power exactly what they covet – more power over the people.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

As an aside, consider the wealth of Evil Geniuses presented in the James Bond 007 movie franchise.^* The genre is replete with improbable megalomaniacs, each with a plan more intricate than the last -- so intricate, in fact, that it winds up leaving critical loopholes that allow the hero to escape, and inevitably dooms the project itself. This stereotype is so laughable that numerous parodies exist as a result, notably the recent Austin Powers series. It goes without saying that a true Evil Genius would behave quite differently.

Indeed, the most accurate Evil Genius portrayed was featured in the ultimate movie of the series, "Goldfinger." This villain was realistic in that he attempted a plot that was within his means, and indulged in only a few superfluous embellishments. It is not a coincidence that this movie contained the only workable evil plot of the entire series.^** It is also not a coincidence that its antagonist, Auric Goldfinger, was not defeated by James Bond at all, but rather brought down by a turncoat in his acceptably small operation.

*: No nasty letters, please. I am a fan, even of the Dalton movies, if grudgingly.
**: Honorable mention to Octopussy, some elements of which were small and elegant enough to be plausible, in my opinion.

Perhaps 9/11 was an example of life imitating art. The biggest loophole/smoking gun generated by the complex 9/11 plot was, obviously, WTC 7.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Evil Genius At Large

I propose to the readership that I am at best an adequate Evil Genius, and at worst hopelessly overmatched by the supposed mastermind of September 11th.

See above. You are probably more intelligent than most of those that have positions of power in this country. In my rebuttal below, I will refer to Evil Genius as Evil Genius (even I protest to the term “genius” being used – see above), but I will not give Evil Genius as much credit as you have.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Claims, Motive, and the Mark of Genius

1. No Planes Hit The Towers³

It’s very interesting and telling that you began with the ridiculous straw man “no planes” argument. I know it is great cannon fodder for official story defenders, but surely you of all people are smart enough to realize that no one with half a brain thinks that no planes hit the towers.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

2. 767's Couldn't Have Destroyed The Towers⁴

This argument supposes that the Evil Genius would know this ahead of time, and would thus have to have weakened the buildings or employed a secondary attack to finish them off -- because the towers did in fact fall, eventually.

Actually, Evil Genius probably did know that 767’s couldn’t have destroyed the towers because the construction manager stated as such in an interview prior to 9/11. In fact, I seem to remember this man stating that the towers could withstand multiple jet plane impacts (thereby negating your “secondary attack to finish them off” argument) because it would be like a pencil poking a hole in a screen door, implying that the highly redundant structure would redistribute the loads accordingly.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Rubbish. A true Evil Genius would simply upgrade to 747's. Why not?

Assuming for the sake of argument that 747’s would result in the destruction of the Towers (a point I do not concede), the destruction that would most likely occur would not be desired by the Evil Genius. If a 747 were to plow into the side of the building and cause it to collapse, the most likely mechanism for building collapse would be for the section above the impact zone to fall over, similar to the felling of a tree. This would cause far more damage than the Evil Genius desired because surrounding buildings could have been damaged far more than they already were. Many of these surrounding buildings may not have been insured against terrorism, and the owners would have come to the government looking for either monetary compensation or answers about why this happened. Obviously the owners of the uninsured damaged/destroyed buildings would have to be paid off, thereby vastly increasing the cost of the operation. Moreover, the entire falling section might have caused a catastrophic breach of the “bathtub” underneath the WTC, flooding Manhattan. Luckily for Evil Genius, ground vibrations can be more easily controlled using explosives. See www dot controlled-demolition dot com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317140323 (describing the CD of the Kingdome). Finally, there would still be a section of the building that would remain standing. This would have to be brought down using controlled demolition. Evil Genius would surely realize that the CD of the standing section would be scrutinized with respect to its effect on the surrounding area. The WTC Towers were full of asbestos, which means an explosive-driven CD may not receive approval from the city (to guard against spreading toxic dust, including asbestos, all over lower Manhattan). Therefore, Evil Genius would likely have been forced to foot the bill for taking the remaining sections apart, piece by piece, which is an extremely expensive proposition, again increasing the cost of the operation. In sum, 747s would not be preferable due to uncertainties introduced into the operation with respect to cost, success, and damage to the surrounding area.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

3. Fires Couldn't Have Destroyed The Towers⁵

See above. It would have been simple to concoct an equally compelling story in which the Towers were finished off at once, either through a larger aircraft or a successful truck bombing, after the 1993 attempt. If there was any risk of the planned attack mode failing to achieve the desired effect, the solution is simply to escalate -- not to complicate the scheme with pre-placement, which is time-consuming, prone to discovery, more expensive, and requires more workforce and more expertise.

See above. To summarize – a bigger airplane may not have done the job properly. A truck bombing, while perhaps simpler, would not have achieved the psychological effects desired by Evil Genius. If 9/11 was an inside job, Evil Genius would want the public to be scared out of their minds of the evil terrorists wanting to do us harm. The most effective way to affect people psychologically in this age of television is to have something visually spectacular for the people to witness and remember forever. Detonating a truck bomb would likely finish off the Towers very quickly, likely before anyone could catch it on camera. One could argue that Evil Genius could arrange for a film crew to happen to be in the area at the time, but they would likely only shoot it from one angle, and there wouldn’t be time between airplane impact and building collapse with the accompanying images of the standing, burning towers for people to see and remember (and symbolically adorn all kinds of remembrance paraphernalia). Another problem with the truck bomb would be the considerations listed above vis-à-vis surrounding destruction. A truck bomb taking out the base of the building would certainly cause the upper section to fall over like a tree, causing massive destruction to the surrounding buildings. Again, Evil Genius would want as much predictability to the operation as possible. Bringing the buildings straight down using CD minimizes uncertainties in the operation (at the same time recognizing the risk inherent to CD that explosives would be discovered before the operation commenced). Evil Genius could have decided that he could more accurately determine the risks of discovery prior to the operation (by controlling security in the WTC), and this outweighed the risk uncertainties regarding that would happen in the aftermath of a truck bomb attack. Predictability regarding the aftermath of the attacks would have been key to the attacks themselves.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

4. WTC 7 Collapsed, But Wasn't Hit By A Plane⁶

If WTC 7's demise was a requirement, an Evil Genius would have made certain that it withstood crippling damage rather than relying upon chance dispersal of flaming wreckage. A fifth plane would be the obvious solution. If one can hijack four, why not five?

