9/11 inside job: Benefit/risk analysis

[ref]

This is an analysis of the motives, given the hypothesis that 9/11 was an inside job. This is a benefit/risk analysis. Motives behind different events of the inside job are reflected against the risks of performing those events.


Why attack at all

• Pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe other nations in the future
• Getting easier access to oil and gas resources
• Adding boost to military industry
• To further the world domination plans

Notable obstacles:
- The plans have already been published in the PNAC document
- Global opposition against invading foreign nations
- Increasing hatered towards US policies increases the risk of further real attacks


WTC

Controlled demolition of the twin towers:

• Getting rid of two unprofitable giants
• Insurance fraud
• Shock value

Notable obstacles:
- Insurance companies would launch their own investigations, risk of getting caught
- Difficulty of planting demolition devices thoughout the towers, without being noticed
- Difficulty of keeping the detonations unnoticed
- Thousands of eyewitnesses on site
- Risk of a failed demolition, getting caught redhanded
- So many participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Controlled demolition of WTC 7:

• Destruction of government offices, including suspicious paperwork and computer hard drives
• Insurance fraud

Notable obstacles:
- Demolishing a building to get rid of some paperwork might be a little bit over the top, when evaluating the risk/benefit ratio
- Insurance companies would launch their own investigations, risk of getting caught
- Difficulty of planting demolition devices without being noticed
- Difficulty of keeping the detonations unnoticed
- Thousands of eyewitnesses on site
- Risk of a failed demolition, getting caught redhanded
- Risk of no pre-demolition damage to the building, thus making it very difficult to come up with a believable collapse scenario
- So many participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Pentagon

Why attack the Pentagon in the first place:

• To destruct evidence of the missing $2.3 billion
• Added shock value
• Nation's capital attacked, supposedly one of the most secure buildings on earth. Adds the feeling of vulnerability.

Notable obstacles:
- Getting rid of evidence this way might be a bit over the top
- Adds another risky event, increasing the risk of getting caught
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Why use a missile or global hawk:

• Easier to hit the low rise building with a missile or global hawk

Notable obstacles:
- Eyewitnesses. How to hit a building in the nation's capital with a missile or global hawk, and sell the story of it being a boeing instead
- Difficulty of planting all the plane debris in front of witnesses
- Difficulty of faking the DNA evidence
- Difficulty of planting the FDR and faking the data inside
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Flight 93

Why add another flight:

• Adds even more shock value

Notable obstacles:
- Adding another event increases the risk of getting caught
- Increased risk of something going wrong
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan

Why crash the plane in a remote field:

• Reducing the risk of getting caught, not too many eyewitnesses
• Getting stories of courageous passengers gives an emotinal boost

Notable obstacles:
- Planting all the evidence that supports the story
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Why fake the phone calls:

• Getting stories of courageous passengers gives an emotinal boost

Notable obstacles:
- The technology to do this in this magnitude does not exist
- The difficult task of fooling the relatives, getting to know the personal lingo of every passenger
- Adding another risky event, that seems to be quite unnecessary
- A risk of someone pointing out, that the calls could not have been possible
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


General

Why not use real passenger jets:

• It would not be rational to entrust a key component of the operation - the piloting of the jetliners - to any human pilot
• No added risk of passenger reaction to the hijackings

Notable obstacles:
- Hitting the targets
- Faking the phone calls, DNA, FDR's and other evidence
- Difficulty of planting the faked evidence
- Technological difficulties concerning the remote control of passenger jets
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Why plant all the evidence:

• Passports and bandanas strengthen the impression, that the investigators have identified the suspects correctly

Notable obstacles:
- Difficulty of planting all the evidence
- Adds unnecessary risk of getting caught
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan


Why a stand down order:

• To make sure, that the planes hit their targets

Notable obstacles:
- More participants needed. Risk of someone spilling the beans, uncovering the whole plan
- Risk of someone at FAA or military noticing something is wrong.
- Making sure that none of the recorded calls contain any evidence of a stand down


Conclusion

The risks of carrying out any of the above mentioned events far exceed the benefits gained from executing those events.

Any group planning to execute such attacks would surely perform very thorough risk analysis. And those analysis can reveal only one thing. There is no way these attacks could be carried out without getting caught. These plans would be forgotten and replaced by less risky events.

[Dave Rogers]

An interesting approach, ref. I'd query the first motive and obstacle for the demolition of the Twin Towers; it's more a refutation of an untrue assertion than a failure cost. Otherwise, a very thought-provoking analysis.

