William Binney Explains NSA Surveillance Using Snowden's Documents

Former NSA employee -- not technical director, as the link says -- explains how NSA bulk surveillance works, using some of the Snowden documents. Very interesting.

EDITED TO ADD (10/4): Apologies to Binney for downgrading his role at the NSA. He was not the technical director of the NSA, which is what I was thinking of, but he was a technical director at the NSA:

"In '97, I became the technical director of the geopolitical -- military geopolitical analysis and reporting shop for the world, which was about 6,000 people," Binney told Frontline.

Whatever the case, he does know what he's talking about when he talks about NSA surveillance.

Posted on October 3, 2014 at 6:59 AM • 144 Comments

Comments

Clive RobinsonOctober 3, 2014 8:38 AM

I wish that he or others would come forward over most of the Ed Snowden --and others-- trove we have seen to date.

For instance some of the stuff in the TAO catalogue can realy only have one purpose --wet work-- for a TLA with no legal powers of arrest, questioning or preparing for presentation in court for prosecution or other lawful purpose.

H. WilkerOctober 3, 2014 8:39 AM

I am not an expert on NSA grades or ranks, but in his public appearances William Binney is usually referred to as "NSA Technical Director", and I believe this is what he called himself in a public discussion that I visited a while ago. His Wikipedia entry also gives this as his most senior NSA grade. Possibly he was _a_ Technical Director (i. e. one among many), not _the_ Technical Director. It would be interesting to know if there is differing information.

GrauhutOctober 3, 2014 8:48 AM

'The people are constantly reminded of this by the phrase "Big Brother is watching you", the maxim ubiquitous on display. However, in the nature of doublethink, this phrase is also meant to mean that Big Brother is a benevolent protector of all citizens.' (wiki)

1984 is long ago and the new Bigger Brothers have learned their lesson well.

The original negative "Big Brother" meme was devalued by tv shows of this name and the Bigger Brothers of today use "their foes" to spread the word that they are watching us, day and night.

Difficult to decide whom to trust these days.

parrotOctober 3, 2014 8:49 AM

Where does Binney's knowledge come from regarding programs that have developed after he left the NSA? I certainly appreciate his opinion, but I find it hard separating what he knows from what he's speculating.

...that is, unless he's still talking to people at the NSA, but I'd imagine employees get flagged by counter intelligence for even knowing who Binney is.

C. TolsonOctober 3, 2014 9:11 AM

As Binney says, of course NSA surveillance is used to monitor and control freedom of association at home. When the government alerts on protected speech they routinely use NSA-gathered data to embed the speaker in a network. When they have difficulty doing that, because of privacy technologies or confidentiality provisions, you see them groping for better selectors with illegal domestic operations: social engineering, abuse of function (particularly by the IRS - the Huston Plan is back,) arbitrary interference at airports, warrantless computer intrusion. COINTELPRO never went away.

GrauhutOctober 3, 2014 10:16 AM

@Rolf ... or more PSYOP stuff.

Team Snowden/Binney could still be part of some kind of "whistlepot". Nothing really new, controlled release by mass media... Snowden aggregated a lot of attention on moscow. Just in time before the Ukraine crisis. If something went wrong with OP Kiew they need to bury the NSA leak story now somewhere. The 9/11 truth boneyard would be a great place to do so.

Gary "Cocain International Agency" Webb shot himself twice in the head, Binney travels around the world to explain the Snowden files to the whole world.

Every would like to be a Big Brother needs to tell us that he is watching us. If we the people dont know about it surveillance doesnt give them more surpressive power. But why a limited hangout now, why could they want us to know and fear them?

SchatziOctober 3, 2014 10:38 AM

Hey Rolf, I need a good laugh. But I don't get the joke. So why don't you rebut the specific peer-reviewed facts so we can all laugh along?

The CIA trick of dismissing a dissident by labeling his unauthorized views is getting kind of lame, now that everybody with a three-digit IQ knows the US government is a criminal enterprise. So maybe you should think up some new laugh lines.

DeltaVOctober 3, 2014 10:45 AM

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

It is extremely likely that Binney was a technical director at NSA, where I am led to understand every organization and level of organization above a certain point has a technical director. The question is what level of technical director, and I'm not sure that matters to the relevance of his remarks.

AdjuvantOctober 3, 2014 10:55 AM

@Grauhut: Predictable someone would come out on the wrong side of one of my favorite shibboleths,
From a personal friend of Webb's (and a recent suicide himself -- RIP):
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122004_goodbye_giant.shtml

Here are the facts: Gary Webb fired two shots from a .38 caliber revolver into his own head. The entrance wounds for both shots were at or near the right ear. However, for the first shot Webb had the gun angled downward which produced a through-and-through wound blowing out his lower left jaw. This was obviously not a fatal wound. His second shot, angled upward, successfully reached the brain, killing him instantly.
Under "suicided," see e.g. {Danny Casolaro, Col. Jim Sabow} yes;{ Gary Webb, Michael C. Ruppert, Aaron Swartz} no.

albertOctober 3, 2014 11:33 AM

At this point I would like to recommend some light reading for everyone, including those folks who like to label every critic of the US as a 'conspiracy theorist':
From Naomi Wolf, 2007:
.


Wolf outlines ten steps that "closing societies" — such as Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's Russia — have historically followed. These steps, Wolf claims, are being observed in America now.

The steps are:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
Set up an internal surveillance system.
Harass citizens' groups.
Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
Target key individuals.
Control the press.
Cast criticism as espionage and dissent as treason.
Subvert the rule of law.

.
from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot]
.
Are we seeing a reversal of these trends? Anyone care to debunk any of these points?
.
I gotta go...

GrauhutOctober 3, 2014 11:57 AM

@keiner Right, every economic cycle ends somewhen. After 1990 the military industrial complex was starving, kept alive by money funneled into it known as "expenses the Pentagon couldnt account for" and the .com crash in 2000 should have given the actual cycle the final stroke. OBL saved them, may he be praised...

If there is something like an OP "whistlepot" it could at least partially be some kind of social blackboxing in order to find out who would support a totalitarian system and who wouldnt. If they have built a social graph based on the reactions on the Snowden leaks, now they know. Potential brainy resistance tagged, potential leaders identified.

65535October 3, 2014 11:58 AM

This part of the discussion is quite disturbing! It indicates that the DEA and FBI are directly involved in criminal case rigging [and possibly local police].

If the statements below are correct a lot of people have gone to jail using illegal evidence and parallel construction. I would guess many defense attorneys would like to know more about type of behavior and how to stop it.

"Question: And is that what Snowden was complaining about?"

"William Binney: Yes. Now, it even gets worse, because once NSA has all this data, they have to have a customer for it, and it's now turned out to be law enforcement... It's the FBI and DEA and they're going directly into these databases and querying them and looking for criminal activity and then they use this data to go arrest people... when they do that, they can't take it into court, because it wasn't acquired with a warrant, so it's not admissible in court. And, these are the rules for the-- this is the-- in the DEA is this SOD, or the "Special Operations Division". It's specifically tasked to look at NSA data for criminal activity. In the SOD is FBI, CIA, DEA, of course, DHS and the IRS."

[IRS involvement in spying and harassment]

"Question: Is that just your hypothesis?"

"William Binney: The only key point I have is the-- I can't remember her name, but I have it at home. She was testifying to the House Judiciary Committee. This was one of the people targeted by the IRS. And she mentioned some of the questions they were asking, she said, "They asked me a question about-- what's my relationship with this specific other person?" ...my question now is (not what her relationship is) but how did the IRS know that she had it? The only way they [IRS] would know is looking right into SOD at the graphing in NSA. They would know that from that."

[Parallel criminal case reconstruction]

"William Binney: ...they participate in the parallel reconstruction... when you [Law enforcement] can't use the data, you [Law enforcement] have to go out and do a parallel construction, means you use what you would normally consider to be investigative techniques, go find the data. You have a little hint... NSA is telling you where the data is, it makes you look really good. If you have it quickly. So then you can justify, taking it into court and use that in court...I call that perjury... I call this a 'Planned Program Perjury Policy' run by the Department of Justice of the United States... it's not just affecting our democracy, it's subverting our entire court system. It's not only subverting ours, it's subverting everybody's in the world that has a relationship with the FBI or the DEA. So this is infecting entire democracies, all of the world."