WTC 7 is the biggest puzzle of 9/11. Neither NIST nor anyone else can credibly explain its collapse due to fire because it bears a striking resemblance to classic controlled demolition. However, at the same time it does seem like Evil Genius would have had the good sense to make it look like a natural result of the events of the day. One particularly good option would be to demo it while Manhattan was enveloped in dust and debris from the Twin Towers. Perhaps this was the actual plan but something went wrong. Maybe people were still in the building that Evil Genius didn’t count on being there. Maybe they “pulled” the trigger at the correct time but it didn’t fire for some reason (people make mistakes). Maybe it was like a nuclear missile silo scene, where one of the guys won’t turn his key because he has second thoughts about the repercussions of his actions. Any number of plausible explanations, most having to do with human error, can be put forth to explain why it wasn’t pulled at the appropriate time.

You also suggest that another plane could have been used to hit WTC 7. Perhaps Flight 93 was headed for building 7, but was shot down (see discussion below). I know the popular assumption is that 93 was headed for the Capitol. However, it was so far away when it crashed that all they had to do was turn the airplane a little to the north and it’s headed for New York. We will never know for sure, but it is a plausible scenario. Evil Genius perhaps couldn’t decide what to do about the now-explosive laden yet undamaged building 7 until it was too late and decided it still had to be brought down.

I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that the task of dismantling a building rigged with explosives which are already wired together would be far more dangerous and time consuming than actually rigging the building itself. Also, Evil Genius may realize that ground zero is going to be crawling with people and reporters for many months after the attacks, making it much more difficult to dismantle the explosives. Maybe Evil Genius (and even you) could have come up with a better option, but like I said at the beginning, I don’t give Evil Genius as much credit as you do. People can make mistakes and make wrong decisions.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

5. Osama bin Laden Is A CIA Patsy⁷

This is the most intricate argument. Several possibilities:

1. Created by the Evil Genius: Too risky, too long-term. Such an infamous figure loose in the Islamic world would have been exposed. This also requires a plan of over 20 years duration, which is simply not needed.

Wrong. This is almost the best option for Evil Genius. Bin Laden could not further his aims by revealing he is in bed with the U.S. government. His whole message is anti-US, and he could obtain more credibility in the Islamic world than taking full credit for the 9/11 attacks. If he conceded that he required help from the US government, it would be like saying “I’m not good enough to pull it off on my own.” Regardless, the absolute best option for Evil Genius is to contract bin Laden to take credit for it, then kill him. His legend and message live on, and there is no risk of him spilling the beans on Evil Genius.[*]Genuine, but Contracted by the Evil Genius: Exposes the Evil Genius to unnecessary risk. bin Laden can further his aims by revealing his connections after committing Sept. 11th. Better options exist for the Evil Genius.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

5. Don't Pin This on bin Laden At All: Best option. If bin Laden is real and the specter of terrorism furthers the Evil Genius's aims, let him continue with no interference or assistance. Manufacture a simpler competitor, one without the notoriety and under better control. As we have seen since with figures such as al-Zarqawi, this doesn't take very long at all.

This is the worst option. If bin Laden is real and the specter of terrorism, who could be a better fall guy? This is especially true if Evil Genius is reasonably comfortable with the prospect that he can kill bin Laden whenever he wants to.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

6. The Pentagon Wasn't Hit By A Plane⁸

The Pentagon may have been hit by a plane. I don’t know for sure either way, and I think it is entirely possible that a plane did hit the Pentagon. This is not essential to the question of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

7. Planes Were Remote Controlled⁹

No Evil Genius would enact a plan that required remote control, simply because of the technical risk involved. If for whatever reason aircraft were required but no sacrificial pilots were available, some simpler variant would be found:

At the very least, use fly-by-wire aircraft

Use aircraft with the most advanced autopilots, such as the 777

Do not choose single building targets, but rather aim aircraft at broader areas, achievable without requiring control beyond simply pointing it in the general vicinity

Bailout at low speed, perhaps over the ocean, leaving the aircraft to accelerate on its own toward the target

Evil Genius would almost certainly insist on having the airplanes controlled remotely. Leaving the job to a suicide pilot is extremely risky because he may have second thoughts at the last minute or be a terrible pilot. By contrast, a pilot operating the airplane by remote control isn’t going over in his head whether he is ready to die while he is trying to fly the plane into the building. I also don’t agree that the technical risk would be too great (indeed it is likely far less than the risk inherent in using an amateur suicide pilot). Any airplane operated remotely would be outfitted with the military’s most advanced remote technology, which is likely far superior to anything on the civilian 777.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

8. NORAD Was Stood Down¹⁰

The surest way to arouse suspicions of the military, which stands the best chance of anyone of stopping the Evil Genius, is to mess with its processes. Such a risk would be foolish in the extreme.

