A few questions for the conspiracy theorists

infinityoreilly:
Thanks yo.


HAS2B:

Originally posted by Has2b
How could so many that would be involved be organised and to pull it all off, and yet no definitive inside whistleblower?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read the last 5-6 paragraphs in the first post, which answers your question without even having to explain the mechanisms like moles and black ops types. If you'd like insight into those latter concepts check out Webster Tarpley on google video.

1. There had to be a large team to plant explosives(whatever sort), and considerable time to do so!

There didn't have to be bombs in the towers or hardly anything mentioned in loose change for there to be an actual conspiracy. All they had to do was allow it, and that view is like giving them the benefit of the doubt.

2. Were there looney Arabs flying the planes?

Tarpley explains it best, especially them being "loony". His well put thesis is they were patsies, and patsies always seem to be mentally unstable and deranged. If they were all "loony" is up for debate.

It really doesnt matter if they were loony tho, or patsies, because all the establishment had to do was allow 911 to happen for it to be high treason worthy of public execution on Live TV. Look into PNAC and you'll find all the motives you need.

if so how were they coordinated without any DoD knowing or whistleblowing

www.google.com...

An important thing to remember is that when one says "the CIA", or "DOD", or "the government" it doesnt mean the entire organization behnd the wheel (the CIA alone has well over 10,000 employees), it references insiders in the organizations. If someone doesnt mean that when they use the broad name of the organization in question then they might not understand what they're talking about. However, the title of whatever organization is warranted as it's still their guys responsible (for whatever). It seems not enough Americans use an important part of the oath of citizenship as one of their primary directives:

"that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

If remote control why didn't someone see the control awak?

I've seen mentionings of AWAKS, maybe it was in "Pandoras Black Box". Dont quote me on that tho. I havent checked into it yet. I dont think they mentioned it in reference to the WTC event but in detailing the defences available during the event.

Were some of the arabs tricked into believing it was an real act of terror?

It really was an act of terror, obviously, but even more directly all acts of terror are psycological in nature (PSYOPS). Assuming the it-was-only-Usama-and-hes-not-a-CIA-asset, it was actually less of an act of terror (PSYOP) than if elements of our establishment were behind it.

One of my main thesis in explaining the nature of American Imperialism backed international terrorism is that most terrorist groups throughout the world are used as tools of the American Establishment. This goes whether they realize it or not, or even if our establishment isn't directly behind whatever group in any way. Terrorists destablize any region they exist in, and this menas scared leaderships that will want to buy US weapons and even want US bases on their soil. Ideally, these groups will naturally rise up in opposition to the leaderships our establishment supports.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

3. If planes were diverted to any airbase ANYWHERE why has not someone whistleblown on that?

Planes were diverted well outta the way. Watch virtually any made-for-TV 911 'official version' show to confirm that, or read the 911 Commission Report (or watch the hearings).

To answer your question, everytime you see it mentioned you hear reasons/copouts/excuses about this or that to justify it. As far as military people goes, they're all literally brainwashed in bootcamp. I cant stress this fact enough. A vast score of said brainwashing is in obediance and adherence to the 'chain of command' (submission to authority); it's about following rules and not questioning the reasons or motives or leaders. While this is necessary for an effective military, it can have a dark side when corrupt leaders are at the helm (look up Nazi Germany and the trials of the Nazi leaders). In light of your question, I'm not sayting that these human beings are robots, but this is a critical factor in assessing the attitudes of military personnel and reasonings behind how things like this can get 'explained" and go unquestioned afterwards.

Just trying to get a feel for how many needed to be involved and had opportunity to be aware of critical evidence that there was inside complicity.

That's cool, just dont forget that all they had to do was allow it to happen for high treason to have occured. Dont sweat the little details too much beyond that. Much of whatever details we dont know would be nice to know, regardless of how the entire event really went down, but much isn't needed and most is probably disinfo (cmon, everything about 911 can be debated forever).

[edit on 20-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by GwionX

Originally posted by BPI
Why does it takes thousands of people if the government were to do it, but it only takes 21 people if terrorists do it? (19 hijackers, Khalid Sheik Mohammad & Osama Bin Laden)

Because the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a helluva lot more complicated than the Al Queda conspiracy. Occam's Razor and all that.