[USA has better domestic spy system than the Russians]

"William Binney: ...they've [NSA] started-- they've instituted a Stasi type system. Where workers in NSA are to look at and watch, "See something, say something" on other employees. So this is Stasi... I refer to N-S-A as the 'New Stasi Agency'... I... reference Wolfgang Schmidt, who used to be a lieutenant colonel in the East German Stasi, he commented on the NSA's surveillance program. He said, "For us, this would have been a dream come true." And the reason they're saying it... this is straight out of the KGB, like Gestapo, SS, Stasi playbook."

"Question: So the Russians have the same program?"

"William Binney: No, we do much better than they did."

And Binney notes: "NSA knows that.. I mean, NSA gets five billion records of GPS data on cell phones every day, so according to the Snowden material."

[That is a lot personal information gathered per day!]

http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wb/binney.html

If this is true we need to clean house - even it means going up to the top of the Justice Department.

GrauhutOctober 3, 2014 12:33 PM

@65535 Forget it. Look at Obama, he jumped into office like a freedom lion and landed as a carpet. The gangsters you want to bring to justice are the same ones prepping our leaders information input.

Too big or to powerful to fail also means too big to jail... The "rule of law" has become a kind of theater decoration for a bad comedy. The econicmic erosion made dual state totalitarian democracies out of the western alliance countries. Read Ernst Fraenkel and Jacob Talmon and you will understand it.

SmokingHotOctober 3, 2014 12:52 PM

Very interesting article, though many of these points and conclusions have been made before.

On the "truther" debacle, I read above:

There is a very wide spectrum there on "truthers", what Binney seems to be saying (from the quotes, not the video) is simply it needs more investigation because of certain data points. Does this mean he thinks the terrorists were no on board the airplanes? That the airplanes were just really, really large drones rigged with explosives? That the buildings themselves were also rigged with explosives?

I surely did not get that impression.

Instead, he seems to be indicating merely that some state based actor was involved in the planning of the attack.

And it is possible that actor may have had some ties within the US.


Whatever the case, it would not effect his explanations in this article. I do believe that the Snowden material and Binney's knowledge are not complete. Binney has, clearly, a very rigid moral code. People would have known what to trust him with. And what not to trust him with.

There are lot of people like Binney. They have rigid moral codes and so are not introduced into programs that would be against their conscience.

With Snowden, it is a different factor: he gathered data that was set for wide, internal distribution. That data is not going to be complete. Much further then the black marks on these presentations could possibly indicate.


It may be noted that Binney also has the opinion that Snowden went too far in his disclosures and even used the "t" word when describing this behavior. I am sure, Binney, like anyone, probably has all sorts of opinions on entirely unrelated subjects that a wider stream audience would disagree with. But his technical opinions in this paper show lucid and accurate candor with some degree of polished professionalism of note.


On the paper:

Back to the more direct topic, this information otherwise is useful. If you are curious about tying all the already known details together to get a bigger picture. It does cover some already obvious and well known conclusions so was a bit tiresome from that angle. But, in general, it is a superb analysis.

I suppose beyond the obvious, what I wonder about these systems, besides their likely evolution is... how can these sorts of systems can be gamed? Can they be gamed? If, say, you are a foreign organization, or otherwise a secret organization likely of interest to be mapped out?

Some examples considered, Occupy, the Tea Party, and so on, aside... what if the organization was more professional?

"For instance", what if someone or some group with access to these systems wanted to map out, say, witnesses in the witness protection program? Or, what if they wanted to map out, say, some defense corporation, or governmental agency's covert program? For argument's sake, say this program has a good reason for existing and does good things. Like the witness protection program. As opposed to something scary.

(Thinking on this, I also here do not mean, say, VIPs of corporations, as mapping them out could help put pressure on them to cooperate with even the most outlandish requests. That would be in the realm of "unprofessional", because they are not going to be professionals at dealing with that manner of threat.)


Technically, I would say, "they are missing the trees for the forest". ;-)

They rely heavily on the records:

- If a number is such, be it phone or IP address, then that is in XYZ geographic area.
- If it were possible to forge the assigned IP address or telephone numbers, then in these ways the system could not only be fooled, it could be entirely misdirected. A local group could appear to be an European group. Or vice versa.

Obviously, I mean here in multiple ways, but primarily where someone is at a much lower level available then to ordinary citizens utilize someone or some organizations IP or telephone numbers temporarily or long term.

- call data, including recorded voice information can be faked, the person, if they know they are being surveilled or expect to be surveilled can use that information for purposes of legend building, pocket lint, etc

- likewise, credit card information

- toll both and other camera systems, this is more difficult, except, it isn't. Unless someone - like in all these situations - actually go and verify the recorded information. Otherwise, you are talking about such information as recorded license plate data. Not video people are looking at. Recorded toll booth information.

- false social media networks, especially if tied to the above information.

- perhaps, only certain trees which do not exist, when one looks at the forest. Instead of all trees. For instance, when some creates a false persona online they have the option to actually find someone who is real online and from them create their own version of them. Dopplegangers.

Nobody actually sees these dopplegangers, so... it would bypass analysis. Likewise, traffic could be merged into totally innocent and everyday traffic. Suddenly, a truly ominous organization is mixed with an everyday group. Lost in the smoke of the cloud. ;-)

- How many people, in, for instance, the United States have false backgrounds? How many organizations, companies and otherwise, are "false fronts"? How many of these were real people, or how many of these companies were once legitimate, but taken over? Bought out. Or whatever.

Case example, "Russia" (say), goes and comes into the US. They have a network of spies. They need communication methodology. They need viable front businesses. Sometimes spies from foreign countries just get a legitimate day job. But, sometimes they need something more substantial then this. Because, you know, they do not want all their spies needing to report to the embassy. That is kind of a tell.


- Under the dictates of "you have to give them something, otherwise they keep looking", I wonder if, say, foreign intelligence agencies do give them something. Give them fake maps of their own spies. Something to keep them busy and feed them a steady course of false information.

SmokingHotOctober 3, 2014 1:04 PM

@Grauhut

Team Snowden/Binney could still be part of some kind of "whistlepot". Nothing really new, controlled release by mass media... Snowden aggregated a lot of attention on moscow. Just in time before the Ukraine crisis. If something went wrong with OP Kiew they need to bury the NSA leak story now somewhere. The 9/11 truth boneyard would be a great place to do so.

I must say, I do appreciate your unorthodox thinking, though this is an angle everyone should consider on these matters. As well as so many others. Is it the most probable of the theories? Not by a wide margin. But if you gamble, sometimes that .00001% chance will happen.

I noticed something like this reading about one of the British whistleblowers over 7/7, and how he came to become, like Manning, a transvestite. Unlike Manning he came to also have very strange religious beliefs, including that he can control the weather with his mind.

Probability wise: there is no connection. Manning was already this way, and this was partly why he saw things as a true outsider would. What he saw was true. His unusual perspective in life simply gave him an objectivity most of his peers were incapable of.

And there is the issue of intense stress these people can go through.


Further: I think most information security professionals with experience with anything like these systems already suspected that there was widespread networks working. Likewise, anyone actually likely a target would also have to make the very same assumptions.

Information trickled out. And there have been observable evidence out into the world, from which reasonable conclusions could be derived: for instance, the US military effectively founded the internet, and the same firms such as BBN have deep intelligence and telco ties.

Many such open secrets as these, one can make inferences with a high degree of accuracy.

The lay public, however, would have been unable to do so: until these systems were exposed.


There is something else, here, however, which I argued above: these systems, we can all reasonably assume, have not been fully covered by either the Binney nor Snowden disclosures.

The government operates on a very compartmentalized fashion. They are capable of actually getting away with secret operations. Doing so does not involve telling everyone who works for some agency these bits of information. Even with someone "high up" like Binney, he would not have been trusted knowingly with programs he did not need to know about -- and his moral compass would have been well known under basic investigation. So, he would not have *knowingly* been trusted with information that he would have found morally reprehensible.

When people engage in conspiracies, these sorts of points matter.


LessThanObviousOctober 3, 2014 2:00 PM

Great article.