Wrong. Military people are trained to follow orders. If Evil Genius had one high level general inside NORAD capable of issuing a stand down order, it is a rather simple matter to implement this aspect of the operation. A stand down order could be plausibly explained to the general’s underlings and colleagues afterwards because multiple war games were going on at the time of the attacks. Amid the confusion, including fake radar blips being inserted onto the radar screens, the general could plausibly explain that he didn’t want to add to the confusion by ordering more airplanes into the sky. Afterwards, maybe the general is reprimanded for making the wrong decision in hind sight, but the punishment is likely a slap on the wrist because the investigative body finds that the general made the decision he in good faith thought was right at the time.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Rather than stand down NORAD, if interception was a risk, the Evil Genius would compensate by reducing the intercept window available even further than was done on September 11th. NORAD cannot possibly react instantaneously, no matter how sophisticated it becomes. Furthermore, apart from beating NORAD, it could also be confused with false signals, or overwhelmed with additional aircraft. Either option is superior, both in risk and effect, to that of forcing NORAD to stand idle.

Again, you are giving too much credit to Evil Genius, in that Evil Genius may not have been able to reduce the strike window down to a length that was acceptable enough to risk not standing down NORAD. Evil Genius would rather eliminate all risk by standing down NORAD than even accept the minute risk that NORAD could shoot down one of the airplanes. Here again, something could go wrong and one of the flights get delayed for some reason, giving NORAD an opportunity to intercept. Finally, there needed to be a window between the first and second strikes on the WTC Towers so the second strike could be caught on camera for the desired psychological effect.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

9. Flight 93 Was Shot Down¹¹

It isn't clear to me what value Flight 93 being shot down or not adds to the story. Supposing it was, it isn't clear what value there is to hide this fact. If the shoot-down was part of the plan, but had to be hidden, the Evil Genius would take steps to ensure the shootdown was not observed, and wreckage not recovered. The aircraft could have been shot down over a large lake or the open ocean. The FDR and CVR would certainly have been disabled by innocuous means -- power or data lines severed in a way consistent with poor maintenance.

More likely, the shooter was not part of the conspiracy. In that case, the aircraft would have been flown as to give NORAD the maximum chance to intercept and destroy the aircraft. This was not done either.

If the aircraft was shot down to give the illusion of the "Hero Story," when in fact no such on-board heroics existed, the shoot-down is totally incongruous. The plane would simply have been crashed on purpose.

Another option exists – the shooter was not part of the conspiracy and shot the plane down according to standard procedures or just because of his gut feeling that this plane was going to be used as a missile just like the two WTC planes. The Hero story was concocted after the fact. In any case, what happened to Flight 93 isn’t critical to the theory that 9/11 was an inside job. The destruction at the WTC complex is by far the most important.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

10. Flight 77 FDR Is Inconsistent¹²

I should point out that there is no evidence that it is, in fact, inconsistent. However, this is perhaps the most obvious case of underestimating the Evil Genius. Why an incorrect FDR would have been planted in the rubble, when no FDR or one too damaged for readout (like its companion, the CVR) would suffice, is totally inexplicable. Likewise, if spoofing an FDR was somehow required, the Evil Genius had resources at its disposal to spoof it correctly.

And as pointed out in 6, there is no compelling reason not to crash the Pentagon. Simplest approach is to crash a fully-functional aircraft and not adjust the FDR in any way.

As I said, it’s entirely possible that an airplane did crash into the Pentagon, and that the FDR is genuine. However, if an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon, and this story was made up, an FDR would actually be pretty good proof for most people than an airplane did crash into the Pentagon. Also, you are again giving too much credit to Evil Genius, and those helping him. Not only would the person faking the FDR need to have the requisite skill to do it, that person must also be trusted by Evil Genius as a person that would go along with the cover up. In other words, Evil Genius may not have been able to get the best person for the fake job because the best faker (or even a really good faker) may not have gone along with the cover up. Regardless, the Pentagon is an open question, and again the WTC is far more important.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

11. Telephone Calls From the Planes Were Faked¹³

This is another strawman. Whether the calls were faked or not has no bearing on whether 9/11 could have been an inside job. Again, the destruction at the WTC is more important.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

12. The Follow-Up Anthrax Attack Proves Government Involvement¹⁴

The anthrax attacks were clumsy and ineffective in the eyes of an Evil Genius. The lack of coordination is startling. Had this been part of the Conspiracy, there are several better uses:

Carry spores on the planes, contaminating the impact zones and making cleanup much more difficult

Mail spores to high-ranking government officials at the same time, not a week afterward

Mail spores to a broader distribution and higher profile individuals -- an out-of-date address for the National Enquirer? Are you serious?

As others have pointed out, the anthrax attacks were intended by Evil Genius to intimidate key congressmen and members of the press into not investigating 9/11 for fear of their life. Carrying spores on the planes would not help Evil Genius because a quick cleanup operation and destruction of evidence was one key to success. The spores were mailed a week after 9/11 to prevent investigation of the events the previous week. You are again giving too much credit to Evil Genius – so he didn’t mail spores to the people you would have mailed them to. Big deal. Also, mailing spores to the out of date address for National Enquirer could have been a misdirection move by Evil Genius to make it look like it wasn’t a direct attack on those that could investigate 9/11.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

13. The News Is All Corrupt¹⁵

First, there has been some limited mainstream U.S. and foreign media coverage of the open questions regarding 9/11. However, the question of why it hasn’t gotten more attention in the mainstream media is admittedly a puzzling question. Maybe some journalists may not want to damage the economy or U.S. stature in the world by exposing 9/11. This is a legitimate concern because, if it became generally accepted that 9/11 was an inside job, there may be dire consequences to the U.S. economy and U.S. stature in the world, and there would certainly be a Constitutional crisis. These journalists may not want to put our country through that pain. Others may not be willing to believe our government would do something so evil (many in the general public also fall into this category). Still others may not be intelligent enough to look at all of the evidence and come to the correct conclusion. Some fear being labeled a “kook” and/or losing their job. Finally, there have been several scandals involving journalists being paid to report certain things. We have no reason to believe there is not more of this going on that we don’t know about. If Evil Genius has the resources to pull off 9/11, he probably also has the resources to pay off and/or intimidate key editors and journalists to maintain the cover-up.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

