Job Discussion Forums

[MJS]

I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try.

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters.

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.

Are there enough people of such a bent in all those agencies? That's doubtful. CIA officers and American officials have been evildoers. They have supported death squads and made use of drug dealers overseas. They have assisted torturers, disseminated assassination manuals, sold weapons to terrorist-friendly governments, undermined democratically-elected governments, and aided dictators who murder and maim. They have covered up reports of massacres and human rights abuses. They have plotted to kill foreign leaders.

These were horrendous activities, but, in most instances, the perps justified these deeds with Cold War imperatives (perverted as they were). And to make the justification easier, the victims were people overseas. Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms.

I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career. Which brings us to....

Not gutsy enough. Think of the danger -- the potential danger to the plotters. What if their plan were uncovered before or, worse, after the fact? Who's going to risk being associated with the most infamous crime in U.S. history? At the start of such a conspiracy, no one could be certain it would work and remain a secret. CIA people -- and those in other government agencies -- do care about their careers.

Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry's interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

By now, you're probably wondering why I have bothered to go through this exercise. Aren't these conspiracy theories too silly to address? That should be the case. But, sadly, they do attract people.

A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoner's claim and cites the Toronto Star as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the Star did not confirm the man's account, that the paper reported some observers "wonder if it isn't just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the Star subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. There's still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So I'm not expecting a check.

Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with X Files-like nonsense. Examples? There's the intelligence services's failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of fifteen to twenty local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation not be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte.

There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or twenty or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What's a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?)

Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it.

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation.

[some waygug-in]

You people who want to jump all over Moonraven need to get out more. I've read through much of this thread, though not all, and I have to say that the things she has been saying are not as "out there" as many of you would think.

I am surprised that there are still so many people who know so little about this. There is a growing body of evidence which suggests both US government involvement and complicity into the events of 9/11. Those who would deny such things are either not honest or are still in a state of denial.


Half of NYC thinks the same.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841

Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt Knew






Zogby International

Polling/Market Research
Public Relations Services
Marketing Strategies






FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Monday, Aug. 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Leaders Had
Foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 Attacks and
"Consciously Failed" To Act;

66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions
by Congress or New York's Attorney General,
New Zogby International Poll Reveals

(Utica, NY) - On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

(DOWNLOAD COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF RESULTS)

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).



While I do not agree with the tone Moonraven uses a lot of times, I have to say I agree with a lot of what she says.

And I might add, why are posters not appalled at the way the Bush administration has tried to use the tragic events of 9/11 to further their own political agendas. To call her names just for stating what is so obviously true to a lot of us, well you guys need to grow up I think.

If you wish to keep your head in the sand, that's your choice I suppose, but you'd better get used to those of us who know better. We ain't going away and this is not just going to be forgotten.

[some waygug-in]

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).


The absurdity is to say something like the above, but then at the same time expect us believe that Osama bin and his buddies were able to pull this off all from caves in Afghanistan, all without inside help.

Now which notion do you think is more absurd.

[mesmerod]

it's quite easy to make these plans from a cave in afghanistan. all it takes is for osama to say "ok... muhammed, akmed, and rahib, go take flight training and then carry a knife on the plane and fly it into these buildings on the same day".

how difficult is this? all that was needed were visas (which at the time were easy to get) and the ability to not tell anyone what they were doing.

[moonraven]

Right.

From a cave in Afghanistan Osama bin Laden engineered the situation so that:
1) All those Saudis got on the planes with their box-cutters and/or knives(maybe one--that's statistically probable--but all of them--not a chance; you try pulling that off on your next flight and see how far you get--metal detectors have been used in airports for HOW many years now?) without a hitch, and

2) that all four planes were diverted from their course without a single peep from the FAA. (By using his force of will and mind powers he erased all the standard operating procedures that had been in place for many years to stop this kind of event from happening--that is, to shoot down the planes.)

Those are just two of the operations OBL would have had to control from his Afghan cave. If OBL were that powerful, he'd already be ruling the world--what the half-wit president of the US thinks God commanded him to do. That's a lot of power for a guy that we have no real proof even still existed on 9/11/2001.

I have said it before on this forum: Big Brother was wrong; ignorance is NOT strength.

Incidentally, MSJ has already made my case in this "discussion" by recounting just a tiny fraction of some of the dirty deeds done by the CIA on the orders and with the support of the usual Iran-Contra suspects who are back in the thick of things in the Bush adminstration. Those same folks who made Death Squads and Common Graves hallmarks of US politics in Latin America--they couldn't possible pull capers like that in their own country--

Right?

Give a little thought to what Hannah Arendt called "The Banality of Evil", and then answer that question. With a straight face. And your cerebrum in operative mode.

[MJS]

It wasn't (apparently) all that difficult to coordinate a 9/11 style attack, all one needed was a flight schedule, the ability to point a jet liner towards a building, the willingness to slash a few innocent throats, and the belief that doing all this and killing yourself in the process was for the greater glory of God.

What would be absurdly difficult would be to coordinate a cover-up between countless non-connected agencies and hundreds of persons to make it look like the description above.

[mesmerod]

bingo moonraven! item 1) and 2) are right.....OBL did it from his cave. im glad you agree with me

[moonraven]

Why not try answering even the first two points I mentioned in my last post? You seem to have plenty of time....

When you get ready to hijack a jet-liner, please don't shoot your mouth off beforehand to anybody else but me, okay? I want to see you pull it off.

I'll make it easier and more attractive for you: I'll pay for your ticket to Mexico City so you can try to pull it off here.

Why did the CIA close its office in the World Trade Center a week before 9/11? Any ideas about that?

[moonraven]

mesmerod: I would not agree with YOU if you said the sun rose in the morning. Get a brain. There must be some floating around in the black market where you are.

[mesmerod]

i have a very big brain. want to see a pic?

[MJS]

Just so it's completely understood... I think the following is kooky, irresponsible, untrue, libalous and just plain jack rabbit stupid... but since the crazy among us think the following is a possibility let's just work out the details


1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.

3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

5. Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).

6. This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.

OR

20 some odd guys with flight schedules, the ability to point a few jet liners towards a building, the willingness to slash a few innocent throats, and the belief that doing all this and killing yourself in the process was for the greater glory of God.

Like someone just said... which is harder to believe

This is my last post, mesmerod thanks for your input.

[Hod]

[ls650]

All these 9-11 conspiracy-nutbars need to learn about a little thing called "Occam's Razor"...

[moonraven]

MJS,

Sadly, this is my last response to you: you are either incapable of staying on point or you avoid staying on point because you have no response.

No part of the bizarre scenario you mentioned has even a tangential connection with the points I suggested you respond to.

I hope the CIA finds you more credible than I do. Good luck!

[moonraven]

Is650:

Despite the fact that science has made a bit of progress since the 14th century--some folks would say it was because the Black Plague had the Darwinian effect of wiping out most of the folks whose genes were not up to being passed on in the evolutionary process--I will accept your concept of Occam's Razor--that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is usually the correct one--as being frequently valid.

What you are missing here, is that the explanation I have given IS the simplest explanation. It's a whole lot simpler for the US government to take down a couple of buildings in its own country--or to allow them to be taken down by a group of Saudis--then the scenario of Osama Bin Laden (if even alive at that point) having engineered the whole process from a cave in Afghanistan!

The only reason I can see for anyone accepting the OBL in the Cave scenario is that he/she is in a state of psychotic denial.