What's also interesting is looking at the other side of the coin, the cost/benefit analysis for al-Qaeda. The cost of success is the loss of nineteen operatives, the expenditure of the operational budget, and increased airline security preventing a similar operation in the future; the cost of failure is exactly the same - in effect, a zero risk scenario. Also, given that the operation is unlikely to succeed a second time, cost/benefit analysis favours multiple simultaneous attacks rather than a smaller, simpler operation with a lesser risk of detection.

Dave

[Bell]

And while they whole aviation industry is going mad on banning bringing nailclippers and soda onboard a plane, AQ is finding other loopholes in security in other places.

ETA: Not that kind of ban lol

ETATA: ?? Just as I posted this, the word banned was red had a popup telling what a ban is.

[ref]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

An interesting approach, ref. I'd query the first motive and obstacle for the demolition of the Twin Towers; it's more a refutation of an untrue assertion than a failure cost.

Dave

That was a very good point. I removed that. Thanks.

ETA: Replaced that with a profit issue.

[buka001]

Thats always been my point. Exclude phiscal eveidence for one moment and consider the logical situation and it just does not make sense, that the government would have carried out the cover up in the manner theorised by troofers.

[timhau]

What about the targets? If you'd really want to enrage Americans, wouldn't you hit something like the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the Statue of Liberty instead of the WTC towers and Pentagon? These targets weren't picked for a Middle East audience, not the U.S. one.

[The Doc]

Nice post Rev However, it should also be noted that a lot of these motives have been debunked. eg. World Trade Centers being unprofitable.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Quote:

Why attack at all
Pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe other nations in the future
Getting easier access to oil and gas resources
Adding boost to military industry
To further the world domination plans

(Bolding mine as this is the point I am addressing)

While my personal opinion of all the above cited reasons is that they are pretty much groundless, the bolded point above always strikes me as the weakest 'reason'.

Prior to 9/11, desert or Middle-East Ops were obviously not as prevalent as now. Why fabricate attacks by a Middle Eastern terrorist group so money can be spent on developing Military Industry in the area of Middle-Eastern warfighting? As far as I can see, there has been no new technology developed to facilitate this type of combat, and in the case of Iraq - which is now mainly fighting in built up areas - new technology isn't required. It's mainly the age-old scenario of soldiers patrolling the streets with much the same tools as they have always had - not much new kit is required to press this type of operation. Yes, perhaps, there have been improvements/upgrades made to existing kit, but that's about all I am aware of.

I simply cannot see how people can justify the 'Military Industry' argument.

Quote:

Getting easier access to oil and gas resources

Again, this argument has always bemused me. Has the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts made access any easier? Couldn't say, however, it certainly hasn't made oil any cheaper - which is often claimed:

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Especially if you factor in the considerable costs of implementing and sustaining war in Afghanistan & Iraq.

[ref]

Originally Posted by The Doc

Nice post Rev However, it should also be noted that a lot of these motives have been debunked. eg. World Trade Centers being unprofitable.

They sure have, yet they are still repeated as motives by truthers. Not surprising

Let me add that I listed the motives I have seen mentioned by the truth movement. These are not motives I would consider valid.

[Hans]

Additional obstacles, possible problems

Possibility of one or more teams botching the hijacking or the aircraft not taking off on time/being cancelled due to a technical fault. One of the hijack teams had been hit by a bus, no pilot and one tower loaded up for Cd and no excuse to blow it

Possibility of an aircraft missing the target or the pilot deciding that killing himself wasn't a good idea - you then have a building loaded for CD -- then what?

Bad weather or pilot confusion, a ground haze might have caused the pilots to miss their targets - then what?

Possibility of a sky marshal or other hero that disrupts plan.

Way way to many variables to be a viable plan

etc

[ref]

Originally Posted by Hans

Bad weather or pilot confusion, a ground haze might have caused the pilots to miss their targets - then what?

This is a very interesting point. The day of 9/11 was clear and bright.

I am not talking conspiracy theories now, I'm talking about the real hijackers. Would they have executed the plan that day, if the weather was really bad? It would have significantly reduced their chances of hitting the targets, if it was a thunder storm or a very bad fog..

[The Doc]

Originally Posted by ref

They sure have, yet they are still repeated as motives by truthers. Not surprising

Let me add that I listed the motives I have seen mentioned by the truth movement. These are not motives I would consider valid.