14. All The Engineers In the World Are Corrupt¹⁶

This is based on false logic. The fact that a large number of engineers haven’t been openly critical of the official story is not evidence that they all in fact support the official story. The same reasons above regarding journalists apply to engineers as well. The NIST scientists are also heavily reliant on government contracts to make money. Many structural engineers also rely on the government for building approvals, etc. It would be very bad for business to go around accusing the government of being in on 9/11 because it would be extremely likely that the next big building project that came in would not be approved based on such criticism alone.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

15. The Towers Were Destroyed By Nuclear Devices¹⁷

16. Holograms Fooled Everyone¹⁸

17. Beams from Space Destroyed The Towers¹⁹

These are obvious strawmen. As with no planes, surely you are smart enough to know that no one really believes any of this.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Conclusions

In other words, if a single word of the Truth Movement's claims is true, then it should be frightened indeed. The Truth Movement cannot even imagine what such individuals could accomplish, if they are correct. As a consequence, the Truth Movement stands no chance whatsoever to detect, interpret, predict, or prevent any ongoing or future conspiracy.

I readily admit that, assuming 9/11 was an inside job, the Truth Movement is probably fighting a losing battle. You are absolutely correct that the Evil Genius has such vast resources at his disposal, that it will extremely difficult, if not impossible, to expose the conspiracy. However, I think most that believe 9/11 was an inside job are doing what they think is right, and hoping for the best.

T.A.M. · 22nd March 2007, 04:04 PM

Welcome Golden Bear. I am sure Mackey will be by to have a discussion with you on this.

TAM

OPECOILER · 22nd March 2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

This is based on false logic. The fact that a large number of engineers haven’t been openly critical of the official story is not evidence that they all in fact support the official story. The same reasons above regarding journalists apply to engineers as well. The NIST scientists are also heavily reliant on government contracts to make money. Many structural engineers also rely on the government for building approvals, etc. It would be very bad for business to go around accusing the government of being in on 9/11 because it would be extremely likely that the next big building project that came in would not be approved based on such criticism alone.

Ah, but what about the engineers who don't live in the US? Huh?

Gravy · 22nd March 2007, 04:06 PM

Hi, Golden Bear.
I don't have time to respond to your whole post, but I just wanted to mention something that caught my eye: your contention that Larry Silverstein made a direct personal financial gain of billions of dollars from the destruction of the towers.

That is false. Silverstein's contracts required him to rebuild, he had to pay off his WTC 7 debt, he still owed $12 million every month in rent, lawsuits with insurance companies cost him over $100 million, and to this day he has not been paid all the insurance money he's due. Remember, lenders in deals like this require that the borrower be insured for any anticipated losses. Insurance wasn't optional for Silverstein, and in fact he wanted to insure the complex for far less, but his lenders wouldn't allow that. He was over $300 million in the hole going into construction of the new WTC 7, which had to be made up with Freedom Bonds. The Port Authority and Silverstein properties have had to borrow to proceed with construction on the rest of the complex.

Here is some information from my paper "WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement"

Quote:

What about an insurance motive? Professional conspiracist and radio host Alex "New World Order” Jones claims that Silverstein walked away with a profit of $500 million after building 7’s insurer, Industrial Risk Insurers, paid its $861 million policy!

This shouldn’t need to be said, but the fact that IRI didn’t dispute the $861 million claim should make it perfectly clear that Silverstein didn’t “admit” to destroying his building.

And lest you think that IRI’s management somehow benefited by turning a blind eye to Silverstein’s “crime,” consider that IRI did contest Silverstein’s lawsuit over his Twin Towers insurance claim.

No. Insurance companies have a funny way of making sure that insured parties don’t destroy their sky-scrapers, collect the claims, and drive into the sunset with a truckload of cash. A clause in Silverstein’s WTC 7 policy required him to begin rebuilding within two years, and lenders required that the new building have as much square footage as the old (and they complained mightily when the plans came up short in that department). The cost of the new building? Over $700 million.

Hey, that still leaves Silverstein with a tidy profit of around $161 million, right?

No. There was the small matter of the existing $489.4 million mortgage, which Silverstein paid off with the insurance settlement, leaving him with a shortfall of $328 million heading towards construction of the new building.

The City of New York, desperate to see rebuilding begin downtown, saved Silverstein a bundle in financing costs by offering over $400 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, which the Bank of New York guaranteed.

That move gave Silverstein and his backers the freedom to do something unheard of in recent New York real estate history: start construction of a skyscraper without a major (or minor) tenant on board. And when the building opened in 2006? Still no major tenants. In May, WTC 7 finally got its first possible major tenant when Moody’s Investor’s Service signed a nonbinding letter of intent to occupy 15 floors. More recently, other sizable tenants have signed on.

Sources: “Even as Construction Begins, a New Trade Center Tower Faces Obstacles” New York Times, January 16, 2003. “7 World Trade Center Gets a Major Tenant” Official World Trade Center Site The Building Everyone Will Date But No One Will Marry

So there goes that motive.

Here is some more information about WTC insurance issues. I hope it will be helpful. Yes, you will be asked to provide evidence to back your claims. That will take some work on your part. You will not get accurate information from 9/11 conspiracy websites.

Quote:

WTC Claims Dispute, $7.1 Billion at Stake
Silverstein Jury's Decision Favors the Insurers
Silverstein, PA sue for WTC insurance billions
Silverstein May Use Insurance Money to Pay Bondholders
August 2006: Five insurers still withholding payment from Silverstein
WTC Swiss RE insurance appeal Oct 2006
JREF: LashL WTC Insurance breakdown

Con Ed and Insurers Sue Port Authority Over 7 World Trade ($ NYT Sept 11, 2002)
The Con Ed suit, Mr. Green said, ''is being brought now in order to protect their legal right to sue the Port Authority within the one-year period allowed by law.''

