Occam's Razor and 9/11, Reconsidered

[eomer]

Some claim that applying Occam's razor to 9/11 yields a conclusion, among others, that there was no inside job. The argument is that an inside job is a more complicated explanation compared with the purportedly simpler explanation that al-Qaeda and the infamous 19 hijackers were solely to blame.

But I believe that Occam has been misapplied. The problem is that the input into Occam is being artificially restricted to too narrow of a scope. Only the scant information, much of it of questionable provenance, that we have about this one narrow incident is being considered while the broad context within which the incident took place is ignored. When we bring in information from the broader context then I believe that Occam tells us the simplest explanation is that it was an inside job.

The broader context is the decades-long history of covert operations by the US deep government and partners, specifically the repeated execution during those decades of false-flag attacks. The powers-that-be (the corporate/government partnership known as the military-industrial complex) have adopted a strategy at least as early as shortly after WWII that is based on both instigating and faking a radical opponent. One of the primary tactics they have employed repeatedly in this strategy is the false-flag attack.

So when a "terrorist" attack occurs and we are looking for an explanation, surely one of the first facts that should enter into our analysis is that the US government and its co-conspirators have been in the business of instigating and faking "terrorist" attacks for decades.

Related to this broader context and Occam's application within it is consideration of cui bono. It is abundantly clear who benefited from 9/11. The benefit was massive and can be expected to last for decades. As we heard as early as on the day of 9/11/01 itself and then many times after, "the world changed on 9/11". The change is of enormous benefit to the military-industrial complex in its self-serving push to maintain a wartime footing for America and avoid a disastrous era of peace.

Proponents of the official story apparently would like us to start fresh every time a "terrorist" attack occurs. They would have us forget the context and be forced to come up with hard evidence proving each one separately. But the nature of these attacks is that evidence is going to be hard to come by. The parties executing false-flag, provocateur, and other operations over these decades have always and will always attempt to conceal the true causes.

So when you look at the long string of "terrorist" attacks, see that many of them follow a similar pattern, and then realize that a good number of them have been discovered to be false-flag attacks, it is only reasonable to conclude, as the best application of Occam's razor, that the other "terrorist" attacks were false-flag attacks as well.

[Marksbrother]

1. Excellent post.

Everyone here should read it.

[BeFree]

2. Very good

Kicked and Recommended!

[Kalun D]

3. Concise and Succinct

not sure I can achieve Eomer's level but...

But the nature of these attacks is that evidence is going to be hard to come by. The parties executing false-flag, provocateur, and other operations over these decades have always and will always attempt to conceal the true causes.

And the fact that through their years of experience they have become experts at covering up the evidence. Because the cover up is just as important as the event.

And it's a common meme you get when trying to explain the largest inside job in history to the layperson on the street. "how could they pull if off?"

It's a culmination of years of experience. Just like the modern car or PC. It started out small and simple, it grew and progressed into the complex and refined event of 911. If you looked at the modern PC without looking at all the other technology preceding it, then it would seem impossible, just like 911 does to those who don't know the true history of modern clandestine operations.

It didn't happen overnight or without numerous similar events preceding and building up to it.

One prime example of events leading up to 911 would be OK city. A specific, complete, and successful test run of the entire MO of 911, just on a smaller more manageable scale.

[William Seger]

4. "the broad context within which the incident took place"

Which of these were "false flag" attacks, please.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

Terrorist Acts Suspected of or Inspired by al-Qaeda

• 1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.
  
  
• 1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
  
  
• 1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
  
  
• 1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
  
  
• 1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.
  
  
• 2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
  
  
• 2001 (Sept.): Destruction of WTC; attack on Pentagon. Total dead 2,992.
  
  
• 2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
  
  
• 2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 11 German tourists.
  
  
• 2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
  
  
• 2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
  
  
• 2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.
  
  
• 2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.
  
  
• 2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
  
  
• 2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  
  
• 2003 (May): 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
  
  
• 2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
  
  
• 2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 17.
  
  
• 2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
  
  
• 2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
  
  
• 2004 (March): 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 and injuring more than 1,500.
  
  
• 2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
  
  
• 2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  
  
• 2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9.
  
  
• 2004 (Dec.): Terrorists entered the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9 (including 4 attackers).
  
  
• 2005 (July): Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
  
  
• 2005 (Oct.): 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.
  
  
• 2005 (Nov.): 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.
  
  
• 2006 (Jan.): Two suicide bombers carrying police badges blow themselves up near a celebration at the Police Academy in Baghdad, killing nearly 20 police officers. Al-Qaeda in Iraq takes responsibility.
  
  
• 2006 (Aug.): Police arrest 24 British-born Muslims, most of whom have ties to Pakistan, who had allegedly plotted to blow up as many as 10 planes using liquid explosives. Officials say details of the plan were similar to other schemes devised by al-Qaeda.
  
  
• 2007 (April): Suicide bombers attack a government building in Algeria's capital, Algiers, killing 35 and wounding hundreds more. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claims responsibility.
  
  
• 2007 (April): Eight people, including two Iraqi legislators, die when a suicide bomber strikes inside the Parliament building in Baghdad. An organization that includes al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia claims responsibility. In another attack, the Sarafiya Bridge that spans the Tigris River is destroyed.
  