How To Plan A Vast Conspiracy
By IIB

1] Analyze the world of debate long enough to realize that "Skeptics" will dismiss anything that is vast by using Occams Razor.

2 Design the conspiracy so that Occams Razor would rule it your grand conspiracy scheme by default.

3] After the event flood the infostream with disinfo to make the entire thing vastly confusing and extremely debatable. In short, mass diversion.

4] Get your jolly's on by watching the entire "scene" that grows up around the controversy go bonkers in misinfo and misdirection.

The End.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Thank you for your reply , appeciated!

I'm an Aussie Friday and heading for the pub!

Will digest response (later) and get back to you.

First quick look cool flowchart??... but ... later!

Don't get me wrong the question is NOT whether there was conspiracy or what might be deemed treason... BEYOND that!...

it's about nailing the alternatives of how..... the movement will not progress or discussion become "sharp" until a complete as possible rational senario of "how, why, who" (usually reserved for the naysayers but appropriate IMO)

The "why" is obvious
The who follows the "How"

Anyway will post tommorrow my time

thanks again... OH I read the 250,000 point thread today, sensational, congrats to all, dunno what "points" means yet but you all deserve it!

Dangit! Screwed up #2 above. This is what is should have said:

2] Design the conspiracy so that Occams Razor would rule OUT your grand conspiracy scheme by default.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
2] Design the conspiracy so that Occams Razor would rule OUT your grand conspiracy scheme by default.

It sounds like you're saying that black ops people intentionally plan absurdly complicated and unnecessary operations simply so they can say "Are you nuts, I would never be silly enough to try that!"

A theory claiming that things were specifically engineered to be complicated to rule out Occam's Razor...goes against Occam's razor.

Here are two things that I consider to be FACT. I would be interested to hear your reasoning as to why they are not:

1)
A covert planning team will always choose the most simple path to achieving the goal set before them.

2)
The "benefits" of 9/11 (i.e., excuse to go to war, extended federal power, destroyed documents in WTC7) could have been achieved through much simpler means.

Originally posted by Essedarius
1)
A covert planning team will always choose the most simple path to achieving the goal set before them.

So you state this as "FACT". Where is your proof that all planners absolutely live by this theorized standard?

In the "last 5-6 paragraphs" of the thread I've linked in twice, the idea that "conspiracies" must be simple and involve only a small handful of people is completely destroyed. Do you need more examples? I've been trying to follow Occam's Razor here: and keep it simple for streamlined effect.

2)
The "benefits" of 9/11 (i.e., excuse to go to war, extended federal power, destroyed documents in WTC7) could have been achieved through much simpler means.

Who said those are the only reasons/benefits they would perform or allow 9/11 to happen? Check out False Dichotomy:
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not guilty of this fallacy as I've provided a vastly expanded explaination of what 9/11 was for beyond mere invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan and securing more control here in the States.

It's about total global domnination through militaristic / technological means... A.I. = American Imperialism meets Artificial Intelligence. 9/11 is what's been distracting everyone from their total technological domination goals, and what I'm talking about here is not (I repeat: is not) a theory. Step into my world:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's soon to be yours as long as everyone keeps squabbling over Occams Razor pipedreams and the bitter details of 911 in a world engineered by disinfo that has the masses parroting/propagating misinfo.


EDIT:
Even PNAC, who it's rather safe to say would be the engineers of 911, understood that:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
www.newamericancentury.org...

Would you like to go into the psychology behind this?
Check out Nick Bostrum's (he's my transhumanist nemesis of sorts) breakdown that details "Cognitive biases affecting judgment of existential risks"
www.singinst.org...
, for starters.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Essedarius
It sounds like you're saying that black ops people intentionally plan absurdly complicated and unnecessary operations simply so they can say "Are you nuts, I would never be silly enough to try that!"

I'm simply stating the case that they could have 'easily' engineered 911 so that Occams Razor would eliminate the prospect in the eyes of "Skeptics". It's fallacious to assume that I'm asserting that they "intentionally plan ... operations". I'm talking about 911 specifically, and I've actually proven that they had far greater "benefits" in mind than is commonly asserted.

I cant stress enough that all that is required for actoinable consensus is that they allowed 911 to happen.

Be sure to review False Dichotomy.