Silverstein Sending Tower Data to U.S. Agency (NIST / Weidlinger / Insurers. $ NYT Oct 1, 2002)
Expert Report Disputes U.S. On Collapse (Weidlinger study refutes FEMA. Collapse inevitable due to structural damage and fires, not to WTC design defects. NYT Oct 22, 2002)

An Agreement Is Formalized on Rebuilding at Ground Zero ($ NYT Sept 22, 2006)
There is also outstanding litigation with insurers over the $4.6 billion in insurance proceeds at ground zero. The money, including $973 million for the Freedom Tower, is needed for construction. So far, the insurers have paid only about $2.2 billion, and $1.6 billion has been spent.

From "A Hole in the City's Heart" ($ NYT Sept 11, 2006)
"In May 2004, after a 52-day trial involving some of his many insurers, Mr. Silverstein lost his first effort to claim that the two planes represented two attacks and required double payments. At the end of 2004, however, after a separate 35-day trial, he won the right to collect double payments from another set of insurers. He had spent about $100 million paying lawyers to fight this particular fight, which critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should have been used for rebuilding. But in his mind, that $100 million produced an additional $1.1 billion for rebuilding ground zero, which was worth it.

The insurers had portrayed Mr. Silverstein as -- ''What the hell phrase did they use?'' Mr. Silverstein said. ''Not greedy. Not overreaching. Begins with an 'r' '' -- rapacious in his scheme to recover as much insurance money as possible. But in an indication that his legal position was not that exotic, the Port Authority, after Mr. Silverstein won the second case, quietly filed its own lawsuit seeking a double payout on its own insurance policy.

...When Mr. Silverstein applied for $3.35 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to help finance the Freedom Tower and his other buildings on the site, Mr. Bloomberg found a lever. The city and the state each control half those bonds, and the mayor said that he would not agree to the city's half unless Mr. Silverstein made certain concessions.

Mr. Silverstein needed the Liberty Bonds because insurance proceeds, which amounted to about $4.6 billion, would not nearly cover the expected costs of the five towers.

Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority together had spent more than $1.5 billion of the insurance money already, including more than $500 million for Mr. Silverstein's rent to the Port Authority; about $190 million for the Port Authority to buy out Westfield America's retail rights; and more than $700 million to repay Mr. Silverstein's lender, GMAC, and to repay Mr. Silverstein and his partners most of their equity."

World Trade Center developers sue British insurer
March 8, 2007 (Reuters) - The developers of the World Trade Center, including Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have sued British insurer Royal & Sun Alliance and its U.S. spinoff for up to $1 billion in unpaid claims and damages from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The suit was filed on Feb. 23 in New York State Supreme Court, before Britain's second-largest commercial insurer sold off its U.S. unit to Arrowpoint Capital Corp. The sale to Arrowpoint, which was set up by the unit's management, was approved on Feb. 20 by the Delaware insurance commissioner -- over Silverstein's objections.

Silverstein and the other plaintiffs claimed in their suit that Arrowpoint would not be able to meet its obligations to pay off Silverstein's claims against Royal & Sun. They claim those damages total $255.6 million, of which only $5.6 million has been paid.

Silverstein and the Port Authority also seek punitive damages of $750 million. Royal & Sun could not be reached for comment immediately. On Thursday, Royal & Sun posted an operating profit of $1.5 billion (780 million pounds), beating analyst estimates. Underwriting results rose 18 percent. Royal & Sun, along with other insurers, has been tangled in litigation with Silverstein for years.

In October, Silverstein won a battle when a U.S. appeals court ordered some of the insurers, including Royal & Sun, to pay an additional $1.1 billion to the developer because there were two separate attacks, not just one. Royal & Sun, along with Allianz Insurance Company, is still disputing these payments because of an agreement that Silverstein has with the Port Authority.

Silverstein leased the World Trade Center complex from the Port Authority just two months before the attacks. "More than five years after 9/11, it is time for Royal & Sun to stop its posturing and pay what it owes," said Bud Perrone, a spokesman for Silverstein.

See also Insurance Journal National News Stories September, 2001

Gravy · 22nd March 2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by OPECOILER

Ah, but what about the engineers who don't live in the US? Huh?

And how about a single structural engineer in the world submitting a dissenting paper to an engineering or fire protection journal? It's 2007, fer cryin' out loud. What are you conspiracists waiting for?

ETA: howdy, OPECOILER. (Thanks TAM)

T.A.M. · 22nd March 2007, 04:13 PM

Welcome OPECOILER.

TAM

21st March 2007, 01:12 PM	#2
Alareth Expert Expertologist Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 6,676	I don't recall ever seeing the Leo Wanta stuff connected to 9/11 thoeries.
	__________________ Pixelated Reality \| Alareth Does Art! Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak

21st March 2007, 01:22 PM	#3
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	Well, I don't know about Genius, but you're definitely Evil. Let's hope Evil wins the day.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

21st March 2007, 01:44 PM	#5
ellindsey Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 216	This has always been my biggest reason for not believing in an inside job. Not because I trust the government - I actually have no difficulty believing the Bush administration to be morally capable of killing thousands of innocents to further their goals. Not because of the physical evidence, though it does overwhelmingly support the official explanation. But because an evil government conspiracy competent enough to pull faking 9-11 off would have done a better job of it. I can think of many ways September 11 could have been tweaked to better support the Bush administration's goals, and many ways it could have been done more simply or with lower risk of the conspirators being caught.
ellindsey Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 216

21st March 2007, 01:45 PM	#6
ihaunter Undead Skeptic Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Middle of nowhere, Iowa Posts: 375	[Mr. Burns] Ex-cel-lent! [/Mr. Burns]
	__________________ "Omne ignotum pro magnifico" (Everything unknown passes for something splendid) - Publius Cornelius Tacitus "No two humans are created equal. They're like snowflakes with a 250° C combustion temperature." Freefall comic