The money changing hands in all this strikes me as the hardest thing to combat. Public policy can shift with public opinion, but it gets much harder when there are so many with their hands in this $10B+ per/yr cookie jar.

GrauhutOctober 3, 2014 3:04 PM

@SmokingHot - Jack Sparrow: "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. ... me, for example, I can let you drown, but I can't bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy?"

Could they gag Binney? Yes, they can! So if Binney travels around the world telling a story about "secrets" they want him to. :)


What do we know about the state of the art of mass data processing? Knowledge vaults, AI like cyc "knowledge" extraction from packet data in bigtable keystorage troughput...

"The Comprehensive Terrorism Knowledge Base in Cyc", Paper, 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, Virginia


What if there is not enough "terror ip traffic", do they have to define "new terror traffic" in order to keep their budgets on high level? Sometimes a bureaucracy simply mutates to a bureaucrazy by itself and nobody stops it. Sometimes they really have crazy orders... I dont know.

Nick POctober 3, 2014 3:18 PM

@ Schatzi

Thanks for that link! It's awesome. I didn't know about the 9/11 Consensus panel. I told 9/11 truth movement repeatedly in the past that they need to present simplified, concrete, indisputable evidence for lay people to mentally process. Then, build theories from that evidence. Otherwise, doubt and infighting destroys any progress on their goals.

I posted here under my old hacker alias a number of claims for 9/11 truth movement. I mixed very strong and controversial ones. The goal was to see how more thoughtful than average audience would approach it. The scientific result would be to accept or debate the strong claims, while rejecting the weak ones. What *actually* happened was almost everyone on the blog instead discussed why people are prone to conspiratorial thinking, why they don't need to evaluate claims, why I might be deluded, and so on. If that's how smart people react to criminal allegations, then how are people in general going to detect or punish well-executed crimes with strong coverups?

My mental recollections of why I decided 9/11 was a U.S. operation

Anyway, being an operator myself & studying U.S. covert ops for years, I immediately saw all the signs of covert operation of some sort. Here's just a few things burned into my mind from back then:

1. They ignored many warnings.

2. Certain stakeholders began creating financial instruments that would pay off millions to billions if very specific disaster happened in a narrow window (incl 9/11). This was around a month before.

3. All kinds of disaster preparations and supplies started happening in areas later affected by 9/11.

4. NORAD authorized a record amount of war games that included basically every interceptor we had on hot standby, all to happen at once. If an attack happened during this time, our air defenses would be paralyzed. There's not a precedent for this if I recall.

[rest isn't necessarily in temporal order]

5. Attacks happen. Buildings visibly unaffected with fire burning in impact section. My personal experience (and firefighters' testimony) was dark orange fires with black smoke indicate weak fire. Not a "raging inferno" melting struts, etc. Buildings remain standing.

6. People being interviewed describe bombs going off. Visibly injured by them. Firefighters mentioned this too and it helped motivate their evacuation.

7. A bunch of fires start burning ultra bright with white smoke and molten flows. Within seconds of this, the buildings fall at near free fall speed, every floor moves toward the ground simultaneously, and large pyroclastic clouds flow through the city. It looks like every implosion I've ever seen & has no traits of a building collapse. It also doesn't pancake like designed: every floor moves as if there's no core at all.

8. World Trade Center 7 falls the same way. FBI seizes every bit of camera footage they can.

9. NORAD fails to intercept other two planes despite successfully handling wayward planes in the past. Interceptors fly toward Canada and Atlantic for a period of time. Then, turn around and fail to intercept. What's happening?

10. Pilot is directly lined up with Pentagon. Knows where joint chiefs & significant capabilities are. Hitting it from top could kill thousands of people & black out some capabilities. It would be the easiest run ever.

11. Pilot instead pulls an "ace" maneuver that most 757 pilots can't do in simulation. He nearly wrecks the plane several times to hit a specific target. That target is the emptiest part of the Pentagon with a bomb-reinforced wall. A terrorist aiming to do max damage with a straight shot to it instead risked his mission repeatedly doing a highly improbable maneuver to hit the weakest part of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, the office auditing the Pentagon's spending (and many of its records) were destroyed. No significant capabilities were affected and casualty list was tiny. Result: terrorist did no significant damage & benefited any corruption in Pentagon. Some terrorist... Data recorder is seized & made secret.

12. Flight 93 goes down. FBI initially indicates no evidence anyone made it into cockpit. Local reporting on crash site contradicts their story along with cell records. Data recorder is seized and kept secret.

13. FBI almost immediately has evidence it's Osama bin Laden along with the list of hijackers. Also claims they were careful and maintained great OPSEC. Their speed at gathering this evidence is remarkable. So is the fact that one piece of evidence was a hijackers passport that survived impact and that the lead hijacker left an orgy of evidence at the airport. Nobody does the latter unless they want it to be found.

14. Osama bin laden releases a statement saying he had nothing to do with 9/11. Claims he's in Afghanistan and not allowed to do operations. Thought the attack was unusual in its motivations. FBI later confirms they have no evidence tying him to 9/11. Implies all "evidence" given to public was fabricated.

15. A press release says FBI agents sued the U.S. government claiming they were watching the hijackers, knew they were up to something, attempted to arrest them, and were ordered to stand down by Washington. They also had CIA people in the operation who efforts hurt the operation more than helped it. The operation was called Able Danger.

16. Bush and Cheney refused an independent investigation. Reports of evidence destruction start to mount. A group nobody has ever heard of starts destroying the steel of the tower en masse in violation of federal law. The official account, by NIST and FEMA, is based on a study of a random sample of that steel that was selected by those destroying it.

17. Victims families, independent investigators, conspiracy sites, and petitions force them to take action. They create 9/11 Commission.

18. One politician quits saying they were basically being ordered to present a certain story, had no access to internal evidence, and so on.

19. Commission wants all data on Operation Able Danger. Government destroys most of its records, then gives a select few to Congress. Those select few "prove" they were innocent. Such a methodology might have proven Enron innocent as well. Destruction of evidence is a felony and usually a sign of guilt.

20. 9/11 Report glosses over, ignores or deceives on key details. These include financial bets on disaster, people given warnings, people reporting explosions, war games paralyzing air defense, and so on. Hence, report was either disinformation or seriously compromised by others' disinformation.

21. Government reports released in 2005 and 2006. The reports confirm many specific claims that back the demolition hypothesis, while also ignoring a demolition hypothesis. The government had previously said these claims were false or fabricated. They cited their internal investigations. These are the internal investigations and they say the opposite. Deception of this nature is usually a sign of guilt.

22. Independent analysis of the materials find thermite. Recently, University of Coppenhagen found a nano-engineered superthermite in a sample claiming to be the core. I considered a possible hoax. However, the only reference to such a thing came from 2000 in a document about a new superthermite for US military covert operations, including demolition. It has similar properties. Did a hoaxer get a classified blend/process, produce it with nanofabrication equipment, and then simulate a realistic use of a fake/real core sample? Or was it a real sample of a core brought down by covert demolition? Occam's razor suggest the latter in light of other data.

23. Recent FEMA report claims a strange effect on WTC core samples: razor sharp holes punched through the steel with sulfidation. Common with demolitions. They instead try to wildly speculate on how a regular fire could've done it.

24. Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim that declassified data records totally contradict flight path, elevation, & even hijacking claims by government. Indicate the planes may have never even crashed.

25. A number of engineers, business people, military, pilots, and spooks review the evidence. The number that rejects official theory in favor of one that's quite criminal in nature only grows every year.

26. Some people in U.S. government admit they had everything they needed to stop 9/11 without need of new laws or capabilities. They simply failed on every level, some simultaneously.

27. Key politicians opposing the rushed Patriot Act were hit with anthrax. It was the same strain as that developed at Fort Detrick for U.S. biological warfare. All opposition to the bill ended. After that limited set of attacks, the attackers never used anthrax again. The result of the attacks only benefited military, law enforcement, and intelligence field. The attacks didn't benefit, not are typical of, Middle Eastern terrorists.