Thought so I had a feeling that's where you were coming from. Great post.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Prior to 9/11, desert or Middle-East Ops were obviously not as prevalent as now. Why fabricate attacks by a Middle Eastern terrorist group so money can be spent on developing Military Industry in the area of Middle-Eastern warfighting? As far as I can see, there has been no new technology developed to facilitate this type of combat, and in the case of Iraq - which is now mainly fighting in built up areas - new technology isn't required. It's mainly the age-old scenario of soldiers patrolling the streets with much the same tools as they have always had - not much new kit is required to press this type of operation. Yes, perhaps, there have been improvements/upgrades made to existing kit, but that's about all I am aware of.

Would you like to join the queue to try and explain that to MJD1982 when he gets back from suspension? And can you spell "propitious"?

Dave

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

In other words: For the truther fantasy to be true... 20,000 people at least would have to In On It™ and be heartless cruel bastards who can keep their mouths shut and not keep any evidence. Not to mention the whole military folks attacking their own at the Pentagon and keeping quiet about it all.

And yet no truther will wonder why saying that will get you banned at LCF?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Originally Posted by ref

This is a very interesting point. The day of 9/11 was clear and bright.

I am not talking conspiracy theories now, I'm talking about the real hijackers. Would they have executed the plan that day, if the weather was really bad? It would have significantly reduced their chances of hitting the targets, if it was a thunder storm or a very bad fog..

I'm pretty sure this would account for a lot. Weren't most, if not all their plane tickets bought the day before or on 9/11 (with cash... one way... some first class... no... not suspicious at all!)

I'm sure they checked with weather forecasts for the airports they took off from, their destinations, as well as over all flight conditions. IIRC the entire North East down to WDC was a perfectly clear day.

If there was a thunderstorm that day, it could have easily been rescheduled for 9/12 or 9/13.

[Bell]

Om not that good on remembering all the facts, but wasn't the date decided some time before the attacks? Something with two candles and a cake with a stick (11/9) or something to that extend?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Originally Posted by Bell

Om not that good on remembering all the facts, but wasn't the date decided some time before the attacks? Something with two candles and a cake with a stick (11/9) or something to that extend?

The lollypop, a slash, and 2 sticks? I remember seeing something that recently... Can't recall where.

Not to get into numerology, but I'm sure 911 may have been a choice if they did know that 911 is the number to call in an emergency... and the planners were familiar with Americans referring to dates as Month first.

Of course they could have rescheduled for 11/9 Allahweather permitting.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkeyZero

The lollypop, a slash, and 2 sticks? I remember seeing something that recently... Can't recall where.

Not to get into numerology, but I'm sure 911 may have been a choice if they did know that 911 is the number to call in an emergency... and the planners were familiar with Americans referring to dates as Month first.

Of course they could have rescheduled for 11/9 Allahweather permitting.

I don't believe the date was picked because of 9-1-1 or any other numberlogical reason. If you carry out an attack, you need a date.

BTW, wasn't it mentioned in NG's Road to 9/11?

[Sabrina]

Actually, I think it's entirely possible that they chose the date because of the symbology of "911", much like I think it's possible they chose the airlines specifically because of their names, and obviously chose the WTC and the Pentagon because of their financial and military symbology, respectively. From a radical Islamic point of view, at least from my admittedly minimal research into the motivations, we are viewed as people who value money, military might, and power over all (possibly in that order, although some might argue that power would supplant money), so the fact that we were hit in two of those three areas (and might have been hit in all three if Flight 93 had reached its target) it's fairly clear that the plotters INTENDED to hit us where they feel we place the most importance. This attack was all about the symbology.

I would also add this to the limitations as regards WTC7, by the way:
-Difficulty in ensuring that the collapse would truly destroy all the paperwork and computers supposedly slated for destruction. There is a reason we have regulations regarding the destruction of classified material, and trust me when I say controlled demolition of the building the paperwork or materials reside in is NOT among the approved methods of destruction.

[Hans]

Yeah, I once had to oversee the destruction of several TONS of top secret and secret papers dealing with the targeting of Warsaw Pact rail sites.

I can just see me (as a junior officer) having received the mission and having also received suggestions to suppliment the shred then burn cycle with straight burning to have said,

Ah Sir, I recommend we take a local German building, one about 40 stories high, load the material into a room there (inside reinforced filing cabinets and safes) then CD the building.......

[SDC]

There was a (youtube?) video featuring Noam Chomsky at a conference, perhaps in Hungary (judging from a banner which could be seen behind him). He was asked a question about his view as to whether Bush, etc., could have been behind 9/11. His reply was that that would be the height of madness. (I paraphrase.) Anyone caught doing that -- Bush, Cheney, whoever -- would be stood up against a wall and shot. He may even have used a phrase like "not worth the risk at all."