21st March 2007, 01:49 PM	#7
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,478	SO amusing, I ain't even going to complain about this one: Quote: 14. All The Engineers In the World Are Corrupt16 This is an extension of 13. If the Evil Genius has influence over all of the world's engineers, then no conspiracy is needed. Even if it was, engineers are capable of wreaking a far more sophisticated event with lower risk. Virtually any building and any device in the world could be rigged to turn on anyone at any time, if all of us are in on it.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

21st March 2007, 01:35 PM	#4
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Mackey: As per usual a common sense, well articulated argument to a truther fallacy. Well done. TAM

21st March 2007, 01:54 PM	#8
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,449	[TRUTHER MODE] So you're not saying it's impossible it could have happened that way? [/TRUTHER MODE] Remember, truthers don't choose between the probable and improbable, they choose between the probable and every other possibility no matter how remote and then some.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

21st March 2007, 01:59 PM	#9
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	Originally Posted by Alareth I don't recall ever seeing the Leo Wanta stuff connected to 9/11 thoeries. James B has covered the Leo Wanta/9-11 connection at SLC here and here. Sander Hicks mentions him in The Big Wedding as well.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

21st March 2007, 02:09 PM	#10
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Great post Mackey. As you demontrated, the bottom line with the twoofers is that they believe the 9/11 conspirators pulled off a massive false flag op and decided to make things way more risky and complicated that necessary. Why would they do this? No reason. They just did. And of course the only people who see this are a bunch of paranoid lunatics who, were it not for 9/11, would be searching for Big Foot. In addition to your points, a real evil genious would: 1) Blow up WTC7 at 10:30am - with the area covered in smoke and dust. Why wait until 5:20 pm when everyone has a clear view? 2) If Osama works for the CIA then make sure he's reading off the same script as you are! The President says the US was attacked because of its freedoms. So why is the CIA's Osama talking about Israel, sanctions on Iraq and US troops in Saudi Arabia? 3) Make sure the targets of the false flag op correspond with what you tell people afterwards. If 9/11 was all about US freedom and way of life then why attack clear symbols of US military and financial might? Why not attack some random residential areas or a football stadium? Hiting the WTC towers could even work (lots of potential civilian victims), but the Pentagon? C'mon. 4) Identify the hijackers as Afghan or Iraqi. If those are the countries you want to go after in respose to 9/11 then why blame the attack on Saudis living in the US legally? Fabricating some "Iraqi terrorists" would have saved that whole "WMD in Iraq" fiasco. 5) Stage lots of follow up attacks! If the goal is to justify constant war, keep the people in a state of fear and to impliment a police state then no real Evil Genious would stage 9/11 and then hit the American people with nothing for 5+ years. Car bombs in US streets, random shooting sprees, hostage crisis (like Beslan), planes blown up.... The possibilities are endless. The more scared and under seige the population is, the more likely they are to turn to the government to do whatever is needed to halt the attacks. So why do twoofers believe the government does things in such complicated, illogical ways? Simple: they MUST believe it! It's the only way their theories make any sense.

21st March 2007, 02:10 PM	#11
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	I thought we were dealing with an Evil Oligarchy of "European Globalists". I imagine some kind of Evil Comittee, complete with an Evil Boardroom and someone to take Evil Minutes. Presumably they drink Evil Coffee as well.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

21st March 2007, 02:31 PM	#12
Babbylonian Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lake Oswego, OR Posts: 4,470	Originally Posted by Brainache I thought we were dealing with an Evil Oligarchy of "European Globalists". I imagine some kind of Evil Comittee, complete with an Evil Boardroom and someone to take Evil Minutes. Presumably they drink Evil Coffee as well. It's probably the Evil Non-Dairy Creamer that put them off their Evil Game, causing them to leave so many Evil Clues.
	__________________ Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

21st March 2007, 02:47 PM	#13
busherie Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 247	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 12. The Follow-Up Anthrax Attack Proves Government Involvement¹⁴ The anthrax attacks were clumsy and ineffective in the eyes of an Evil Genius. The lack of coordination is startling. Had this been part of the Conspiracy, there are several better uses: Carry spores on the planes, contaminating the impact zones and making cleanup much more difficult Mail spores to high-ranking government officials at the same time, not a week afterward Mail spores to a broader distribution and higher profile individuals -- an out-of-date address for the National Enquirer? Are you serious? R. Mackey, interesting post. The technique is original and quite efficient. However, about the anthrax follow-up, it doesn't work. You are showing how details of the attacks are not the most efficient and therefore cannot be related to any government action. But the goal was not to inflict max damage, through planes etc. Rather, the idea was to scare people like Daschle, and the media, in order to go on with the Patriot act for instance. So the argument "they did to spread fear among the general population, politicians and media" still holds. _________ Moreover, it all might be a lot simpler. Some people in the administration had plans, about IQ, other strategic goals as well. 9/11 was a chance to implement it all. They saw it was coming, they let it happen (even no using NORAD, actually doing almost nothing) and that's it. Not more complicated than it. Is it impossible? Busherie

21st March 2007, 03:48 PM	#14
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	R. Mackey: nominated. Well done. I'm going to refer to this as "Mackey's WWEGD post" (What Would Evil Genius Do?). Busherie, what's that about NORAD?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

21st March 2007, 04:06 PM	#15
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,575	Originally Posted by busherie R. Mackey, interesting post. The technique is original and quite efficient. However, about the anthrax follow-up, it doesn't work. You are showing how details of the attacks are not the most efficient and therefore cannot be related to any government action. But the goal was not to inflict max damage, through planes etc. Rather, the idea was to scare people like Daschle, and the media, in order to go on with the Patriot act for instance. So the argument "they did to spread fear among the general population, politicians and media" still holds. Or, it could be some kook with access to anthrax taking advantage of the 911 attacks to bring attention to his actions. You are stating what the goal was when you could never know that. R. Mackey's analysis stands IMO; the anthrax attacks were ineffective and had no lasting additional impact on that day. In fact it is very seldom ever brought up. A devastating, wide-spread anthrax attack just a week later would have been huge. Quote: Is it impossible? IMO,The question more suited to a rational and unbiased investigator is 'is it more probable than the official account?', not 'is it impossible?'