It could be that the entire thing was allowed, and then the vastly confusing world that now surrounds 911 was engineered thru disinfo to divert everyone away from getting to the actionable consensus I'm talking about.

And then there's variations.

People need to get out of the "Binary" mentality that has taken over 911 like we observe in the world of politics.
www.abovepolitics.com...

[edit on 20-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Essedarius
A theory claiming that things were specifically engineered to be complicated to rule out Occam's Razor...goes against Occam's razor.

"Occams Razor" is itself a theory based on one of the most fundamental rules in nature: The Path of Least Resistance. Physics are dictated by this law. Water, electricity, gravity and so on all conform to this. I'm not certain that "spooky" Quantum physics are however. In any case who's to say that chaotic humans are absolutely dictated by this law of physics? I wonder what fallacy might be involved in determining that this law of nature absolutely applies to humans...

The OP wrote:

How in the world do hundreds of people keep this huge event a secret? IMPOSSIBLE!

No, it's not. People think it is, but it is not. Those that would be involved would either incriminate themselves if they talked, or were persuaded that it was in the interests of national security and wouldn't ask any questions.

The exact people who would pull this off are the same people that wouldn't talk.

6 years on, no-one on the inside has come forward and spoken. That speaks for itself.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


How To Plan A Vast Conspiracy
By IIB

1] Analyze the world of debate long enough to realize that "Skeptics" will dismiss anything that is vast by using Occams Razor.

2 Design the conspiracy so that Occams Razor would rule it your grand conspiracy scheme by default.

3] After the event flood the infostream with disinfo to make the entire thing vastly confusing and extremely debatable. In short, mass diversion.

4] Get your jolly's on by watching the entire "scene" that grows up around the controversy go bonkers in misinfo and misdirection.

The End.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Oh don't forget the fifty dollars or so a month to keep the VAST conspirators quiet. Fifty bucks a Month..to ease the guilt they have to live with, without ever saying ONE WORD about it.

lunacy

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
6 years on, no-one on the inside has come forward and spoken. That speaks for itself.

Can I put this line in my sig? WOW! "that speaks for itself?" --Urm, yeah...it says: "I have nothing to declare"

Originally posted by GwionX
Oh don't forget the fifty dollars or so a month to keep the VAST conspirators quiet. Fifty bucks a Month..to ease the guilt they have to live with, without ever saying ONE WORD about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes the "skeptonazis" as you call them, basically anything that is a theory about some form of conspiring by any group usually prevents them from rationally assessing the known info without prejudice.

There didn't have to be bombs in the towers or hardly anything mentioned in loose change for there to be an actual conspiracy. All they had to do was allow it, and that view is like giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I personally beieve all WTC 1, 2, & 7 were controlled demos. Just find it difficult to grasp how it was rigged up without someone seeing them or something that could be reported?

It really doesnt matter if they were loony tho, or patsies, because all the establishment had to do was allow 911 to happen for it to be high treason worthy of public execution on Live TV. Look into PNAC and you'll find all the motives you need.

Yes I accept the conspiracy and treason. Do you think Atta et al actually flew the planes or do you think they were remote controlled? Do you think passenges were on 11, 175? Or do you think the paasenger list are bogus to some extent and real flights diverted?

www.google.com...

Yes very relevent & thanks. Not an aspect that I have reseached but will.

Planes were diverted well outta the way. Watch virtually any made-for-TV 911 'official version' show to confirm that, or read the 911 Commission Report (or watch the hearings).

Can you give a short precise of how?. As you say elsewhere there has IMO been a lot of misinformation provided by the official Conspirators to make CT's seem confused and rediculous

As far as military people goes, they're all literally brainwashed in bootcamp

Acknowledged. There are lots of whistleblowers that have identified weird coincidences eg the mock military exercises that day, but the implications are there are USA military or SS that absolutely knew exactly what was going on! Do you agree?

Your excellent thesis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
does in part expose the reaity that nasty business is "business as usual" for CIA etc

2] Design the conspiracy so that Occams Razor would rule OUT your grand conspiracy scheme by default.

Haha... OscamRazor.... the weakest poorest argument ever!!!. Does not apply to something complex that had to be planned. I ignor Oscam Retorts!

