We're really not that bright...

I've been reading ATS for a while now, trying to understand the various 9/11 centered conspiracies, reading the different arguments and cross-arguments. People arguing engineering points, who have no engineering background, etc. Name calling. People who desperately need to believe in conspiracys for some reason, and feel threatened when anyone disagrees with them and respond like rabid dogs about to have their bone stolen. I have worked within the U.S. government in several capacities for about 25 years now (including military intelligence), and have seen several common qualities amongst government workers that make most of the conspiracy theories...impractical.

1st) Anyone who works for the government quickly learns that sticking your neck out NEVER pays off. Somehow or other, your career is over unless you have orders to do so, or unless it's in your job description. Even if someone had managed to buck the system and stir up enough notice to stop 9/11 before it started, their career would have been over. The people they embarrassed would have seen to that. Potential bosses would have been afraid of being embarrased by someone "not a team player." Their job evaluation reports would mysteriously have been reduced to a series of "unsatisfactory." Kiss any good job in the private sector good-bye. Maybe as a commentator on CNN or FoxNews, but they don't get paid that much!

2nd)People talk. Any conspiracy, as large as the supposed one to initiate 9/11 would have gotten SOMEONE talking. Think of Watergate. Think of all the CIA plots that were exposed because someone chatted to their girlfriend, or got drunk and did so in a bar. You can't keep ALL the people quiet ALL the time. Sooner or later, someone talks.

3rd)Rogues are not tolerated well in ANY beauracracy. Read a histopry of Desert Storm. It's documented that the original opening to the war included Delta Force in humvees and other small vehicles, making carefully co-ordinated attacks on the Iraqi readar stations, but was vetoed by Schwartzkopf, because he worried about being able to control them, thus the helicopter raid was hatched.. He distrusted and hated Special Forces, and had only learned to tolerate thir presence by the end of the war.

4th)...and this one is really about the Universe. Physics is strange. Buildings fall down when hit by airliners. And just as a reference point, look up New York times' of the construction period, and you can see the architects referring to being able to withstand the IMPACT of a 707 (which it did), but no mention is made of fuel explosion or extreme heat. I'm not sure what THAT means, but it's at least worth considering! And things that seemingly make no sense happen in this universe; that's why geeks who can handle the math to predict and explain them are so sought-after and well-paid.

Okay, let the target-practice commence.

the US and other militaries and gov't are just pieces on the big chess board !!!
Don't let beaurocratic inefficiencies comfort you......

2nd)People talk. Any conspiracy, as large as the supposed one to initiate 9/11 would have gotten SOMEONE talking. Think of Watergate. Think of all the CIA plots that were exposed because someone chatted to their girlfriend, or got drunk and did so in a bar. You can't keep ALL the people quiet ALL the time. Sooner or later, someone talks.

This fact alone is why I find it hard to believe their is a major cover up. I do believe the government had some prior knowledge to this event and failed to act upon it, but its tough to believe it went any deeper.

The thought of the government permitting the hijackings, etc is something that would involve alot of bodies. Alot of people with running consciouses that would keep them up at night. People who would require some sort of closure & find themself searching for forgiveness.

Ahem, with your #1 point, are you saying that even if clear information was available before the attacks (which it may have been I do not know), employees of the government of the United States of America would have hesitated to bring this out into the open for fear of their jobs?? That is an OUTRAGE. No, not the fact that they were hesitant to bring it out; rather, the fact that they were hesitant in the first place. The U.S. govt. is one of - if not the - most influential bodies on this planet. It is supremely powerful, has all manner of capable employees, and has been sworn to protect the citizens of America; but yet these stupid power-plays are still happening within it, unchecked and allowing massive mistakes like this to happen. It is IMMATURE, to say the least.

I honestly do not know if there was a conspiracy behind it all, but there is a lot of evidence for and a lot of evidence against. The lack of leaks is obviously one of the stronger -against points, but even that can be countered in a number of ways. I'm sure we will all find out one day.