22nd March 2007, 12:05 AM	#16
busherie Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 247	Originally Posted by twinstead Or, it could be some kook with access to anthrax taking advantage of the 911 attacks to bring attention to his actions. You are stating what the goal was when you could never know that. R. Mackey's analysis stands IMO; the anthrax attacks were ineffective and had no lasting additional impact on that day. In fact it is very seldom ever brought up. A devastating, wide-spread anthrax attack just a week later would have been huge. IMO,The question more suited to a rational and unbiased investigator is 'is it more probable than the official account?', not 'is it impossible?' Yeah you've stated it clearly: - is the official story more probable than LIHOP? Certainly not. - given that, for instance, the P act was ready before 9/11, given the warnings, given what they used 9/11 for, it is more probable that they knew it was coming and then used it. Remember Rumsfeld saying 9/11 was a "blessing". So thats fondamentally where we disagree. The theory "oh we couldn't either predict it or stop it" is very clearly a big BS, IMHO. PS: for the anthraxt, again, the goal was not to cause wide spread damage, but rather to cause fear in order to get the P act passed. But It could also be that crazy guy we heard about. Could he be manipulated? Remember it was the first time any chemical attack was launched on US citizens, it you don't count the numerous exercises (where the powder was NOT anthrax).

22nd March 2007, 12:18 AM	#17
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Mackey, You're work never ceases to amaze me. Very nice job! - Doc
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

22nd March 2007, 12:38 AM	#18
Coritani Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 319	Excellent post, R.Mackey. Nominated.
	__________________ The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. - Winston Churchill

22nd March 2007, 12:46 AM	#19
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,124	Originally Posted by busherie (even no using NORAD, actually doing almost nothing) and that's it. Not more complicated than it. NORAD did not do nothing. They undertook the largest single combat air patrol operation in history, they implemented a modified version of the SCATANA Plan - again, first time ever, and within 12 hours of the attack had over 300 fighter aircraft patrolling the skies above every single major US city. These combat air patrols, in reduced form, continue to be maintained to this very day as part of Operation Noble Eagle, which official commenced on September 14th, 2001. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

22nd March 2007, 01:14 AM	#20
busherie Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 247	Originally Posted by gumboot NORAD did not do nothing. They undertook the largest single combat air patrol operation in history, they implemented a modified version of the SCATANA Plan - again, first time ever, and within 12 hours of the attack had over 300 fighter aircraft patrolling the skies above every single major US city. These combat air patrols, in reduced form, continue to be maintained to this very day as part of Operation Noble Eagle, which official commenced on September 14th, 2001. -Gumboot Sorry, i wasn't clear. I wanted to say, even if if they did not stand down NORAD, just hoping it wouldnt' work anyway. B

22nd March 2007, 01:18 AM	#21
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: NWO Paradise Posts: 1,178	Originally Posted by busherie PS: for the anthraxt, again, the goal was not to cause wide spread damage, but rather to cause fear in order to get the P act passed. What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator?

22nd March 2007, 01:23 AM	#22
busherie Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 247	Originally Posted by Mr.D What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator? Getting specific people scared: daschle (dem, congress) and the media. --> patriot act and beyond

22nd March 2007, 01:34 AM	#23
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: NWO Paradise Posts: 1,178	I asked, What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator? Originally Posted by busherie Getting specific people scared: daschle (dem, congress) and the media. --> patriot act and beyond "Getting people scared" is not evidence. Don't dodge the question.

22nd March 2007, 01:42 AM	#24
busherie Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 247	Originally Posted by Mr.D I asked, What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator? "Getting people scared" is not evidence. Don't dodge the question. If a 1000 FBI guys couldn't find the evidence, neither can I. SO that makes us even then?

22nd March 2007, 01:42 AM	#25
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	I have to agree - great post. It's been one of my major arguements agains the whole 911 thing is human behaviour. Bad, crazy evil genius actions will repeat in a person, it can't be helped, it is the sum what they are. I am not a fan of GWB or the administration as a whole. But put simply you cant rise to those positions in a free country displaying Stalin like behaviour. A couple of years ago we had a major politican here in Australia. On the surface he seemed like exactly what we needed. Said the right thing, made the right moves, but there was always a cloud over his past. Anyway the voters lost confidence in the final weeks and he lost the election. His subsequent behaviour could only be described as Charles Manson wearing a tie. I dont see the Australian people being any more or less smarter than the American electorate. If GW or other elected officals were capable of engineering 911 - The people would have sensed it and followed another politcal path. All that aside the one thing CTers have never answered for me is why? What did the American Gov hope achieve by such actions. What could they achieve, that could not be done any other way? When they answer that question, I might pay attention for 5 or 6 seconds

22nd March 2007, 01:48 AM	#26
Mobyseven President of Covert-Ops Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Not the Rat. Posts: 5,672	Originally Posted by busherie If a 1000 FBI guys couldn't find the evidence, neither can I. SO that makes us even then? That doesn't make you even. If you have no evidence for it, why do you believe the LIHOP hypothesis?
	__________________ "[Mobyseven is] a fantastically friendly, open, curious, happy, charming, sweet and adorable young man! And those are his bad points." - HistoryGal on Mobyseven "Damn, you're good." - Ichneumonwasp on Mobyseven

22nd March 2007, 01:57 AM	#27
Mr.D Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: NWO Paradise Posts: 1,178	Originally Posted by Mr.D What is your evidence for the motive of the perpetrator? Originally Posted by busherie If a 1000 FBI guys couldn't find the evidence, neither can I. So you admit to having no evidence for the motive behind the anthrax mailings and a link to the Patriot act. Originally Posted by busherie PS: for the anthraxt, again, the goal was not to cause wide spread damage, but rather to cause fear in order to get the P act passed. Are you going to retract this or at the very least restate it as conjecture?