Considering NC's politics, his stated views are no comfort to conspiracy theorists, who would like to believe he is on their side. Whatever one thinks of him, he is a hot dog public intellectual (a little heavier weight than, say, Charlie Sheen). It was one of Mjd1982's more amusing conceits that he had discussed this with Chomsky and seemed confident that he could bring him 'round with just a little more effort.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The biggest benefit of them all:

Bragging Rights for those who came up with the plan at the next Bohemian Grove Luau.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Originally Posted by SDC

Considering NC's politics, his stated views are no comfort to conspiracy theorists, who would like to believe he is on their side. Whatever one thinks of him, he is a hot dog public intellectual (a little heavier weight than, say, Charlie Sheen). It was one of Mjd1982's more amusing conceits that he had discussed this with Chomsky and seemed confident that he could bring him 'round with just a little more effort.

Yeah, NC may hate the fact that America is a capitalist society and not the socialist utopia he longs for, but at least he's honest that he doesn't believe in truther "madness", even if he could use it to bolster his case against capitalism.

[negativ]

Originally Posted by Bell

I don't believe the date was picked because of 9-1-1 or any other numberlogical reason. If you carry out an attack, you need a date.

BTW, wasn't it mentioned in NG's Road to 9/11?

I seem to remember having heard/read somewhere that the date was not planned so much as the general time of year and the day of the week. Allegedly, Tuesday morning flights in early fall tend to be less likely to be fully booked, meaning potentially fewer passengers to deal with.

However, I have no idea if that's true at all, nor is my Google-fu sufficient to help me find info on flight booking statistics.

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by Bell

Om not that good on remembering all the facts, but wasn't the date decided some time before the attacks? Something with two candles and a cake with a stick (11/9) or something to that extend?

That was Atta calling Ramzi Binalshibh in Germany, late August 2001. They were talking in code just in case someone was listening, so Atta said he had a "riddle", that Binalshibh eventually realised was the date. That's the story Binalshibh told Al Jazeera in 2002, anyway (the same interview where he & Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admitted to planning the attacks).

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Actually, I think it's entirely possible that they chose the date because of the symbology of "911", much like I think it's possible they chose the airlines specifically because of their names, and obviously chose the WTC and the Pentagon because of their financial and military symbology, respectively. From a radical Islamic point of view, at least from my admittedly minimal research into the motivations, we are viewed as people who value money, military might, and power over all (possibly in that order, although some might argue that power would supplant money), so the fact that we were hit in two of those three areas (and might have been hit in all three if Flight 93 had reached its target) it's fairly clear that the plotters INTENDED to hit us where they feel we place the most importance. This attack was all about the symbology.

I would also add this to the limitations as regards WTC7, by the way:
-Difficulty in ensuring that the collapse would truly destroy all the paperwork and computers supposedly slated for destruction. There is a reason we have regulations regarding the destruction of classified material, and trust me when I say controlled demolition of the building the paperwork or materials reside in is NOT among the approved methods of destruction.

I totally agree about the choosen sites. In regards of the airlines, I never thought of it. Could indeed be intentional.

WTC7? I'm not sure many people outside New York new of its excistens, either alone or as part of the WTC. I've seen it, but only saw it as another skyscraper. Why it would be targeted as an attack (so called target for UA93, either by angry Muslims or the evil gubmint) is beyond me.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by negativ

I seem to remember having heard/read somewhere that the date was not planned so much as the general time of year and the day of the week. Allegedly, Tuesday morning flights in early fall tend to be less likely to be fully booked, meaning potentially fewer passengers to deal with.

However, I have no idea if that's true at all, nor is my Google-fu sufficient to help me find info on flight booking statistics.

Afaik the flights were indeed picked because they carried not so many passengers.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by MikeW

That was Atta calling Ramzi Binalshibh in Germany, late August 2001. They were talking in code just in case someone was listening, so Atta said he had a "riddle", that Binalshibh eventually realised was the date. That's the story Binalshibh told Al Jazeera in 2002, anyway (the same interview where he & Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admitted to planning the attacks).

I thought it was in Madrid? Anywoo, am I right in remembering Binalshibh traveled back to Afghanistan and passed the message on to Bin Laden?

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by Bell

I thought it was in Madrid? Anywoo, am I right in remembering Binalshibh traveled back to Afghanistan and passed the message on to Bin Laden?

Hmm, don't think it was Madrid. Atta & Binalshibh met in Spain in July, but the date wasn't set until late August. Binalshibh was back in Hamburg then. He left by September 5th, though, from memory, and I think he said he'd sent a message to bin Laden about the date, yes.

[Bell]

Okie, thanks!