Given alone the foreknowledge, financial bets, and destruction of evidence, the strongest hypothesis is that 9/11 was a false flag operation done by a combination of private and public sector personnel. They then fabricated as much as they could to push a certain story, get tons of money, enact pre-made foreign policy in Middle East, pass pre-written laws that stripped our rights, and turn the country into a surveillance state with police state powers. It was a coup and it worked.

vas pupOctober 3, 2014 3:27 PM

I have no objection on parallel construction if and only if it is used for investigation of already committed serious crimes (terrorism, murder, rape - against life and health; for IRS - for amount of tax evasion greater than particular threshold - e.g. $10 million) or prevention of similar real crimes (I am not talking about entrapment practice). In the first case the purpose is prosecution, in the second - it depends on circumstances (extradition, deportation, recruiting CI or SOI, etc.). The only concern is that facts should go f i r s t, and personality is going second meaning 'we don't like particular person or group for any reason, then we will make their life miserable using rather misusing legal system' . That is unacceptable.

Alexa O'BrienOctober 3, 2014 3:52 PM

PLEASE CORRECT:

By the way, I'm a bit put off by your intro to the post.

Your introduction implies that I made an error I haven't made.

I'd appreciate if you

1) Change intro; or
2) Elucidate your own preference for term 'employee'.

Thanks.

albertOctober 3, 2014 4:59 PM

@vas pup
Gathering evidence illegally is a _crime_ that can, in itself, be punished. It doesn't matter if the individual is guilty of a crime or not. There are reasons why this is so, but I don't have the time or the inclination to explain them to you.

AnuraOctober 3, 2014 5:29 PM

@Nick P

I'm not going to address all of the points, but my problem with accepting the whole conspiracy idea is the motives. What does it take to convince the people to go to war? Well, I'll tell you right now that if only one plane struck one tower, that would have been enough to get everything they wanted, regardless of whether the tower collapsed. Remember, all it took for Vietnam was the sinking of a ship. An embassy bombing probably would have been enough to go to Afghanistan, and I think they could have pushed for Iraq without 9/11.

The second thing to consider is Hanlon's Razor. You have to remember this was only 9 months in to a new administration, and when a new administration enters it involves replacing the heads of every department in government. It takes a long time to play catch-up and figure out how to do their jobs, so when you have what is essentially a mass firing, it makes you significantly more prone to incompetence.

While Dick Cheney I am not sure about, I am pretty confident that, while woefully incompetent, Bush wouldn't deliberately perform an attack against Americans. While I do think he's a deplorable human being, I think he believes in patriotism and wouldn't deliberately kill innocent American civilians (foreigners, however, especially non-whites I don't think he gives a shit about).

The number of people that would have to be involved to pull this off, and the amount of guilt that would have to be on their conscience I doubt it was planned with explosives against the WTC and cruise missiles against the pentagon. That they knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen demands further evidence that can't be explained away by incompetence.

SmokingHotOctober 3, 2014 5:43 PM

@Grauhut

Thanks for another colorful, creative response.


I might only suggest, regardless of how competent they believe these systems to be, I do not share that confidence.

Any "infrastructure for totalitarianism" comments aside.

P/KOctober 3, 2014 5:49 PM

That interview with Binney is just disappointing and even sad. Binney discredits himself in following Snowden and Greenwald in their activist attacks on the NSA with all their exaggerated claims for which they haven't provided any hard evidence.

As others also mentioned, Binney left NSA in 2001, so he has no inside knowledge about NSA capabilities since. In this interview he can hardly disguise his inability to interpret the NSA slides in a way that is somewhat clarifying.

Maybe Thinthread was a better system, but that's almost 15 years ago now. It's good to know from a historical perspective, but not really relevant anymore for the current situation or the future.

SmokingHotOctober 3, 2014 6:04 PM

@vas pup

I have no objection on parallel construction if and only if it is used for investigation of already committed serious crimes (terrorism, murder, rape - against life and health; for IRS - for amount of tax evasion greater than particular threshold - e.g. $10 million) or prevention of similar real crimes (I am not talking about entrapment practice). In the first case the purpose is prosecution, in the second - it depends on circumstances (extradition, deportation, recruiting CI or SOI, etc.). The only concern is that facts should go f i r s t, and personality is going second meaning 'we don't like particular person or group for any reason, then we will make their life miserable using rather misusing legal system' . That is unacceptable.


Very slippery slope. Plenty of good, sincere cops... plenty of sociopathic control freak cops out there. Plenty who themselves believe all sorts of loads of crap.

So you have to make such things illegal. It is unethical, and the slope it leads to is easibility of more illegal surveillance. Hooverism, Stasism, kgbism...

Keep going down that slope and everyone finds themselves in a really powerful north korea.

Nobody asks how the war was lost. It was lost while claiming to try and win it, by the very "combatants" entrusted to stand against it.

BuckOctober 3, 2014 8:00 PM

@P/K

Considering that most of the Snowden 'leaks' have been a decade (plus some) stale, and that new technologies will take some time to mature...
If William Binney was indeed a "technical director" in his days, there's plenty of reason to believe that he has loads of 'inside knowledge' relevant to our current situation!

Hive MindOctober 3, 2014 8:02 PM

@Grauhut

Regarding the meme "Team Snowden", I noticed that it appeared on T-Shirts very soon after Snowden went public with his disclosures.

As with other things "Team", it minimizes the contribution of the individual by directing attention to the group.

Same thing with "family unit".

It appears that fascism in America is a team sport, an extrapolation of religion and football.

Perhaps the Team Snowden T-Shirts were part of a CIA program to promote teamism. It would be an oblique attack on the principle behind Snowden while seeming to be a celebration of him.

J HOctober 3, 2014 8:24 PM

@ albert, the purpose of Snowden and Binney is to, slowly but surely, get the general public into accepting these programs. Whether the purpose is directly from those sources as intended, or if its indirectly bend towards that purpose doesn't matter much. I am not saying that is their goal (I don't know), but it doesn't matter. That is the _effect_. Do you notice change in government policy concerning all these programs now that they're in the open? I don't. All I see is CYA and damage control (which suggests guilt). I don't even see my own government oppose usage of services in the Cloud, e-mail services like Gmail, or search engine services like Google within their contractors. So they have my private data stored in a US cloud, falling under US jurisdiction. Even having the data hosted in EU makes it according to the US government legally able to search through it (the Microsoft case). Why this trust? I believe it stems from this view that "America is Good, and Russia is Evil" aka a bifurcation and leftover from the cold war. In the link I provide hereunder though [1] you can find this even existed during the cold war. Its an interview with Klaus Eichner who worked for the Stasi, and spied for them on the NSA and West German secret services, specifically how those two cooperated.

Binney is even suggesting to tap only the cables overseas. It is still mass surveillance, just less massive than it currently is but at least it means the NSA only spies on data from/to USA to the rest of the world. He also suggests targeted surveillance, but this cannot work because the tools are available to do more. This is part of a damage control agenda, together with public acceptance. The repeating of the news is so overwhelming, people slowly but surely accept its existence. They don't even have time to study all this information; so you need to explain it in simple laymen terms as someone above also suggested. Shit also needs to hit the fan, so to say. That is to say you need cases where you can prove escalations such as say a police officer who abuses these systems for their own gain, economic gains, private data leaking publicly, and so on.

You see, this is a fight for the public opinion and the government -or at least parts of it- is lying, deceiving and manipulating to keep itself intact and sway the public opinion. That is what 9/11 was about. There are 2 ways to overthrow a regime: via democratic power (voting, protesting, exercising your legal rights), and by force (e.g. coupe, war, and other forms of violence). Force is generally seen as a last resort, but in a mass surveillance police state in the making the government is slowly converted into a government where the people wouldn't even be able to exercise their democratic powers, or able to plan usage of force. They wouldn't have the tools or room for that. And this is why the right to bear arms is so important (and no, I'm not an American). Those founding fathers never took into account all the weapons and security measures and technology we have today though.

If you knew someone who worked for the government agency (including foreign) they could've warned you 10, 15 years ago internet data was massively tapped and analyzed. Not in so many words, but with a subtle hint. Must say, I took it as FUD, and I was wrong. The reason I didn't believe it was I thought our politicians more specifically the German ones (who provide platform for the secret service) learned from our past such as Gestapo and Stasi (MfS), and I grew up during the cold war.