  
• 2007 (June): British police find car bombs in two vehicles in London. The attackers reportedly tried to detonate the bombs using cell phones but failed. Government officials say al-Qaeda is linked to the attempted attack. The following day, an SUV carrying bombs bursts into flames after it slams into an entrance to Glasgow Airport. Officials say the attacks are connected.
  
  
• 2007 (December): As many as 60 people are killed in two suicide attacks near United Nations offices and government buildings in Algiers, Algeria. The bombings occur within minutes of each other. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, formerly called the Salafist Group for Preaching, claims responsibility. It's the worst attack in the Algeria in more than 10 years.
  
  
• 2008 (January): In the worst attack in Iraq in months, a suicide bomber kills 30 people at a home where mourners were paying their respects to the family of a man killed in a car bomb. The Iraqi military blames the attack on al-Qaeda in Iraq.
  
  
• 2008 (February): Nearly 100 people die when two women suicide bombers, who are believed to be mentally impaired, attack crowded pet markets in eastern Baghdad. The U.S. military says al-Qaeda in Iraq has been recruiting female patients at psychiatric hospitals to become suicide bombers.
  
  
• 2008 (April): A suicide bomber attacks the funeral for two nephews of a prominent Sunni tribal leader, Sheik Kareem Kamil al-Azawi, killing 30 people in Iraq's Diyala Province.
  
  
• 2008 (April): A suicide car bomber kills 40 people in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province in Iraq.
  
  
• 2008 (April): Thirty-five people die and 62 are injured when a woman detonates explosives that she was carrying under her dress in a busy shopping district in Iraq’s Diyala Province.
  
  
• 2008 (May): At least 12 worshipers are killed and 44 more injured when a bomb explodes in the Bin Salman mosque near Sana, Yemen.
  
  
• 2008 (May): An al-Qaeda suicide bomber detonates explosives in Hit, a city in the Anbar Province of Iraq, killing six policemen and four civilians, and injuring 12 other people.
  
  
• 2008 (June): A female suicide bomber kills 15 and wounds 40 others, including seven Iraqi policemen, near a courthouse in Baquba, Iraq.
  
  
• 2008 (June): A suicide bomber kills at least 20 people at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
  
  
• 2008 (August): About two dozens worshippers are killed in three separate attacks as they make their way toward Karbala to celebrate the birthday of 9th-century imam Muhammad al-Mahdi. Iraqi officials blame al-Qaeda in Iraq for the attacks.
  
  
• 2008 (August): A bomb left on the street explodes and tears through a bus carrying Lebanese troops, killing 15 people, nine of them soldiers. No one claims responsibility for the attack, but in 2007, the army fought an al-Qaeda linked Islamist group in Tripoli.
  
  
• 2008 (August): At least 43 people are killed when a suicide bomber drives an explosives-laden car into a police academy in Issers, a town in northern Algeria.
  
  
• 2008 (August): Two car bombs explode at a military command and a hotel in Bouira, killing a dozen people. No group takes responsibility for either attack, Algerian officials said they suspect al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is behind the bombings.
  
  
• 2008 (September): In its first acknowledged ground attack inside Pakistan, U.S. commandos raid a village that is home to al-Qaeda militants in the tribal region near the border with Afghanistan. The number of casualties is unclear.
  
  
• 2008 (September): A car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
  
  
• 2008 (November): at least 28 people die and over 60 more are injured when three bombs explode minutes apart in Baghdad, Iraq. Officials suspect the explosions are linked to al-Qaeda.
  

[JackRiddler]

6. Selective focus.

Thousands of violent political incidents occurred during the same period. There's a similarly long list of ETA actions, so what? It doesn't matter which of the ones you select were false flags; the issue is September 11th. People can (and have) come up with a lengthy list of planned and actual false-flag attacks from Northwoods to Gladio, as well as of covert terror incidents and many coups d'etat orchestrated or backed by the CIA and other covert agencies of the US and the West. All these will show is that the propensity for political deception, terror attacks and murderous mayhem is hardly limited to your narrow focus on the acts of Islamic extremists.

But why don't you start with 1993? Tell us about the stories of Emad Salem and Ali Mohamed, the "triple agent" former US special forces sergeant who was supposedly involved in the planning of that and the 1998 embassy bombings, and who has disappeared into some form of federal witness or agent protection (or disposed of, who knows?).

[William Seger]

7. Are you saying the '93 WTC attack was a "false flag"

If so, by whom -- Clinton? Rogue CIA? -- and for what purpose?

[JackRiddler]

9. Are you reading? Apparently not. What I wrote is clear.

[William Seger]

11. I'm just ignoring your attempted derail

... and trying to bring your focus back to what I posted. In contradiction to the OP, I contend that "in the broad context within which the event took place" a suicide terrorist attack on 9/11 is highly plausible, especially since bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996, reiterated in 1998. If you have something to say about the '93 WTC attack that you think is pertinent to that topic, then what you wrote was certainly not clear.

[BeFree]

16. So

Don't you find it at least a little disconcerting that your argument boils down to this:

"...a suicide terrorist attack on 9/11 is highly plausible, especially since bin Laden declared war on the US..."

That really is the last defense, eh? It was plausible, so it must be true?
Really, tho, that's all it ever was... plausible. That's all ya got...