But I don't think anyone but engineers should go into the structural debate. It is just too easy to post the wrong information, and get other people even more confused or give them and yourself a false viewpoint.

btw, it's good to see we've got former government types on board, able to give us a taste of what experience is!

edit: bad typing




[edit on 22/5/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

Some have talked...

www.wanttoknow.info...
www.prisonplanet.com...

I guess you weren't listening?

What's with all these 1st posts claiming they know it wasn't an inside job lately?
Another troubleshoota?

[edit on 22/5/2006 by ANOK]

Even though I see your post as really more of ranting than a significant contribution, this caught my eye:

Originally posted by The Observer
1st) Anyone who works for the government quickly learns that sticking your neck out NEVER pays off.

Goes both ways doesn't it?

Seems like this would inhibit people from talking, even though people have talked:

FBI agent Robert Wright (UPI Article: FBI agent: I was stymied in terror probe), CIA analyst David MacMichael, retired Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, WTC civilian medic Indira Singh, William Rodriguez and three of his WTC co-workers, and others.

Those are just some of the public that have gone public with their stories, and actually been covered by the media.

4th)...and this one is really about the Universe. Physics is strange.

Conviced me.

Originally posted by chissler
I do believe the government had some prior knowledge to this event and failed to act upon it, but its tough to believe it went any deeper.

When you say government, do you mean the administration of and including the President, do you mean the law enforcement agencies, specifically FBI, or do you mean isolated, scattered people in government service had isolated, scattered pieces of information which, if collated, would have screamed TERRORIST ATTACK IMMINENT?

Personally, I believe the latter and that basically September 11 was carried out successfully because beauraucracy did what beauraucracy does best, get in the way of understanding or taking action.

Yes, there are plenty of people talking, all the time. But it's only after the fact that we're able to separate the wheat from the chaff. At any given moment, several dozen major conspiracies are in the works and we all know what they are. But we never know exactly which ones will come to fruition until they do.

Add to that the purposeful disinformation factor, and it's not that we are overly paranoid, it's just that the victors write history. The only way to tell if a conspiracy "didn't exist" is if the people in control were successful at keeping it relatively secret.

Why else don't we get to see the official JFK assassination documents for a hundred years? "To protect the Kennedy family?" Sure.

Oh, the NSA is listening and recording your phone calls. What a ridiculous notion, right?



[edit on 22-5-2006 by Enkidu]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by chissler
I do believe the government had some prior knowledge to this event and failed to act upon it, but its tough to believe it went any deeper.

When you say government, do you mean the administration of and including the President, do you mean the law enforcement agencies, specifically FBI, or do you mean isolated, scattered people in government service had isolated, scattered pieces of information which, if collated, would have screamed TERRORIST ATTACK IMMINENT?

Personally, I believe the latter and that basically September 11 was carried out successfully because beauraucracy did what beauraucracy does best, get in the way of understanding or taking action.

I believe it goes right to the top of the ladder. It is common fact that warnings were passed to Bush himself screaming imminent strike on American soil, probable plane hijackings, etc. He failed to act. Does this mean he was involved? Hardly, although it is gasoline on the fire for conspiracists.

It does indicate that they were asleep at the wheel however.

As I've said before I am a fence sitter, teeder toddering back and forth trying to decide where to come down.