I accept that it would be very easy to have many military etc to be kept in the dark or tricked or brainwashed or scared into shutting up. But it means that there was a team which:
1. Controlled the planes movements
2. Controlled demo of WTC
3. Dealt with paassengers and autopsy fake DNA etc

Do you think it was a foreign force eg Mossad or a puppet AQ that did most of it, or do you think it was a secret US force that dragged in patsys like Atta but mostly US citizens?

There really could have been crazed Arabs that were indentified by the persons with an agenda, and were allowed, and or aided, to plan and exicute 911 while not really knowing they were doing exactly the thing the persons with the agenda wanted them to do. With the right inteligence, planning the extra stuff, CD,s remote piloting and the like could be possible for some with the resorces and connections. To many things went wrong that day for it to be explained so simply.

Originally posted by Has2b
Just find it difficult to grasp how it was rigged up without someone seeing them or something that could be reported?

I constantly go back and forth on scores of issues, so I'll offer no definitive answers on some of this stuff, which cannot be completely proven in most cases anyways. The CD hypothesis is one of these issues.
But I can offer ideas of how it could be possible.

Quite simple, assuming Bush is involved and Securicom connections were utilized. Plant moles in in Securicom on the WTC detail. Silverstein involvement is probably crucial in this scenario. This gives near-unrestricted access to maintainence areas and such to place bombs to help ensure that a collapse would happen after the planes damage.

There could also be operatives in the towers during the chaos placing additional charges here and there after carrying in with backpacks and breifcases. These insiders would require the same access as the security people and maybe some extra maintainence moles/operatives. I assume that these variables are required for the CD to even be possible, so therefore the key figures should all go thru joint polygraph/fMRI lie detection to ultimately demonstrate how realistic the CD hypothesis is.

Yes I accept the conspiracy and treason. Do you think Atta et al actually flew the planes or do you think they were remote controlled? Do you think passenges were on 11, 175? Or do you think the paasenger list are bogus to some extent and real flights diverted?

I dunno Atta specifics like that. The accounts of his habits and such are interesting, but I havent spent the time researching/verifying these specifics so I'm not the best person to ask about all that.

I see no reason to not have actual hijackers on the planes. There are seriosuly people out there who have that hatred and intent. Creating phoney hijackers out of thin air or whatever is too incredible.

As far as the passengers it doesnt make much sense to have fake passengers and such. Then you're talking having the people at the flight gates and such in on the conspiracy. Weak links like this are where Occams Razor has validity. OR can be used to flush out certain wasteful elements of conspiracies of this nature. Where it no longer applies is where "hitmen" and other covert elements come into play. How many unknown hitmen do you hear about turning themselves in?

Honestly, these sorts of issues basically irrelevent.

Can you give a short precise of how?.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Full timeline:
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

but the implications are there are USA military or SS that absolutely knew exactly what was going on! Do you agree?

It would only be certain elements if any. Blanket terms calling out entire organizations is inproper if you're trying to speak in literal/specific terms.

I accept that it would be very easy to have many military etc to be kept in the dark or tricked or brainwashed or scared into shutting up. But it means that there was a team which:
1. Controlled the planes movements
2. Controlled demo of WTC
3. Dealt with paassengers and autopsy fake DNA etc

That's only assuming those are actual parts of the conspiracy. Things like dealing with passengers and DNA fabrication is unecessary crapola that ideally wouldn't be necessary in a conspiracy. I onyl extend my occam Razor argument as far as blasting the notion that a 911 conspiracy is impossible based on that view, but it's still valid in that planners wouldn't go all out adding more crap and "damage control" that could get them caught. For clarity, i wouldn't use my argument to argue i favor of every single element in say Loose Change (these mostly seem like LC questions), but i would use my argument to blast the notions that a conspiracy wouldn't happen simply because of O.R. With the CD hypothesis my argument could be used perhaps, but not everything thats asserted and claimed about 911 (there's alot of bs being thrown around out there).

Do you think it was a foreign force eg Mossad or a puppet AQ that did most of it, or do you think it was a secret US force that dragged in patsys like Atta but mostly US citizens?

It all depends on what part of the operation you're talking about, and what actually happened to warrant examination of who did what and where. Like if CD wasn't the case, it eases up in needing to account for various operatives.