[William Seger]

18. Completely wrong (again). It's a plausible hypothesis supported by evidence

... which doesn't just disappear simply because conspiracists declare it to be fake. On the other hand, paranoid conspiracists prefer highly implausible "false flag" hypotheses which are unsupported by evidence. There's no need for Occam's razor to decide which of the two is more probably correct.

[BeFree]

20. False flag is implausible?

False flag ops don't just disappear simply because someone declares it to be implausible.

But were someone to believe that there are NOT people willing to do whatever it takes, then I say it is evidence that our educational system is failing.

History is replete with false flag ops. Denying that history is goofy.

[William Seger]

25. 9/11 as a false flag is HIGHLY implausible

... unless it was plotted by Rube Goldberg. False flags need to be simple and 100% foolproof, not insanely large, complicated and risky.

[BeFree]

29. Explain, then

The well known fact that the CIA agents were tracking some of the alleged perps but were kept from detaining them or even questioning them by higher ups?

And the same could be said of the FBI.

Explain that.

And explain this opinion of yours:
"False flags need to be simple and 100% foolproof,"
How do you know that?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Maybe you should try actually reading the 911 Commission Report...

That would be a good place to start deriving answers to your questions.

[SDuderstadt]

30. "Truthers" Can never seem to understand...

how impossibly complicated "MIHOP" would have been if it only included a mere fraction of their goofy claims.

[Marksbrother]

54. Truthers can't, but Righteous True Believers CERTAINLY can

To them, the OCT isn't just another goofy claim, it's a miracle. A direct sign from GoDaddy.

[Fainter]

39. No Bill, It's A Plausible Hypothesis Supported By Evidence...

which is the bastard child of gatekeeping and secrecy. The OCT hypothesis is "plausible" only if you leave out all the inconvenient stuff like Sibel Edmonds' testimony before the 9/11 Omission, the full documentary record of the Pentagon plane crash in the possession of the FBI and the military, the patently self-contradictory testimony of key agencies before the Omission, the unprecedented way the buildings fell, My Pet Goat, "Does the order still stand Sir?", the put options, the absence of proper forensics, the deliberate destruction of evidence like the ATC tapes, etc., etc., and on and on. What record can pretend to be complete without answers to these vital questions given under oath before an independent body with subpoena power? Why is the evidence on these issues being kept from the people? Why is this stuff secret? How can you pretend these questions aren't substantive and don't matter?

The Omission report is fake because it is a calculated political document, by its very nature incomplete and deceptive in its incompleteness. There is far more to the story that we can yet be told. Leaving aside your ranting about "paranoid conspiricists", the OCT falls of its own weight. The people raising questions on the issues above are not conspiricists and they need not offer hypotheses of their own to point out the astonishing shortcomings of the fatally flawed OCT. Look at the modality you're defending here, that of the merely "plausible hypothesis". Do you not realize how disingenuous you appear in settling for such a low standard of "truth" when even at this late date there is so much evidence and testimony that can yet be revealed?

[Marksbrother]

44. The dog must have eaten your evidence.

Otherwise, your post is simply another empty, goofy, blah blah blah comment.

[William Seger]

46. Yes, it's a very plausible hypothesis supported by evidence...

... and on the other side, we have highly implausible hypotheses which are not supported by any evidence. It really is pretty much that simple for the "official story" that 19 radical Islamists hijacked 4 planes and managed to hit 3 targets, and that the WTC towers collapsed because of a combination of fires and structural damage. Conspiracists make a game of claiming that there isn't enough evidence to suit them, while simultaneously demonstrating that they can dismiss any evidence whatsoever that supports that "official story." This is somehow supposed to make those highly implausible hypotheses which are not supported by any evidence more credible. I no longer take much interest in that game, because evidence plays virtually no part in conspiracist thinking.

Yes, there are unanswered questions about 9/11. However, the vast majority of "truthers" seem to be far too preoccupied with garbage like supernanothermite and remote-controlled planes to take much interest in them.

[Marksbrother]

47. Same dog must have eaten YOUR evidence too.

Repetition of the official conspiracy theory isn't evidence.

[Fainter]

48. You're Fobbing Me Off Here...

please address the specific points I have raised. I did not ask you to respond to any highly implausible hypotheses not supported by evidence. You're a scientific methodist so please let me ask you, what kind of hypothesis better accords with reality, one which seeks to account for all the available evidence, internal inconsistencies, and outright contradictions, or one that does not? If the former, how better to go about repairing a flawed hypothesis than to consider unexamined evidence and seek to resolve inconsistency and contradiction? Now look at post #39. Did I really offer any highly implausible hypotheses there or did I point out a series of gaps in our knowledge of 9/11 which our government could fill in simply by releasing the classified evidence and testimony they have held back, and by reinterviewing some of the witnesses under oath.

Please demonstrate how asking for more evidence (Sibel Edmond's testimony, etc., etc.--see #39) is tantamount to dismissing "any evidence whatsoever that supports the 'official story'". New or unseen evidence is never in derogation of evidence already released, mayhaps only the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

OCTers make a game of claiming there is enough evidence to suit them while simultaneously demonstrating that they can dismiss any evidence whatsoever that does not support the 'official story'. This is somehow supposed to make their merely plausible hypothesis which does not account for all of the evidence available the best possible hypothesis. I no longer take much interest in that game because a scientific method they claim to revere plays virtually no part in OCTer thinking.