Disclaimer: I'm projecting in my post. I've also visited a Stasi jail and Nazi concentration camp last summer and I can recommend you to do so too should the opportunity arise.

[1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-former-stasi-agent-about-the-nsa-a-975010.html

@ Anura

The number of people that would have to be involved to pull this off, and the amount of guilt that would have to be on their conscience I doubt it was planned with explosives against the WTC and cruise missiles against the pentagon.

Not a definitive plausible defense, sorry.

First, your mistake is you are projecting your own standard of ethics too much and by doing that you are attempting us to project ours. History however would teach us your faith in humanity is utterly misplaced. What about the amount of guilt people feel in war? The way it works in the human psyche is when you do something wrong (like killing someone, stealing something, etc) you feel guilt the first time you do it and then you get used to it ie. you learn to live with it (this is what the quote of "one death is a tragedy" is about IMO). You also convince yourself (or get convinced) the measures are necessary. They are hypocrites, devoid of ethics. You can even call them psychopaths. Erich Mielke, and say recently fallen dictators such as Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, and Muammar Gaddafi have all committed crimes against their own people. The reason why Mielke and his administration are so interesting is because it lasted long, was effective, and involved mass surveillance. Not sure you can call it efficient if you look at the economic state of the GDR though.

If you go to the Stasi jail in Hohenschönhausen, Berlin you will come across a villa neighborhood. This neighborhood existed in the Stasi time, too but the people didn't know about it. You will not find it on maps, it was carefully hidden from the East Germans. Only people in the highest echelons knew about it, it was even hidden from the party. We only learned about a lot of these programs Snowden has uncovered recently, and US corporations receive gag orders all the time. Why is it so far fetched information can be held private if enough effort is put into concealing it? In order to conceal it, all you need to do is make sure those who know (a select few) are convinced they're doing it for a greater good ie. the end justifies the means. You can just use a pyramid system of trust. In the GDR, even people in the party were tested and themselves were blackmailed, too.

SmokingHotOctober 3, 2014 8:47 PM

@J H, @all


the purpose of Snowden and Binney is to, slowly but surely, get the general public into accepting these programs. Whether the purpose is directly from those sources as intended, or if its indirectly bend towards that purpose doesn't matter much. I am not saying that is their goal (I don't know), but it doesn't matter. That is the _effect_. Do you notice change in government policy concerning all these programs now that they're in the open? I don't. All I see is CYA and damage control (which suggests guilt).

I think one thing that can irk me about conspiracy theories is that they can treat individuals as being guilty of crimes they did not commit. Binney and Snowden, for instance, are very likely heroes.

There is some, distant possibility, they are not. Sure. But, remember, these are real people. There is surely not enough evidence to convict them. What they did, what these others have done, is sacrifice a lot of their personal selves for others. That is heroic.

There should be more Mannings, more Snowdens. There are many veterans who have finally come home, to realize, the war they fought in, and many of the conditions there were wrong. But not many in the deeper levels of intelligence or the military who do what they should do by conscience. Really standing up for liberty. Like everyone else there claims to.


You do have a valid point, however. This is part of the product of these revelations.

The end result should be examined.


One factor here, however, as to "why there has not been change", well, people remain largely uninformed on these areas. If they were informed, they would be with the opponents. They would be with Snowden, and be with Manning.


If you work in a technical field, and you probably do or how did you get here?... then you know how it is. People use this stuff, but they don't get much of the mechanics of it.


Here, it is all much more then information technology. It also requires people to have some knowledge beyond cursory of totalitarian nations. This sort of thing, sadly, is not being taught. And people do not have a tendency to want to study it. They are just trying to make their ways through their lives.


They can even be very smart people. Professionals who are well paid. Lawyers, doctors, dentists. But, they don't come home, usually, and plunk down arcane history books on the rise of the Soviet Union or Pol Pot.


Some of them have maybe read some books on the Nazis. This is relatively rare.


And going from Nazi to "today and here and these people" is quite a distance. If you start to look at more of these stories, across more of these nations, the fact that "it can happen here", "it can happen anywhere" becomes painfully clear.


Exceptions here, of course, for some of the survivors of these events.


The people working in these areas surely do not know these things. And these are the people entrusted with trying to work for liberty. Those who do get their head so far into the team and the game, they can't make the distinction. That it could be you. It could be them. They think they are the reason they work so hard. It never occurs to them they long ago crossed that line.

P/KOctober 3, 2014 10:02 PM

@ Buck
It seems that Binney wasn't actually the technical director, but more a (leading?) engineer. Apart from that, he undoubtely has a lot of technical knowledge. But still, internet and telephony technology has developed tremendously rapid in the past decade, which makes it difficult for an outsider to estimate what NSA has been doing in that field.

The Snowden-documents shed some light on that, but instead of Binney giving us explanations of these docs that are helpful and claryfing, he does hardly more than guessing and stressing how out of control NSA has gone. But that's what we hear from everyone. If he really has that much of insight, he should be able to provide a far better analysis. Like for example this blog post from an outsider does: https://robert.sesek.com/2014/9/unraveling_nsa_s_turbulence_programs.html

Maybe Binney isn't doing so because he doesn't want to disclose any state secrets, but in that case I really don't see what he contributes to the current debate, especially when he is comparing NSA to the Stasi. If we want to control NSA, then we have to look very carefully at what they are doing, not painting a picture of a monster.

AnuraOctober 3, 2014 10:41 PM

@J H

People do feel guilty in war, and they talk about what happened. There is a difference, however, in that in war the aggression is directed at an enemy, this would have to be an action directed at people they would consider to be friends. Yes, I'm sure there are some people that could do this and feel it was necessary, but there is a limit to how many people are involved before it can no longer be kept a secret. How many people would have to be in the loop? If it was a handful, say five or six, maybe. Once you start getting into the dozens, or probably hundreds if you are talking about demolitions and cruise missiles the probability of a leak gets extremely high.

Nick POctober 3, 2014 11:59 PM

@ Anura

I disagree that motives, etc are a problem. Doing an investigation that way is a common mistake. The proper place to start is the scene of the crime. The physical evidence, eye witnesses, and any data from reliable source (eg black box, video cameras). Once basic facts are picked up, hypotheses are formed and tested. The investigation goes further, identifying suspects & potential motives. At that point, you worry about that stuff. Most of what's in the Consensus site & my own timeline are from the initial data collection. Much concrete data disproving the official story & implying things like demolition means I have to consider it. The What is, empirically, more important that the Who or Why. And can lead to that.

I'll try to address your points on damage, skill, number of people, etc anway. I'm addressing them because I'm experienced enough & thought on it enough to assess that. Other readers might be curious on those points as well.

One potential situation that's similar is Pearl Harbor. The U.S. did plenty of things to provoke Japan into attacking in self-defense. Before they did, there were still warnings from many highly reliable sources. On top of this, their code for war with U.S. was intercepted & we knew attack was on the way. Everyone should've been on alert. Nobody at Pearl Harbor notified. They get smashed to pieces with huge losses. America immediately enacts the policy that military wants: war with Japan (among others) & huge military expendatures. Most of this was under a tight group under FDR's control. Deaths were close to 3,000 with over 1,000 wounded. Sure it was just all a series of dozens of accidental intelligence, policy, and communications failures. ;)

Far as 9/11, they wanted sweeping changes in military policy and civil rights. Their own documents, like infamous PNAC document, showed they felt our survival as a country depended on massive military and intelligence expansion with plenty of intervention in the Middle East. Had many specific policy recommendations. It said this would be an uphill battle & slow process to make happen "unless a catalyzing event were to occur like a new Pearl Harbor." That's what Bush always called 9/11. And after it happened, many of the policies in that document became Bush's policies. And the expansions they thought were necessary to protect 300+ million people occurred. At a cost of *only* 3,000 people. Military strategists think of it as a numbers game & those are good numbers.

Of course, it's not the first time they've planned a false flag against Americans. They were willing to hijack airliners, destroy ships, bomb Miami, fake news reports, fake funerals, plant evidence, etc to make people think Castro was attacking us. America would be outraged and demand action against the Cuban attackers. The military would have the war they believed was necessary. Rather than a rebuke, the document has the signature of the Chairman of Joint Chiefs: the commander of the commanders of the military. Top brass was all for staging terrorism to get the war going. JFK personally rejected it and so we didn't loose lives from black ops here + war over there. SECDEF MacNamara claimed later he wouldn't accept it. So, only two guys up top standing between military covert operators and innocent Americans. What if they decided differently?