First, to Watch The Rocks: I agree, it's an outrage. But what I think happened is that people who saw pieces of the puzzle were discouraged either directly or by experience from speaking out. Very short version: at one institution I had been a campus police officer, and was now working as an inspector of new building projects. A snafu happened, and crowds of visitors were going to be leaving a hotel, walking across the driveway to the construction site (where semis full of concrete were going back and forth constantly) to waiting busses. I jumped in got things changed, and moved the waiting busses to in front of the hotel, and directed traffic for moment to allow the busses to get across without incident. I received a reprimand for doing this, as it was no longer my job. I told my superviser that I had only moment to do this, no time to call for help, and I probably saved some injury. My supervisers reply was that if I had gotten hurt, it would have been his fault for not supervising me well enough, but if patrons had gotten hurt it would have been the fault of the woman who had scheduled the pick-up. And I then received another reprimand for insubordination. Everyone who has worked for any government agency has at least one story like this. And I mean EVERY agency! The thing to keep in mind with civil service is that once you're full time, it is difficult to fire you; if you are so bad that you have to be removed from an area, promotion is usually the only option! Another quick story: a few years ago two mail carriers in PA were arrested for dealing heroin. A year later, having been tried, convicted, and serving terms, they were still on Postal Payroll because they hadn't been convicted of dealing while on Postal time! The Postmaster was furious because she couldn't hire replacements, as her quota of full-time employees was full as long as they were on the payroll...

To the links by Anok, I say thank you, but these are not people PART of the conspiracy, just looking in with special knowledge, seeing one. I'm saying someone PART of the conspiracy would have talked!

To bbsray11: All the first link you provided did was prove my point about the immobility of government service. People like what they got, and he more they have, the more they'll sacrifice to keep it; providing someone else does the sacrifice.

As to the others, I have to say they gave me something to think about. But still, if it was other then the arab terrorists (and I never said it wasn't), I still don't believe our government (and by government I mean from the President on down) was responsible. I just don't see it as being capable of pulling it off.

Finally, to paraphrase Shakepeare, "tis not the king who has the power, but the king maker." The president makes his decisions based upon the briefings and information he is given. Who controls those controls what he does. And before you reflexively say Cheney, study how the intelligence community is arranged. I think it's someone else...

Originally posted by ANOK
Some have talked...

www.wanttoknow.info...
www.prisonplanet.com...

I guess you weren't listening?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see neither of these people have come out with secret information. They both came to this conclusion by looking at the evidence available to the public.

I think what the posters before meant was that it would be impossilbe to do without someone INVOLVED in the plot blabbing.

Originally posted by CaptainLazy

Originally posted by ANOK
Some have talked...

www.wanttoknow.info...
www.prisonplanet.com...

I guess you weren't listening?

I think what the posters before meant was that it would be impossilbe to do without someone INVOLVED in the plot blabbing.

Why would someone involved in a crime as big as 9/11, just decide to start blabbing his/her mouth? They want to go to jail as fast as possible? The payoff wasn't as big as they thought? Oh, I know, they had a change of heart! That's really heart warming and sweet, but I'm sure you can go to any state and find that there are thousands upon thousands of unsolved murders.

Also to consider; The Manhattan Project and the Stealth Fighter Project. These were hardly the topics of conversations over brunch at the time. They were hugely secretive. People sign confidentiality agreements where they will be imprisoned or worse if they speak. Given the MSM's cherry picking of news, the recent treatment of reporters and "leaks" lately, and the treatment of other whistle blowers that have come forward regarding 9/11's (see Sibel Edmonds) I would have to say this isn't the greatest environment to come forward and risk it all. After all, if the MSM decideds not to run with your story, then you're pretty screwed, as any other source will be dubbed "fringe".

So in closing it's not a good argument for dismissing a small group of well placed individuals for the following reasons;
The assumption that it had to be many, many people thereby increasing the chances of loose lips. That's just speculation.
The assumption that someone would brag, talk, or come forward with this information if they were directly involved. I find this laughable.

More later....

Originally posted by The Observer
People who desperately need to believe in conspiracys for some reason, and feel threatened when anyone disagrees with them and respond like rabid dogs about to have their bone stolen. I have worked within the U.S. government in several capacities for about 25 years now (including military intelligence), and have seen several common qualities amongst government workers that make most of the conspiracy theories...impractical.


Okay, let the target-practice commence.

Perhaps they are impractical, but before we are able come to that conclusion, we have to examine all of the evidence. Sure, for many, enough conclusions from examining the evidence presented in conspiracy theories can develop into beliefs. But where do these conspiracy theories, like those derived from 9/11, come from? As I understand it, disbelief in the official story could be a likely cause for this.