[William Seger]

49. Well...

Most is the "issues" you listed are non-issues as far as I'm concerned, but as for the couple that are, I said, "Yes, there are unanswered questions about 9/11. However, the vast majority of 'truthers' seem to be far too preoccupied with garbage like supernanothermite and remote-controlled planes to take much interest in them."

> Please demonstrate how asking for more evidence (Sibel Edmond's testimony, etc., etc.--see #39) is tantamount to dismissing "any evidence whatsoever that supports the 'official story'".

Conspiracists are people who have already decided that there was a conspiracy, so they are only interested in confirming that. Their interest in Sibel Edmond's testimony would end immediately if it was determined that it had nothing to do with 9/11. If it did actually have something to do with 9/11 but supported the "official story" that 19 radical Islamists hijacked the planes, rather than "inside job" theories, it would be dismissed as inaccurate at least, and possibly as a pack of lies, depending on how damning it was to conspiracy theories. Asking for more information about 9/11 is perfectly a legitimate request from someone who is legitimately seeking answers; but conspiracists think they already know there was a conspiracy. It simply is not possible to convince conspiracists that 9/11 was not an inside job, with any amount of evidence, because conspiracists will simply claim it's fake. On the other hand, the situation is not really symmetric with so-called "OCTers" because if 9/11 were an inside job, it should be possible to conclusively prove it with solid evidence. If "truthers" ever do find that elusive "smoking gun" then the debate is over.

[Fainter]

62. Well Hell...

You wrote:

Most is (sic) the issues you listed are non-issues as far as I'm concerned, but as for the couple that are, I said, "Yes, there are unanswered questions about 9/11. However, the vast majority of 'Truthers' seem to be far too preoccupied with garbage like supernanothermite and remote-controlled planes to take much interest in them."

These are the issues I listed:


1. Sibel Edmonds' testimony before the 9/11 Omission.
2. The full documentary record of the Pentagon plane crash in the possession of the FBI and the military.
3. The patently self-contradictory testimony of key agency personnel before the Omission.
4. The unprecedented way the buildings fell.
5. My Pet Goat.
6. "Does the order still stand?"
7. The put options.
8. The absence of proper forensics.
9. The deliberate destruction of evidence like the ATC tapes.


Of these nine issues, which two do you have unanswered questions about? What are your questions and how do you propose to find the answers?

[Fainter]

63. Well Hell (continued)...

You wrote:


Conspiracists are people who have already decided that there was a conspiracy, so they are only interested in confirming that. Their interest in Sibel Edmond's testimony would end immediately if it was determined that it had nothing to do with 9/11. If it did actually have something to do with 9/11 but supported the "official story" that 19 radical Islamists hijacked the planes, rather than "inside job" theories, it would be dismissed as innaccurate at least, and possibly as a pack of lies, depending on how damning it was to conspiracy theories. Asking for more information about 9/11 is perfectly a legitimate request from someone who is legitimately seeking answers; but conspiracists think they already know there was a conspiracy. It is simply not possible to convince conspiracists that 9/11 was not an inside job, with any amount of evidence, because conspiracists will simply claim it's fake. On the other hand, the situation is not really symmetric with so-called "OCTers" because if 9/11 were an inside job, it should be possible to conclusively prove it with solid evidence. If "truthers" ever do find that elusive "smoking gun" then the debate is over.


You allow the existence of a minority of 9/11 Truth Advocates who are not preoccupied with fringe issues. In your mind, who are these serious and credible 9/11 Truth Advocates? Name them. What issues have they advanced that you agree merit further exploration? Name these. How do you propose to explore said issues? You have the floor.

IS JACK RIDDLER A CONSPIRACIST?

The question is not whether there was a conspiracy, the question is what was the conspiracy. If there's anyone here who sounds like he has "already decided" what the conspiracy was, it is you. If there's anyone here whose only interest seems to be in confirming a particular version of events, it is you. How do I know this to be the case? Because unlike you I am not here dogmatically promoting a particular version of the events of 9/11. A conspiracist, so I am told, is one who believes that for which evidence is lacking, who holds an unfalsifiable belief. By definition a conspiracist must believe in a conspiracy with a more or less defined set of factual parameters. So answer the question, in what particular conspiracy do I believe? You have confused dissent from the Official Account with mistaken belief in some other defined albeit erroneous version.

I do not nor have I ever claimed to know how the events of that fateful day unfolded, therefore I do not hew to an unfalsifiable version of events except insofar as I am mistaken about what I consider to be the shortcomings of (the consensus view of) the Official Story. 'Not X' is still 'Not X' whether or not I propose 'Y' or 'Z' as an alternative, and let's be honest here, the central front of the war being waged between the "Truthers" and the "OCTers" is whether 'X' (the Official Story) is sufficient or not ('Not X') in the face of the undisclosed evidence and undeveloped testimony that we all know is still out there. I say that until we thoroughly explore the sufficiency of the Official Hypothesis by fully testing it against the undisclosed evidence and the public testimony of key officials given under oath before an independent body with subpoena power, it is premature to propose or demand that alternative theories 'Y' or 'Z' be brought forward. I also say that until an honest investigation is done 9/11 skepticism will rightfully endure.