On that note, a 9/11 operation would be a small clique. The PNAC document featured Rumsfield's name. Dick Cheney is the main guy that ran all of it. He's long time Washington, military, and private contracting vet. The guy could easily run his own black programs split between many entities & previously supported us dominating the world with military might. Paul Wolfowitz has always been his right hand man. Zackheim was comptroller & could cook books for them. The NORAD head would be involved (eg air defenses disabled). Bush would go along with it willingly, grudgingly, or for sake of his family. The irony is that the force that allegedly attacked us was equipped by his father's CIA (Sadam too). Tying up loose ends? ;)

Another Bush helped insure the WTC for billions in event of disaster and did security for the building, where he weakened security. Usually a bad situation in the making. Most government or military people involved would be given orders that are different, seemingly justifiable, maybe typical Washington BS, etc They'd not see the big picture. Cheney and his few partners had a chance to influence every single party to this while giving them disinformation. His strategy would be to make it look like they were all involved in typical incompetence that added up to tragic results. They'd suspect that he was covering up murder, but they'd sleep at night "knowing" it was more likely that he was covering incompetence. And they were in the same boat. They'd do it too.

The actual operation would require boots on the ground. They'd need planners, operators, and fall guys. The Saudis and Pakastanis apparently produced the fall guys for us. For planners, operators, and secrecy you must realize something: there are a large number of people who would plan or execute the murder of 3,000 Americans for the greater good of 300+ million. I'd considered it myself in response to certain biological threats (eg bird flu). The covert ops community continuously does deniable missions, including false flags by their own admission. How many confessions do you have today? Zero? Or just a few about stuff that's barely important? Our of hundreds to thousands of classified missions? Exactly.

These people aren't like average military or techies like Snowden. They are intensly profiled for ability to follow orders, keep secrets, and maintain loyalty. Cheney would just pick the best of that category, explain the importance of this "sacrifice" to them, make them feel elite of elites, reward them well for participation, and optionally kill them off afterward with accidents or risky missions. The whole operation, assuming we're just talking demolition & terrorist handling, could be done by *one team* plus Cheney's main henchmen for govt side. That's less than twenty people that have critical knowledge*.

* See where concentration of power and secrecy get us? Under twenty to potentially subvert whole U.S. government. That bothered me more than 9/11.

Throw in a few in New York, some in other agencies, and so on you have potentially under 50 people. Plus maybe CDI for the planning, although that could've been for a *potential & legit* demolition they never did. Not *they* anyway. So, this operation can be plenty small, the head money-mover of the Pentagon can fund it, and the Pentagon + WTC7 hits unfortunately destroyed a lot of records across the board. I could've done this operation with total deniability and a mere millions as described. So, I'm sure they could've done it with seasoned operators, internal supporters, plenty yes men, hundreds of billions, and the ability to deny Congress/courts information.

"That they knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen demands further evidence that can't be explained away by incompetence."

Exactly. That plus the forensic evidence adds up to undeniable implications. From there, the theories only get darker. And I hope I've shown that the Who and Why are about as solid as the What. As solid as black ops investigations get anyway.

Nick POctober 4, 2014 12:11 AM

@ SmokingHot

I agree re Binney and Snowden. That U.S. Govt would throw away effectiveness of all their greatest capabilities for some little disinformation scheme makes little sense. Binney seems like a loyal insider who thinks the public should know about certain mismanagement and disdain for the Constitution. Snowden there's more risk in, esp as he leaked foreign ops, but seems like the idealist he presents himself as. People claiming disinformation campaigns about them are usually heavy on speculation and light on evidence.

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 1:00 AM

@Nick P

I posted here under my old hacker alias a number of claims for 9/11 truth movement. I mixed very strong and controversial ones. The goal was to see how more thoughtful than average audience would approach it. The scientific result would be to accept or debate the strong claims, while rejecting the weak ones. What *actually* happened was almost everyone on the blog instead discussed why people are prone to conspiratorial thinking, why they don't need to evaluate claims, why I might be deluded, and so on. If that's how smart people react to criminal allegations, then how are people in general going to detect or punish well-executed crimes with strong coverups?

What was your old hacker alias?

Bruce talks about security theater and anti-FUD, a lot. I am not sure if those sorts of messages attract many conspiracy theorists? I have known some extremely intelligent computer security professionals who have bought into some of these allegations. One, anyway. He later stepped out of that, after the Bin Laden video.

There was American complicity in 911 which is acknowledged.

Anything is possible, but what is likely?

A few of your points stand out:

15. A press release says FBI agents sued the U.S. government claiming they were watching the hijackers, knew they were up to something, attempted to arrest them, and were ordered to stand down by Washington. They also had CIA people in the operation who efforts hurt the operation more than helped it. The operation was called Able Danger.

This is a well known aspect of the case. As far as I have heard, there was no intentional screw ups, but typical secrecy and lack of information sharing. Disconnects between foreign intelligence and local intelligence and the boundaries set up between the two. CIA and FBI infighting seems to be a thing.

That they got any information at all beforehand is actually astounding. That they did not put the pieces together is just what happens. That is probable. Everyday. It would have been truly astounding had they actually been able to prevent this. It is extremely plausible, because of the way these guys did it that they just escaped the radar.

2. Certain stakeholders began creating financial instruments that would pay off millions to billions if very specific disaster happened in a narrow window (incl 9/11). This was around a month before.

That information would be extremely compelling. Of all the points, that one really stands out to me as a claim which, if substantiated, would be highly interesting. But, you do not mention who, how, or any of the details of this. There is also no evidence that this was not a fluke, something normal. After all, some always short. Most lost out, but some would have won out by sheer chance.

Proving this was deliberate, as the claim seems to imply, might not be so difficult. But where is the evidence?

14. Osama bin laden releases a statement saying he had nothing to do with 9/11. Claims he's in Afghanistan and not allowed to do operations. Thought the attack was unusual in its motivations. FBI later confirms they have no evidence tying him to 9/11. Implies all "evidence" given to public was fabricated.

I would like to see the "FBI's" stance there. Individual agents, of the FBI, CIA, and other agencies have often stood up for political causes. Or cited their own, personal opinions as authoritative.

Osama did initially deny he was behind it. He was probably scared. He did not expect such a success. But, you know what else? So did the Taliban. And so did Muslims around the world. Same Muslims celebrating it, would be the same guys saying "Israel did it", or "the US did it". How do I know? Besides seeing the news reports, at the time, I was posting in Muslim forums and getting their opinions. It was obnoxious. The same people would deny it, and try and blame it on "Israel"and in another breath claim "Allah proved he is with us by this".

After awhile, everyone got on the same page. What about the Osama video where he admitted it? Have never seen evidence that was faked.

I did not notice you mentioning some of the whackier stuff "truthers" claim, which really undermines the legitimacy of their arguments. Not directly. I do not think anyone injected these beliefs into the conversation, because these sorts of claims have become the bedrock message people are sticking to.

Reality is there was, indirect, US complicity. The US and Pakistan trained these guys. They utilized modern day, really sophisticated intelligence methodologies to pull this off. They trained at what they would do before they did it. The way they handled money, kept each other separated, dealt with what they would say and do with their effective cover identities, all of it reeks of intelligence training. And they were trained by the US and Pakistan.

But is it likely, at all, they were trained for this?

I do not think so.

And what about these guys? Pure inventions? Come on. Their whole story? And btw, if the story of these hijackers is fake, then doesn't that kind of kill the point 15 above, and a number of these other points? After all, the whole argument there is there was some visibility of some of these guys. And that got screwed up.

And why on earth would anyone create such outlandish legends? Why would they depict these guys and their whole operation as being as well trained as it was? That is only going to point the finger back at the US and Pakistan in the first place.

I might also note, from day one, despite the entire lack of evidence, the internet was screaming with skeptics immediately certain "Bush" and or "CIA" and or "Israel" was really behind it all.