If I made the claim that I was the proud owner of a pet pterodactyl, would you believe me? Would you trust my "Paz Approved: Official Report" without looking at the evidence? If the answer is no, then there is no "bone" of which to speak.

You have a majority that believes what is told and a smaller group that will decide to believe what reason says is true. No conclusions can be made at this point. If the evidence available points in a direction other than what the "official report" says, then certain conclusions are eventually made from the findings. Until the conclusions can be made, there is nothing onto which someone can cling. This "bone" was basically shoved in the mouths of these "rabid dogs."

It was surely a pleasure reading your article. I am definitely going to enjoy your next posts.

Thanks,
Paz

[edit on 24-5-2006 by pazlenchantinrocks]

Posted by derdy:
So in closing it's not a good argument for dismissing a small group of well placed individuals for the following reasons;
The assumption that it had to be many, many people thereby increasing the chances of loose lips. That's just speculation.
The assumption that someone would brag, talk, or come forward with this information if they were directly involved. I find this laughable.
*****
First, I never dismissed a small group of well-placed people; but that would make it more of a coup then a government plot. The view of the government plot was what I was trying to scoff at.

Second, read histories of the cold war...well, really, of any war. But 20th century wars in particular. Women have been some of the greatest intelligence gatherers (think Mata Hari). During the cold war, the CIA hired prostitutes to sleep with Soviet Generals and then recorded the conversations. Men, especially old men, will say ANYTHING if it will impress a young woman. Yes, this includes lies, but apparently the CIA got a great deal of valid information this way. So did the French underground, using the same tactics. And frankly, what the Nazi's would then do to the leakers would make any modern treatment pale in comparison. Yet it happened. How many crooks have been caught because they bragged to their girlfriends, the girlfriends then got nervous, and went to the police? Men do stupid, even...laughable things for sex!

And to pazlenchantinrocks: You sound like a fairly rational, thinking individual. I was referring, and I know you must had read them on this site, to the people who cling to notions that are...tainted by facts that they stubbornley refuse to acknowledge in a similar manner to the catholic church stubbornly clinging to the ptolomeic system even after Galileo could show them evidence otherwise. And you talk about "no conclusions can be made." I slightly disagree with this; you should perhaps say "No valid conclusions SHOULD be made." Yet they are, on a daily basis. People tend to believe what makes them most comfortable fastest. Just watch the news.

You seem like a person interested in truth, so to you, I leave you with my clan motto: Veritas Vincit.


[edit on 24-5-2006 by The Observer]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
When you say government, do you mean the administration of and including the President, do you mean the law enforcement agencies, specifically FBI, or do you mean isolated, scattered people in government service had isolated, scattered pieces of information which, if collated, would have screamed TERRORIST ATTACK IMMINENT?

Personally, I believe the latter and that basically September 11 was carried out successfully because beauraucracy did what beauraucracy does best, get in the way of understanding or taking action.

Couldn't have said it better. You hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately, people are going to believe whatever they want to believe and 100% correct statements like this are always lost. Mainly because people want so bad for there to be a conspiricy.

Originally posted by chissler
I believe it goes right to the top of the ladder. It is common fact that warnings were passed to Bush himself screaming imminent strike on American soil, probable plane hijackings, etc. He failed to act. Does this mean he was involved? Hardly, although it is gasoline on the fire for conspiracists.

It does indicate that they were asleep at the wheel however.

So what do you think should have been done pre 9/11?
Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's easy now to say what needed to be done, but place yourself in the Presidents shoes for a sec. There were two spikes in chatter. The first came in late spring when the attacks were first supposed to be carried out, then again in late summer when they actually were. You're the president, only a few months into office (your cabinet isn't even complete yet). The intel agencies are saying they're hearing that a terrorist attack may be imminent (they're not sure where - overseas like the USS Cole? Here at home like the millenium plot?) and they don't know when. What do you do?

(ps - why would the agencies warn and be warned from international agencies of a terrorist attack if it was all the government?)