22nd March 2007, 02:29 AM	#28
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,005	brilliant points.

22nd March 2007, 03:53 AM	#29
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Great post, Mack
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

22nd March 2007, 04:46 AM	#30
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Nicely argued. The over-complexity of 9/11 conspiracy theories is one of their most obvious logical failings. This post does a great job of exposing that, with thoroughness, grace and humour. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

22nd March 2007, 08:05 AM	#31
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	Great post Mackey. We're too used to looking at the conspiracy claims strictly based on evidence, or more correctly - the lack thereof, rather than motive. If ones looks at the theories head-on, as you have done, they become even more ludicrous as no one, no matter how evil, would be stupid enough to attempt the 9/11 conspiracy as argued by the Deniers. We know that for most Deniers, WTC7 is the smoking gun, but looking at it head-on, the demolition of that building on 9/11 made ZERO sense. In addition to your ideas, the evil genius in me would simply make sure the building was consumed by fire(), especially the "command center" and that should be enough to destroy whatever needed to be destroyed. But even if it was necessary to demo the building - why not just let the fire burn itself out, turning the building into a shell. Then declare the building unsafe/unusable and have the very same alleged demo team rig it for demolition without the need for all the secrecy and coverup. Evil cohort Larry Silverstein still gets to collect his insurance money and the building still gets destroyed. No need to make it a big secret plot. That would be my "Plan A" for WTC7. "Plan B" would be to have WTC 1 fall at a slight angle, right on top of it. Saves time, money, manpower and is about 1000X safer and less conspicuous than rigging it with charges while the building was occupied and then secretly blowing it up while the world was watching.
	__________________ Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken

22nd March 2007, 08:27 AM	#32
Jennie C. Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Columbus OH Posts: 245	Originally Posted by ellindsey This has always been my biggest reason for not believing in an inside job. Not because I trust the government - I actually have no difficulty believing the Bush administration to be morally capable of killing thousands of innocents to further their goals. Not because of the physical evidence, though it does overwhelmingly support the official explanation. But because an evil government conspiracy competent enough to pull faking 9-11 off would have done a better job of it. I can think of many ways September 11 could have been tweaked to better support the Bush administration's goals, and many ways it could have been done more simply or with lower risk of the conspirators being caught. Bolding is mine. What is it about the administration that make yoo have no difficulty believing that they are this despicable? Are you saying they are terrorists (defined as killing innocent people to further an agenda).
	__________________ May I suggest you stop trying to prove rigorously the bumble-bee cannot fly; instead, seek out the direct evidence. --jsfisher Spelling lesson: ad nauseam; ad infinitum; noun form of "lose" = "losing," not "loosing"; you are = you're

22nd March 2007, 10:26 AM	#33
ellindsey Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 216	Originally Posted by Jennie C. Bolding is mine. What is it about the administration that make yoo have no difficulty believing that they are this despicable? Are you saying they are terrorists (defined as killing innocent people to further an agenda). I guess I just don't have much belief in the innate goodness and decency of politicians. I don't believe anyone in the Bush administration has lost any sleep over the thousands of innocents dead in Iraq and other countries we've fought in. I don't think they'd lose much sleep about taking actions that killed thousands of innocent Americans, provided they thought they could get away with it. I might be completely wrong and unjustly cynical on this, of course, but my point is that the common truther claim that I don't believe our government would ever do such a thing is simply untrue. Having a low belief in the morals of politicians actually works against believing in an inside job. If hoaxing 9-11 would serve to benefits of some members of our government, exposing that hoax would benefit many others. There are simply too many people who would stand to gain too much by revealing convincing evidence that the Bush administration was responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil, and a scheme of the scale of 9-11 would simply be to vast to keep the details completely secret for long. Believing that 9-11 was an inside job requires you to believe in a large group of people who are sufficiently selfish and amoral to kill thousands of innocents for personal gain, yet sufficiently loyal and devoted to never even consider turning their co-conspirators in or leaking information. That's simply not plausible human behavior. This applies to LIHOP scenarios as well as MIHOP ones. Furthermore, as stated in the OP, anyone planning a false flag attack of this nature would make his plan as simple as possible, with the minimum number of elements that could reveal the scheme. If you want to fake an attack in which islamic terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into landmarks, your best bet would be to trick some actual real islamic terrorists into actually hijacking airplanes and actually flying them into buildings. Remote controlled airplanes, holograms, demolition charges, thermite, actually shooting one of the buildings with a missile, micro-nukes, star wars death beams, are all elements that contribute nothing to the goal yet needlessly complicate the scheme.
ellindsey Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 216

22nd March 2007, 10:59 AM	#34
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,213	Genius OP of the highest, most evil kind. In other words, very good stuff.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

22nd March 2007, 04:04 PM	#36
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Welcome Golden Bear. I am sure Mackey will be by to have a discussion with you on this. TAM

22nd March 2007, 04:06 PM	#37
OPECOILER New Blood Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24	Quote: This is based on false logic. The fact that a large number of engineers haven’t been openly critical of the official story is not evidence that they all in fact support the official story. The same reasons above regarding journalists apply to engineers as well. The NIST scientists are also heavily reliant on government contracts to make money. Many structural engineers also rely on the government for building approvals, etc. It would be very bad for business to go around accusing the government of being in on 9/11 because it would be extremely likely that the next big building project that came in would not be approved based on such criticism alone. Ah, but what about the engineers who don't live in the US? Huh?
OPECOILER New Blood Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24