By Sibel Edmonds' testimony having "to do with 9/11" presumably you mean whether or not it supports the Official Position. In case you don't know, her testimony before the Omission was completely redacted in the FOIA request that came back. It is distinctly possible, maybe even likely, that her testimony casts grave doubt on some important conclusion of the Official Story. However, if her testimony is released and it supports the Official View I will accept this defeat for the "Truthers" and win for the American people in good grace. At the same time by pre-judging the reaction of the Truth Community to disclosures by Edmonds which may support the Official Story you foreclose the possibility that some at least of your opponents are honorable people searching for the truth. Can you not find at least one honest correspondent on this side of the debate? Please name him and believe me when I say I am not bucking for the job because I know there are people on both sides of the debate who are far smarter and more knowledgable about 9/11 than I am. Believe it or not I want my doubts about 9/11 put to rest. Let's hear what the lady has to say, let's see all the documentary evidence, and let's gather some sworn public testimony from Myers, Rice, Rummy, Dummy, and Vice, and key agency personnel, etc., etc.

It is precisely because the release of the rest of the evidence and the development and dissemination of candid testimony threatens to falsify some key Tenet (not a typo) of the Official Story that the defenders of 9/11 Holy Writ fight so desperately to shield the public from new information. Isn't it funny how those who wish to test the existing hypothesis through the release of undisclosed evidence and the cultivation of public sworn testimony are alleged to fear falsifiability while those who haunt the dungeon day in and day out mocking this earnest wish for full disclosure congratulate themselves again and again on their superior understanding of method and inquiry. The only person I see here trembling before your God of Logic is you.

If you are arguing that the Official Version is conclusively proven with solid evidence then you have nothing to fear from further disclosure and something valuable to gain. That valuable something is the concession of the principled (and your principal) opposition when the answers to the unanswered questions are shown to confirm the Official Hypothesis. Or is it the case that you do not wish to see an end to contention on the divisive subject of 9/11? If you are arguing that the Official Story is merely a plausible hypothesis and not conclusively proven then rigor demands full disclosure. What are you afraid of? You might be proven to have been right all along...

[eomer]

12. Re: 1993 bombing of WTC

Terrorist Acts Suspected of or Inspired by al-Qaeda

• 1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.

The bomb was purportedly built by a paid FBI informant, Emad Salem, during a time when he was working under supervision of the FBI. Salem was a former Egyptian army officer and in the Egyptian military intelligence service. The FBI knew he was building the bomb. He acquired the materials to build the bomb during a time when he was being paid by the FBI. After the bombing the FBI told him that the story was going to be that the bomb was not built by him, that "It's built with a different way in another place and that's it." The FBI allegedly provided him with the fuse for the bomb.

For most "terrorist" attacks we do not have nearly as much information as we do on this 1993 WTC bombing. It seems that whenever we do get a glimpse of the internal workings, it turns out that government agents and their assets have played key roles in making the plots materialize.

Excerpts from tapes that the paid informant made of conversations with the FBI at various times after the 1993 WTC bombing:

SALEM: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with receipts and now it's questionable.

FBI: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the' ordinary.

SALEM: Okay. I don't think it was. If that what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know what the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant [in other words, by Salem the FBI informant himself]. What a wonderful great case! And then he put his head in the sand I said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." (Deep breath) Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.

"You were informed. Everything is ready. The day and the time. Boom. Lock them up and that's that. That's why I feel so bad."

[BeFree]

15. Good to see you here, eomer

The quality of your information has always been of the highest quantity.

I only wish I had close to the same skills, talent and wherewithal.

[William Seger]

19. So, you suspect that the '93 bombing was a "false flag"

... and you use that suspicion to buttress your suspicion that 9/11 was a "false flag." Yes, I'm detecting a pattern here -- it's just not the one you propose.

[eomer]

23. You didn't address the substance.

Do you favor some other version of the '93 WTC bombing?

Was the FBI working closely with one of the key perpetrators in your estimation, or not?

[William Seger]

36. I don't know

... what "working closely" means in that case -- which is my real point -- but I don't have any reason to prefer the version of the relationship advanced by the defendants' attorney (Kunstler) and 9/11 conspiracists (who seem to share an interest in defending radical Islamists). Salem was clearly interested in making as much money as possible from his involvement in the plot, and the FBI fired him 6 months before the bombing because they didn't believe what he was saying, partially because of suspicions about his financial motivations and because he failed two polygraph tests. That doesn't quite fit the story Kunstler would like to tell, does it.

[eomer]

37. What "working closely" means.

Fair enough, let's put the characterization aside and look at facts instead.

There is evidence indicating that:

1. Salem was a paid FBI informant
   
2. Salem built the bomb
   
3. The FBI knew that Salem was building the bomb
   
4. The FBI provided the fuse to Salem
   
5. The FBI conspired with Salem after the bombing to fabricate a story that someone else built the bomb

Is it the above facts that you disagree with or is it that you accept those facts as true but disagree that they tend to implicate the FBI actors in any way?

[Bryan Sacks]

42. what else 'working closely' means (a consequence of standard operating procedure)

Law enforcement routinely uses 'informants' to cultivate plots and even provide supplies for criminal activity, all under cover of silence. A consequence of this is that, should law enforcement ever WANT to create a false-flag attack, or allow a terrorist plot to go forward, they will always have cover. If a plot succeeds, and if it is learned later that law enforcement had an informant/provocateur inside the cell, law enforcement can always claim something to the effect of, "We were only aiding the plot for the purpose of catching the real perpetrators "red-handed'' later on, but something went wrong."