Here are some more "officials" who don't buy the official story...

4 Star General Wesley Clark(ALLOWED)
Chief Clinton prosecutor David Chippers(ALLOWED)
Former Bush Dubya chief Economist Morgan Reynolds(INSIDE JOB)
Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts(INSIDE JOB)
Former Head of Regan Advanced Space Programs Robert Bowman(INSIDE JOB)
FBI top translator Sibel Edmonds(ALLOWED)
Top FBI agent John Oneil(who died in the WTC towers)(ALLOWED)
Top CIA analyst Ray Mcgovern(INSIDE JOB)
Marine Corps Intel founder Robert David Steele(ALLOWED)
Republican house rep Curt Weldon(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Democratic house rep Dennis Kucinich(ALLOWED)
Democratic house rep Cynthia Mckinney(INSIDE JOB)
U.S. Senator Mark Dayton(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
US senator Max Cleeland(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Investigative journalist Greg Palast(ALLOWED)
Assistant Secretary of Housing For Pres. Bush, Catherine Austin Fitts(COVERUP)
Bob Dole's chief of staff and veteran layer Stanley Hilton(ALLOWED)
FBI Chicago-based special agent Robert Wright(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Col. Donn de Grand-Pre (INSIDE JOB)
Former German defense minister Andreas von Bülow(INSIDE JOB)
Former Blair UK minister of enviroment Michael Meacher(INSIDE JOB)
FBI agent Coleen Rowley(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
FBI agent Harry Samit(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Naval Officer Lt. Delmart Edward Vreeland(PRIOR KNOWLEDGE)

No link, you'll have to check them yourself if you don't believe...



[edit on 24/5/2006 by ANOK]

Okay Anok, these are bright, connected people who don't by the official story. But what does that prove? Anok, you are STILL not getting my point. What I am saying is that the government does two things well: Get in it's own way, and cover it's ass when things go wrong. So far, nothing you have shown is anything that could just as easily be taken to be demonstration of one of those two things. Could a small group of the most crucial cogs in the intelligence community have done it by themselves, using the governments beauracratic inefficiency? Possibly. I don't think so, but possibly. I have seen all of the evidence that has been shown to be "proof" that it was a government conspiracy, and I have seen NOTHING that cannot be explained as either beauracratic incompetancy, C.Y.A time on a massive scale, inter-departamental rivalry, or the previously mentioned (by me) tendancy of the government to be unable to fire someone, so they can get promoted to put them someplace where they won't annoy people anymore ("I'll reccomend him to be a superviser over in section 'B,' so I won't have to deal with him anymore.") And thus you get real boobs running things. I mean. look at the last elections. Yes, I know, you hate Bush. But is anyone else in the federal system really any better? Some talk a better game, but has anyone actually DONE anything that improves how this country behaves? No. Crowd-pleasing legislature is proposed when the proposers know full well that no one except a few reporters will pay attention, so they say "I tried, don't blame me!" And nothing is changed, except they get re-elected.

There are many all across the country whom, I think, find it more comfortable to believe that our government is at least efficient and capable at conspiracys; at least they're doing something well then. An evil something, but at least doing it well! Instead, I think, you'll find that our government actually runs about as well as the old Soviet system. The single saving grace of our system is the private sector, and private contractors hired by the government to do work no one on the government payroll is capable of doing (because very one who IS is now on a private sector payroll as a private contractor, making five times what the were getting paid by the government).

In summation, all the people capable of doing something on the scale of 9/11 are making gobs of money in the private sector, without any risk! What wold such people gain by 9/11? That perhaps is the question we need to answer. WHY would a conspiracy attract the brainpower necessary when that brainpower is living a comfortable life in the private secor?

.
When they want a big job done, they outsource.

As in the torture industry. Victims are flown to Europe and elsewhere. Keeps the blood from staining the carpets in the Whitehouse.