Also dont rule out mafia hitmen types, or foreigners from places like South America either. Like in Operation GLADIO (in Europe) ops were utilized from Operation CONDOR (from South America). They were shipped over seas. It's likely that many of them were trained in the School of the Americas in the US. This was smart tactics because it made the agents even more "loose" in the sense of trying to tie groups and government agencies and so on assuming any were actually caught.
www.google.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.gwu.edu...
www.google.com...

[edit on 20-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Why does it takes thousands of people if the government were to do it, but it only takes 21 people if terrorists do it?

well lets see..it would take AT LEAST 100 people to plant the explosives in such a short amount of time in the towers (im not even going to go into how it would be IMPOSSIBLE for people to not notice bombs all over the place, plus the fact they had bomb sniffing dogs that were only taken out of the building AFTER the bombs would've needed to be placed)

the president and all his people would know about it..
the people on the planes would know about it. and most likely their families too...
what about the firefighters? they would probably have to know since they were in the buildings and all..

so far thats a lot more than 21 people needed for your theory..

Good points.

My argument was that some of the bomb placement could have happened during the chaos.

Your 100 people argument isn't unreasonable.

I'm no expert on the bomb sniffing dogs situation, most importantly dogs securing teh lobby of security & maintainence entrances, but i do know that one of the parking garage dogs (the dog security guy who spoke during the beginning of the 9/11 Commission hearings) left his dog behind right after the attacks to go held the rescue effort, and his dog died during the collapses. Beyond that i don't know specifics about other bomb dogs, and for all we know bombs didn't even fall the towers.

It wouldn't actually be IMPOSSIBLE for people to not notice bombs, as my argument wasn't that they moved in with tons of shaped charges and spools of det-cord, but rather operatives could have been waiting to place backpacks/breifcases in strategic locations to suppliment any other charges that may have been placed by insiders in the days before.

The basis behind my explaination was that changes could have been placed strategically to ensure collapse would occur in addition to the planes/fires damage. It's all about weakening the structural integrity if bombs wer einvolved, in my view.

the president and all his people would know about it..
the people on the planes would know about it. and most likely their families too...

See the last 6 paragraphs of the second post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

what about the firefighters? they would probably have to know since they were in the buildings and all..

Firefighters reported explosions. ..."Skeptics" (note the capitol S) nowadays consider these reports 'debunked' as they "only" heard "explosions", but didn't physically witness literal bombs going off (this would decrease their odds of survival wouldn't it?).

Originally posted by lizziex3
well lets see..it would take AT LEAST 100 people to plant the explosives in such a short amount of time in the towers

That's a weak argument to dismiss all the other evidence for controlled demolition.

What short amount of time?

How do you know the explosives (whatever they were) were not planted over a period of say a year, or even more, by small groups of people doing 'maintenance'.

In a building with thousands of people a few maintenance men with the correct credentials would go unnoticed. Maintenance is going on almost constantly in buildings like that. When I was bike messenger I went in many buildings in the city, and I often saw areas of buildings tarped off so that dust and whatever was kept from spreading around. So it wouldn't be hard to hide what they were really doing.

The most anyone would say is 'what are they doing this time' and go about their job without a second thought.

To think the explosives couldn't be planted without anyone knowing shows a lack of imagination. The government has every resource available to pull this off. Never underestimate them...

Originally posted by lizziex3
the people on the planes would know about it. and most likely their families too...

The people on the planes and their families had to know there were bombs in the buildings?




Firefighters, police, and EMT's did report secondary explosions, secondary devices, bombs, etc., and some of them are still on record saying the buildings were intentionally blown. How does that make them in on it and part of the cover-up?

Originally posted by lizziex3
well lets see..it would take AT LEAST 100 people to plant the explosives in such a short amount of time in the towers (im not even going to go into how it would be IMPOSSIBLE for people to not notice bombs all over the place, plus the fact they had bomb sniffing dogs that were only taken out of the building AFTER the bombs would've needed to be placed)

the president and all his people would know about it..
the people on the planes would know about it. and most likely their families too...
what about the firefighters? they would probably have to know since they were in the buildings and all..

so far thats a lot more than 21 people needed for your theory..

I guess the terrorist are a lot better then any of our special ops groups according to you. But what about if the government knew about the terrorist and let ti happen ?