[William Seger]

51. OK, I've looked into this some more

... and my answer is no, I do not agree that there is convincing evidence for most of those, except for Salem's own claims. (Actually, I couldn't find anything at all about the fuse claim.)

[eomer]

52. Agreed about the fuse claim; can you be specific about the others?

I did some more searches and of the two hits I could find about the FBI providing the fuse (referred to as a "timer"), one of them turned out to not have any such claim (when I went beyond the Google result and bought the Chicago Tribune article for $3) and for the other one all I can find is a claim in an abstract for a book that looks iffy and I'm not willing to buy or to cite here (probably is on the DU list of sources you're not allowed to link to).

So let's strike that one off the list and call it debunked, unless and until anything new turns up.

But regarding the rest, can you be a bit more specific? What you said so far seems a lot like what you accuse and complain about others doing elsewhere in this thread.

[William Seger]

53. The only evidence is Salem himself

... who is talking to an FBI agent, but he is also talking to a recording that only he is aware of, so those are not candid comments. Also, he is talking after the bombing, so it doesn't really prove that Salem himself was even aware of the specific plot. Furthermore, the context of the conversations is that Salem is trying to get more money for information, so inflating his own role in the plot would be natural. In those recordings, Salem is telling one agent that another agent was aware that he was building the bomb -- a claim that might or might not be true, but you can't possibly prove it with just that recording. In fact, it appears that Salem may have been trying to extort money by hinting that he might go public about the other agent directing his bomb-making. Perhaps he was hoping the agent he was talking to couldn't be sure if he was telling the truth. But my original point was that the FBI fired Salem right about the time the plot was going from planning to execution, apparently because the FBI concluded that Salem was stringing them along to get more money. That doesn't seem like the typical way to handle an agent provocateur or the person they knew was making a bomb. Furthermore, the idea that Salem was used to lure the others into the plot doesn't square well with the apparent fact that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and Ahmed Ajaj came to the US with the specific intent of bombing (with Ajaj getting arrested at the airport for a phony passport, bomb-making books, and video tapes of suicide bombings). All of the evidence about the ordering and delivery of the bomb materials, as well as the financing, leads to Yousef, Mohammed Salameh and Mahmud Abouhalima. Building the bomb in El Sayyid Nosair's rented NJ house left considerable physical evidence. Yousef was trained in bomb making in Afghanistan and apparently got some technical help for the complex bomb from Abdul Rahman Yasin, because master bomb-maker Ajaj was still in jail. So none of that substantiates Salem's claim to be the bomb maker. Your claim that "FBI conspired with Salem after the bombing to fabricate a story that someone else built the bomb" is again based on Salem's characterization of events, after the fact. Reading the transcript, it appears to me that Salem is making the claim and the FBI agent is saying no, they have evidence of who built the bomb and where. Even if Salem's characterization were accurate (which I doubt since the FBI's evidence seem pretty solid), it hardly indicates a carefully orchestrated. FBI-directed plot, but instead would seem to support the idea that the FBI was trying to cover its ass after a monumental fuck-up.

In short, there seems to be a huge evidentiary gap between "implicat{ing} the FBI actors in any way" and what you would like to infer from the events.

[rschop]

55. re: FBI Informant inside of al Qaeda

What is so bizarre that that the FBI informant, Emad Salem, was actually inside of the Sheikh Adel Radman's group that carried out the bombing of the WTC Towers in 1993, and even helped plan this bombing, a fact now well known.

In the 2001 attacks both al Qaeda terrorists Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar lived with an FBI informant. The FBI HQ not only hid this information on these two terrorists from the FBI Agents on the Cole bombing, and the meeting where they actually planned the attack on the World Trade Center Towers in Kuala Lumpur, but then shut down their investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, once it was discovered they were inside of the US. This FBI Cole bombing investigation team would have prevented the 2001 attack had their effort not been shut down.

At the time the FBI HQ personnel were doing this, they were working under one of the CIA managers, CIA deputy chief of the Bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire, who had been moved over to the FBI for the sole purpose of insuring that all CIA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting, where the planning of the Cole bombing took place, was kept hidden from FBI criminal investigators.

When Mihdhar and Hazmi were discover inside of the US on August 22, 2001, the CIA and FBI HQ knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands, and even knew their efforts to shut down Bongardt's investigation of them would result in the deaths of thousands of American.

So what did the FBI have against these towers?

What is even more bizarre is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad helped finance the original 1993 attack on the World Trade Center Towers. Sheikh Adel Rahman who had masterminded the original attack, had the al Qaeda terrorists issued his now famous FATWA in February 1998, that clearly indicated the intentions of the al Qaeda terrorists to mount a huge attack inside of the UIS, and attack that anyone with even half a brain could quickly figure out had to be against the World Trade Center Towers again.

This statement by Rahman was published by Al-Quds al-‘Arabi, a London organization closely aligned with al Qaeda. Just three week before the 9/11 attacks this same organization stated on their web site that Bin Laden had just announced that he was about to deliver a big surprise to the people in American, this is al Qaeda speak for a huge al Qaeda attack is about to take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans. The CIA and FBI HQ had received numerous warnings of this attack since April 2001. People around Bin laden told the journalist who had interviewed him for this account in Al-Quds al-‘Arabi, that the coffin business in the US was about to just have a dramatic increase.