When they want an insured, white elephant landmark-edifice removed and want to combine it with the scheduled invasion of Iraq -- they outsource. Mossad most probably won the contract --- as usual. The murder of 3,500 innocent Americans was predicted collateral damage, right on target. They probably got a bonus for that.

'Don't tell me when it's gonna happen', smirks the unelected leader, 'That way I can look genuinely stunned for the media'. And so he was, sitting down there on a child-size chair in the school room. All his warmongering buddies were ever so coincidentally absent from the scene too, remember?

The fallen towers blazed and melted for weeks below street level -- yet they managed to retrieve the 'evil-doers' passports from the street. Obviously they were printed on fire-proof paper and were equipped with beepers for ease of discovery.

Guess we'll have to generously pretend to forget the bombs planted in the towers. We'll pretend to forget the copious damning evidence (but will the victims and their families?)

What's the split these days, between those eager to believe the BS and those who've vowed never to forget?

Maybe things will be clearer in fifty years. After all, the truth about Pearl Harbour took a while to come out. Time sure takes the edge off things. In the meantime, they keep handing us other wars, to take our minds off the past.

Yeah, you're right: we're not very bright. We keep falling for it, time and time again.

There is probably very few people who know the full story of 9-11. The gov is partmentalised so no one really knows the big picture of what they are doing. 'Need to know' keeps the plans out of the hands of those who can't be trusted.

I'd guess a lot of ppl were paid off pretty handsomely (Silverstein) and others have had gag orders placed on them.

Ppl in high government don't talk to the rabble, the peasants. They don't think the way we do. They see the deaths of 9-11 as collateral damage. They see a bigger picture, that to them is more important than a few civilians, who would have died anyway from something.

Think about it, to get to an extremely high level in government, to have the finances and power they have you can't have morals. You can't think of them as normal Americans like you and me, they are high on power and continualy need to increase their fix.

They send people to fight in wars, how many have died in Iraq so far? So why would they care about killing a few civilians?

I think we can agree our government is pretty much controlled by powerful corporations, corporations whose products kill far more people every year than what 9-11 did.

9-11 was a shock cause of the way it happened and how quickly 3,000 ppl died, but how many die from cigarettes, guns, war, pollution, cars etc...

Point is it's not beyond a few powerful men with long term agendas we don't fully understand, to sacrifice a few people to push that agenda.

If you were in on the plan to begin with and you were part of the agenda it helped why would you talk now? You wouldn't last a day before some accident befell you.

People like Rumsfeld and Cheney have been working in the background of government for yrs pushing the agenda, Rumsfeld was one of the main instigators of the cold war with Russia in the 80's.

BTW when I say government I don't mean the clerks and other lower level ppl, I mean those who really run things, who make the decisions.

Minor disagreements with some of what Anok said, but nothing important right now. A question we need to ask, though, is why people aren't caring at all about inconsistancies in the government stories? I think I known and I blame the media. I've had periods in my life where I've had 6 or 7 hour workdays, and a short commute, and no family. I have time to read the net, find out the truth, or at least what some people believe is the truth, at least enough for me to think about. Then I've had times with wife, kids, and (seriously now!) 18 months or more of 80 hour work weeks, with a 45 minute commute tacked onto each end of the (6 days a week) workweek. Sadly, in america, the last is closer to the norm. In that stretch, all I got was radio news in the car during the commute.

Many of you despise Bush, Cheney, and the like. You probably hate the greatest President we've had this century (Ronald Reagan). That's okay, that's your right. Most of the media does too, and as a whole choose stories based upon will it hurt/help Bush's plans? Now, commentators are free to do this, I believe but reporters shouldn't be. They report only the bad he does, none of the good. They don't report ANYTHING 9/11 related, I believe, because they fear americans will get too riled up and start to get behind Bush unconditionally as they did soon after the attacks. A reporters job should be presenting facts and truth, all of it, not just what they want people to hear. I think that is the problem.

This is my last post in this thread, I think, because I think any further on my part will be useless. No one is listening to me unless I'm saying what they want to believe already.

I'll see you all elsewhere...