Though it can be pointed out these same guys tried to blow up the WTC in the first place, back in 93. And they swore they would finish the job.

Was that, too, fiction?

What about the plans that were exposed in the fire overseas? There is, after all, a very extensive backstory here which involved many people and many points of evidence. As well as many confessions.

I also agree with most of Anura's points. Especially at these sorts of junctures. How many American intelligence officers would have to be involved in such a project to pull it off. And why.

Motive? Is missing here. Big time.

What, to invade Iraq? For what, oil? How many senior, highly experienced intelligence and law enforcement agents would have to have been engaged in all of this? They would have to have decades of rarified experience in planning and operations and would have pulled off an intelligence operation unknown in the history of the world by orders of magnitude beyond any previous intelligence operation. This would blow cracking Enigma, the Cambridge Five, and the Double Cross program out of the water. They would be ant hills, this would be a mountain stretching to the moon.

Could there be a bit easier ways for such fellows to make money? Just a little.

Though no human being is anywhere near that good.

The Double Cross program relied on the astounding incompetency of the Third Reich. The Japanese code breaking, they were also arrogant and could not even begin to entertain the idea anyone ever could break their codes.

The Cambridge Five was anything but smooth. For years, their connection to Russia went dark because Russia was believing they were double agents. Philby definitely achieved some level of success in his infiltration, but was also an incorrigible drunk. Probably far worse and more effective moles were Hanssen and Ames.

Directorate S, while in some ways a fearsome system, was full of incompetents, and clearly still is.

The US surveillance program is probably one of the most successful programs ever implemented, but tens of billions have been poured into it.

The Manhattan Project, I think, was hands down the most impressive secret project ever implemented, but it was far from as secret as many like to depict it. Germany knew nothing of it only because they moronically jettisoned any physicist besides one or two who might have been able to help. The knowledge behind the atom bomb was not exactly secret, HG Wells wrote of it decades beforehand, and contrary to popular mythology he was aware of the existing theories of the time which inspired him.

The Soviets did retain scientists capable of understanding the science behind it, and they also infiltrated the program deeply.

The program also had moral sway. As opposed to something absolutely amoral. The Nazis were clear and obvious bad guys. So to go against this would have been reprehensible to the ordinary person not a megalomaniacal super criminal sociopath. As these supposed 911 guys would have been.

Even the Russian moles did what they did because they believed it was morally justified, and considering the circumstances, despite how wrong they were about the Soviet Union -- one can reasonably understand their point of view these days.


Scary stuff exists out there, but I don't think it was there. And I don't think these nation's intelligence agencies are anywhere near as capable as such theories posit they are. Not anymore then there being any credence to US-Alien secret projects at Roswell.

More like the realm of Dr Who then the NSA. Lol.


If someone kept the argument far more simple like: a handful of rogue intelligence agents with corporate connections posed undercover and trained Al Qaeda to perform this mission... but even that goes against all available evidence. Which, if faked, would have involved a scary lengthy and in-depth paper trail involving many agencies.

Never even mind they would have to have posed as Arab Afghans or ISI, and frankly, the US is extremely bad at that. As for fundamentalist Muslims doing this for money, that, too is highly implausible.

Saudi Arabia? Maybe. Pakistan? They are the ones already complicit in everything, indirectly, most of all. And they have nukes.

They would have had the necessary bona fides and connections. Religious bona fides. Cultural, regional. But, where is the money? And... they would have been far more likely to have done this just as we all expect Al Qaeda to have done it. For religious reasons, and general extreme xenophobia. Not money. Though, anyone could have profited from this attack within Al Qaeda or their many well monied supporters. But, where, again, is the money?

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 1:13 AM

@Nick P

"re Binney and Snowden."

Thanks.

I think that is a very reasonable conclusion.

The story that some have tried to invent, that Snowden had Russian help, I think is much more concerning to me. It probably has heavy traction in circles of government. But, I doubt there is any evidence to that, because I strongly doubt anything happened. While counterintelligence evidence is often kept secret, they ejected some directorate s back in 2010: why not silence Snowden here and now and do the same? If they had any convincing evidence whatsoever.

Rather, intelligence history is full of exceptional individuals who did what they did with little to no outside help. Some were criminals, some were heroic. Some had some help, but many faced as their greatest challenges the very groups they worked for.


There is also the factor the original poster pointed out about the effect of all of this. Now, we can all be paranoid and watch what we say. Now everyone can fear. Okay. But these guys have been astoundingly incompetent and the damage done to their programs is immense. I do not think it mattered much to "terrorists". (This sort of phrasing reminds me of "V for Vengeance".) They already probably expected the NSA compromised everything. But for allied, rival, adversary governments? They are probably have a hay day.


Probably hundreds of "double cross" like programs now in effect, with nations counterintelligence feeding US intelligence all sorts of loads of crap by the taps they have discovered. :/

And they deserve it.


Sorry, but I think all this spying is useless and distractions. If not outright criminal.

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 1:51 AM

@Nick P

My response above was written before reading your post to Anura. You present there more towards a more believable direction, which I was arguing is necessary in my post above regarding 911.

You bring down the numbers, give some sort of more plausible theory, though it is vague... as I was arguing above would be necessary.

But, Mastermind, Superspy Cheney? Come on. Rumsfeld? Sure, DoD experience... at, what, exactly? Really. Iran Contra, maybe? Real brilliant work done there. Sending in guys with guns - intelligent above typical "meatheads" - is what those kinds of covert operations really are. That is nothing like running a serious covert operation that gets away with it with locals and local nations.

I am not sure there of the entire scenario you are thinking up, but I do not see any real meaty motive there. I am also not sure if you are not including fabrication of the existence of the hijackers as many do. Or that the tower was exploded from the inside and the plane didn't really have any people on it.... and so on.

Having bona fides to present one's self, who is really an American agent (of what agency, exactly? DoD...?) to Al Qaeda guys? Even a filling in their tooth could give themselves away. What would their backgrounds be, and how on earth would they have ever gained their trust?

How could they have passed the muster with the religious knowledge they would have had to have, with all the right beliefs?

And you are talking about guys that are the sort that can't do much besides "follow orders" and "keep their mouth shuts"? That surely explains a lot of meathead killers with extremely low IQs, but it is very much not like the high level of intelligence a deep covert operative has to have -- really, is it?

I really fail to believe US intelligence has much hard core human intelligence capacity at all. They seem to have a good system for networks of paid informants, and good systems for turning and keeping moles. Great technical intelligence.

Good disguise systems, good communication systems. Good funding systems, some good institutional cover systems. But not good at deep cover agents working in foreign lands.

Since the 70s, US law enforcement has gotten pretty good with undercover work. Locally. Where bona fides are not very difficult. Very different from doing the same thing in a radically different area far away.

Mastering the language, the ins and outs of the dialects of the region they are supposedly from, these things alone would be audacious. Much less keeping up some kind of plausible legend, which probably would have to include multiple agents that could back up their story. Oh, you are from Rinky Dink town in Saudi Arabia. Guess what. We will send some people there and ask if anyone knows you.

What to do, then, kill off or neuter real individuals so real people support your background story?

And then, all the details one would have to know. Because they might expect this. Is this really Omar? So all they would have to do is ask things about Omar that only Omar and the people they are asking would know.

Even fillings could give the guy away.


SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 2:01 AM

@Grauhut

What if there is not enough "terror ip traffic", do they have to define "new terror traffic" in order to keep their budgets on high level? Sometimes a bureaucracy simply mutates to a bureaucrazy by itself and nobody stops it. Sometimes they really have crazy orders... I dont know.

BTW, I do believe this is basically how things work. This is why so many are opposed to this system they have devised. It is creeping towards totalitarianism. It is a totalitarian infrastructure surveillance system set up.

Budgets are continually justified. Eisenhower long ago warned of this problem. And the monster has only been fed and it keeps growing.

There is always an enemy. "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", "if you see something say something". So many indicators beyond these things.

In a lot of ways it is herd and mob mentality. Fear is a powerful emotion. When nations are run by it, coupled with greed, what else can result?

There is no stopping the gloat of ever hungry bureaucracies. This is not the commercial sector, it is government. If they can get oversight off them, as they keep doing and trying to do "in the name of liberty"... it is even worse.