This information was so well known that Katie Couric, stated on CBS less than one hour after the south tower collapsed, that a London organization closely aligned with al Qaeda had predicted a terrorist attack inside of the US, three weeks ago, clearly referring to the information on the Al-Quds al-‘Arabi web site. If all of this was so well known why did the FBI HQ and CIA do nothing to stop this attack.

[William Seger]

5. and, "the repeated execution during those decades of false-flag attacks"

Please specify, so we can compare to the list above.

[Ohio Joe]

8. You get out what you put in

I suppose to convince me you are correct, you would have to prove that the norm for such things is false flag as opposed to terrorist attack.

[LARED]

10. Occam’s razor is not dependent

on the quantity of information, it is dependent on the quality of information. Adding to the known facts of 9/11 that there are false flag operations in the world in no way makes false flags preferable to the so-called official story using an Occam's razor argument.

To make false flag operations preferable you have significant hurdles to get past. For instance, you will need to show that a false flag operation on 9/11 is a preferable explanation to plain old terrorist attacks. Not to mention why false flag operations on USA soil was preferable over an operation outside of the US. Also, why is an operation of high complicity preferable to far simpler operation of 19 hijackers operating on their own. You will also need to show that American false flag operations that kill 3000 Americans are preferable to foreign terrorist acts that kill Americans.

[eomer]

13. Showing that there is a repetitive pattern does certainly bear on the question.

There is a pattern of behavior by the US deep state that is pervasive enough over a long enough period of time that it rises to the level of an overarching strategy. The strategy is to cultivate enemies using a broad range of tactics.

When you look at the entire era we live in then you can see the pattern. If you look at a single event you will be left with no explanation because there are not hard facts to base a conclusion on. Neither of us can point to any hard facts demonstrating that 9/11 either *was* or *was not* a false flag attack. It is a question that cannot be answered by focusing in closely on the single event.

In the face of this pervasive pattern, I believe Occam is more offended by the idea that a new arch-enemy springs up out of nowhere than it is by the alternative that a new arch-enemy was fostered by our deep state, especially when there are so many things about the way it sprung up that seem to have our deep state's fingerprints on them.

So if you look at the trend of the entire era then there are clues you can base an explanation on. For example, the fact that our deep state including CIA has been in close partnership with the Pakistani ISI, including funding them throughout the era, together with the fact that the ISI has been the chief patron of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. So even sticking just to the well-known facts, we are the indirect sponsors of al-Qaeda. If our deep state didn't want al-Qaeda to continue to be successful then you would think that at least *after* 9/11 they would have forced Pakistan to help us get at them. But our deep state did not do that. Instead they continued to funnel money to the ISI. They knew both before and after 9/11 that the ISI was one of the chief sponsors of the most important terrorist organizations threatening us. By continually feeding them money with no strings attached we are the sponsors by proxy.

To make my original point more clear, there is more than one way to accomplish a false flag attack. One way is to cause it to happen by direct action, organizing, funding, and managing the attack. Another way to accomplish the same end result is to provoke it and then intentionally step aside and allow it to happen. There may also be nuanced combinations and gradations of those two ends of a spectrum. I am not suggesting that I know in this individual case the exact details of how it was carried out. What I am suggesting is that it is obvious that the US deep state *wanted* this to happen and that the explanation that they made it happen and/or allowed it to happen is one of Occam's favorite explanations, not its explanatory stepchild.

In other words, I believe that a foundational theme of our era -- that the underlying motivation of the policies and actions of the US deep state with regard to foreign policy, foreign wars, and covert actions is to cultivate enemies and then profit off of the resulting conflict -- cannot be tossed aside so easily when we are trying to explain the most significant event of the era. Particularly when the alternative explanation is that the deep state just got real lucky. When one decades-long enemy has just petered out, your explanation goes, lucky them: up pops another one. How lucky for them and unfortunate for us that the trillions we used to spend fighting the Communists are now redirected into fighting the terrorists. Bye-bye peace dividend. You will have a hard time selling me that the most powerful forces on the planet just sat this one out on the sideline and were the beneficiaries of a totally lucky break.

[Bryan Sacks]

40. A very important post. Well put, eomer n/t

[BeFree]

14. Quality of information?

Lared wrote:
"...not ..on the quantity of information, it is dependent on the quality of information."

So let's look at the quantity and quality of the information about 9/11.

The quantity is from Bushco and Bushco's friends in the M$M. Funny, only in this dungeon is there any dispute of the fact that the M$M favors Bushco. Anyway, the minority of information comes from tested information that has stood high even against the onslaught of government suppression. The majority has been proven to come from known liars who have made billions from the consequence of the lies being believed.

Well that about covers it. The quantity came from an unreliable source and the quality leaves a bad taste. The quality has been suppressed. Bushco kept the Commission from doing its proper job: "Doomed from the start to fail". And we know the CIA could have stopped the whole thing from happening by just arresting a few known terrorists who were wandering the country being followed by agents of the Bushco controlled government.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Silly Bushco meme ...

Don't you think you've milked this long enough?

[BeFree]

22. No.

Maybe a little too hard, at times. Have you a reason for objecting?

[SDuderstadt]

24. yeah, I do...

It trivializes and oversimplifies the debate to keep insisting that "Bushco" did it, when there is no concrete evidence of such.

[LARED]

26. A good start might be explaining exactly what "Bushco" even means

I've asked in the past but never received an answer

[SDuderstadt]

27. Or explaining how "Bushco" somehow controls the Obama administration ...

long after Bash has (thankfully) become a disgraced former President relegated to near obscurity to live out the rest of his days in shame in Dallas.

[BeFree]

31. What does Bushco mean?

You don't have a clue? Gawd!!

[SDuderstadt]

33. Nice dodge, Be Free...

why not try actually answering it?

[LARED]

34. I'm all ears. Sitting quietly awaiting instruction by the master.

Go for it.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Quit begging the question...

n/t

[BeFree]

56. Bushco

I find it incredulous that there is seemingly no comprehension of what Bushco is.

On the other hand it could all be a dishonest ploy, a trap of sorts to even ask the question.

However, in the interest of the other readers here, I will attempt to simply define Bushco.

It goes back a long way. Back to before FDR. Grampa Bush, Prescott, was a financier of Hitler. In fact a company of his was shut down for that activity.

Bushco resurfaced with Daddy Bush, who rose to head the CIA, and who made it all the way to the VP office under Reagan. Then he himself took the highest office in the land. His sons became governors.

Along with this rise to power, came characters such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many others. They are veteran government insiders, all of them. They have conspired to steal as much as they could from the American people, and they have been very successful.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Could you be a bit more precise?

As in, a lot more precise?

The way you've "defined" it here, anything and everything which, anyone and everybody who may have contributed to the rise of the Bush family are all part of an intentionally laid plot. Everything, anyone who you can remotely work up in your mind as being slightly in the Bush family's favor is "Bushco."

Especially anyone who points out some of your looser, shall we say, connections.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Well put, Bolo...

You just nailed Be Free.

[BeFree]

59. Ok

It is solely government officials and companies in cahoots with the Bushses, like Carlyle, an investment firm, that make up Bushco.

To accuse people who voted for Bush to be a part of Bushco is of course, ridiculous. Fooled by Bushco, yes, but not a part of.

Some certainly do support Bushco much the same way there are supporters of football teams. They don't actually play, but they do support them and cheer them on.

[SDuderstadt]

60. So, can we assume you'll stop accusing members here of...

supporting Bushco or believing Bushco ?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Better.

"Some certainly do support Bushco much the same way there are supporters of football teams."

Now, taking your football analogy, let's say there's a controversial call in a game between the Bushco Crusaders and the Lovable Underdogs. The Bushco Crusaders are known to be cheats, scalawags, and bribers of referees, naturally. But let's say there's a controversial call, like: Did a Crusader step out of bounds as he ran toward the endzone?

In an informal situation like a bar, who cares about dem dam lying Crusaders. Fuck a bunch of them, right? But if you want to know the truth, you go to the video tape, you look at what the refs said, you see what people said at the time.

And the video evidence shows demonstrably that the Crusader, in this instance, stayed in bounds. That's what the refs said. That's what the fans, both Crusader and Underdog, said at the time on that side of the field. That's even what the Underdog chasing the Crusader said.

Do we then start seriously considering that the video evidence was faked? (You know, they can put the line of scrimmage on the field now, along with the first down line! They do that all the time! That could have been faked, real time!) Do we start considering the refs were bribed? (They've been bribed before! Are you saying the Crusaders are above bribing refs?) Do we start impugning the reputation of the Underdog who was chasing the Crusader? (His cousin had a Crusader flag in his bedroom!)

And do we then start seriously saying that no real Underdog fan would try to exonerate a Crusader no time, no how? Isn't the point of being an Underdog fan admitting to the actual truth of a situation? If we blame the Crusaders every chance we get, with no regard to the actual facts on the ground, aren't we just the same as the Crusaders?

And don't the Underdog fans set themselves up for embarrassment when the facts can so easily prove them wrong? Who's going to listen to an Underdog as willing to lie about the Crusaders as the Crusaders are willing to lie about everything?

[wildbilln864]

21. Occam(Ockham's) razor is for scientific applications...

link
It should only be used where scientific data is evaluated. Not where human behavior is a factor.

[LARED]

28. I agree Occam's razor best deals with evidence, known facts

not assertions or speculations. Human motivations are far to complex and unknown to assume parsimony will provide a preferred conclusion.

[eomer]

38. I get your point about human motivations and behavior,

and agree that you can't put too fine a point on Occam's razor for that reason but still you are implicitly applying some form of it whether you want to realize it or not. Otherwise all theories are equal, from the most simple and elegant to the most wildly outlandish. The theories that could be imagined, absent some kind of Occamish constraint, are unbounded.

[LARED]

43. A fundamental difference between us is

your assertion all theories are equal. This can only be explained by your desire to make it so, in order to bolster your belief system. They are not and there is no logical way to reason that all theories are equal and should be provided equal consideration.

[eomer]

45. Sorry, you've stated my position exactly backwards from what I said.

The relevant pieces from my previous post:

still you are implicitly applying some form of it whether you want to realize it or not. Otherwise all theories are equal

In other words, if you didn't apply some from of Occam's razor, you would fly off into wild, endless permutations of ridiculous possibilities. But since we all do apply Occam's razor as part of our natural thought process, all theories are *not* equal.

[BeFree]

50. Heck, eomer

You are wasting your time with that one, who thinks Bill Clinton shares some blame for 9/11 since he was only out of office 8 months.