The demonization tendency blinds people. It is The Enemy. And the Enemy is so hated and so feared, people do not realize: one day? The Enemy is looking back at them in the mirror.

But, then, do they study North Korea? Have they studied even the Nazi regime? Have they studied the old Soviet Union?

They... **forget**.


GrauhutOctober 4, 2014 2:23 AM

@SmokingHot There is no confidence in this nexus! ;)

For me one of the most funny parts of the NSA leaks story is the promoted picture of flesh and blood NSA agents sifting manually trough petabytes of data in data warehouses to connect some dots in social graph form when they were already working on artificial intellicence for doing this ten years ago. As if IBM never offered them something like there Watson maschines...

Google already does this (automatic knowledge extraction) in their knowledge vault but the NSA still works manually? Ok, with a gui for mouse movers... I dont buy this part of the story. :)


Next big seo thing may become schema.og tagging, the big corps want all internet publishers to tag their content themselfs for them. Will they do it for a seo ranking cookie, choko-coco? NSA will not happily use this metadata automatically?

"Google, Bing, and Yahoo! have announced the formation of schema.org. The current schema.org type hierarchy can be found on the organization’s website here. OpenCyc concepts corresponding to this hierarchy may be explored at sw.opencyc.org."

Clive RobinsonOctober 4, 2014 3:15 AM

@ Nick P,

I'd considered it myself in response to certain biological threats (eg bird flu).

Whilst H5N1 has yet to take off as a pandemic, we do have Ebola brewing up to a perfect storm with the numbers dying approximately doubling every three weeks currently and has topped 6000 known cases so far (due to sociopolitical conditions in West Africa the numbers could easily be triple this).

Whilst Ebola is not 100% fatal it has been noted that it appears to be Westerners surviving not the indigenous population. There are many reasons for this including general health and education, but it's been noted that certain groups might use this disparity for political / terrorist gain. Which would cause the number of deaths to rise and forment social instability and propable war zone like conditions, making the spread much faster.

The bloke who discovered Ebola back in 1976 was intervied by New Scientist and his view point makes for dire reading. He has basicaly said that despite plenty of obvious warnings we are doing to little to late to get ontop of it currently.

An associeted article gives more depth but equally bleak outlook of a million plus deaths (not as bad as the 1918 flu pandemic but it could easily get to the same or worse),

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26258-world-wakes-up-to-ebola-as-cases-set-to-top-1-million.html

Definitely one to keep an eye on preferably from somewhere issolated from direct and secondary transport routes...

ProofOctober 4, 2014 3:21 AM

@Nick P: please provide evidence (url of proof fact-checked with links to official documents...).

Clive RobinsonOctober 4, 2014 4:54 AM

@ Smoking Hot,

The problem with 9/11 is we have an effect and are trying to argue back to cause. This is the reverse of what science does, and also why I argue that forensics is at best opinion and most definitely not science (though much science is used in testing).

What we know is what was shown on world wide TV on the day, and my strongest memory of that day is on seeing the second aircraft strike turning to my then boss who was American and saying to him that I was sorry that I did not think it possible to be two accidents and that it was in all probability a terrorist attack. The look on his face and the others in the room reminded me that most people can not comprehend that such things are possible.

My second memory of the day was trying as an engineer with years of disaster risk analysis under my belt to explain to others without engineering backgrounds why the design of the buildings caused them to colapse the way they did.

Part of my engineering background was in the oil and petrochem industries from "well head to pump" part of that was getting to see cultural risk assessments.

To be honest I don't know if anybody can rationaly explain what goes on between the various sects of the Muslim faith, which finds it's self in much the same position as Christianity did with the break aways from the Holy Roman Empire and it's controling mystersism a few centuries ago which gave rise to many bloody conflicts some of which are still evident today. Suffice it to say that the "faith" of religion and the "power and control" of politics make a very bad combination which those drafting the US constitution were well aware of and wanted to avoid.

What is clear is that ultra conservative sects within larger sects such as the Wahhabists have not just power and money, but significant control on a minority of people with conflicted faith and thus lack of personal moral compass.

Thus it is easy to see how the power and the money can be used to issolate and re-educate those who are conflicted, and also attract those of what you might call the "thug classes" who are happy to do such re-education for appropriate consideration.

We know that within the Sunni communities of Saudi Arabia and Qata there are many wealthy and powerfull Wahhabists with an agender that is difficult to fathom, except for their desire to rid the world of the Shia, Allawites and others who don't believe as they do.

Now most are aware of "mine enemies enemy is my friend" maxim, but few fail to realise that it extends to their own enemies. Thus the US is seen as an enemy, but also a friend because of their dislike of the likes of Sadam. Thus many Wahhabists regard the US as a tool to be exploited as they see fit, and this behaviour can fairly easily be seen by those who are sufficiently detatched. The problem is the likes of the neo-cons take a similar attitude as do the war hawks.

Thus the two sides of a "marriage made in hell" that "spawns Satan Spawn". So it is fairly easy to see the self interest of both sides giving rise to 9/11 as a joint venture, the result being the removal of the "log jam" to both sides of Sadam, who was in effect keeping the peace in the middle east through war and brutality on one hand and prosperity on the other. What was hatefull to the Wahhabists was not the brutality, but the prosperity which was causing significant social change, that weakened the Wahhabists grip on power.

So I would not be surprised to find that the likes of Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz using their various military and middle east contacts together to achive various outcomes. In fact there is evidence to that effect over the likes of oil transportation.

So it is only a small stretch to imagine Cheney and Co co-opting various Wahhabists to arrange selection and re-education of those that went on to commit 9/11. Which is nodoubt why quite a few people give the idea real credence and thus look for evidence of it's occurance.

I've seen sufficiently similar with "private contractors" in other parts of the world to know that such things are more than possible as they have happened. Thus the question is to probability, and in this case with potentialy so much money to be made both in the energy markets and from tax dollars I can clearly see the atraction in it.

The problem ia that the removal of Sadam has had the same effect as puuling the cork on the genies bottle, and it has escaped to become ISIS amongst other things.

And it also appears that the House of Sauds fingerprints are all over the crime scene as it were, and it can be seen that ISIS scare those of the House of Saud. Because ISIS nolonger need the financial backing of Wahhabists in Saudi and Qata, and show every indication of turning on their backers it can be concluded that the toppling of the House of Saud would be clearly on ISIS longer term agenda.

65535October 4, 2014 5:13 AM

@ Grauhut

“Forget it… Too big or to powerful to fail also means too big to jail... The "rule of law" has become a kind of theater decoration for a bad comedy.” – Grauhut

I know they are huge and powerful. I also know that there are a large number of attorney’s that have been “targeted” and lost cases to clients via “parallel construction.” I would guess that these attorneys are not going under the bus without a fight. At some point the NSA and other agencies will make enough enemies to sink them.

GrauhutOctober 4, 2014 6:19 AM

@65535 "At some point the NSA and other agencies will make enough enemies to sink them."

Nope. The NSA is also a vital part of the financial stability game. See Executive Order 12631 - Working Group on Financial Markets.

"Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence ... The heads of Executive departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Working Group such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out this Order."

The NSA can provide data from Tracfin and similar sources and of cause math support, they are the largest employer to mathematicians in the world. Latest news is the NSA now also does cyber attack mitigation support to the financial industry.


If you are a vital part of the financial manipulation system you dont sink, never mind the law, the INTEL financial complex would instead sink enemies of that system...


U.S. Assistant Attorney Lanny Breur explaining why he refused to pursue criminal charges against banking giant HSBC:

“HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."


A Morgan Stanley wealth manager will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because Colorado prosecutors don't want him to lose his job. ...District Attorney Mark Hurlbert says it wouldn't be wise to prosecute Erzinger -- doing so might hurt his source of income. Here's Vail Daily:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay." "We have talked with Mr. Haddon and we had their objections, but ultimately it's our call," Hurlbert said.

dekaOctober 4, 2014 12:40 PM

Can't read it. The webpage has banned / blocked all Tor connections (one can only wonder why).

Nick POctober 4, 2014 2:27 PM

@ SmokingHot

Note: This post took so much time and energy to write it might be my last on the topic. More details and debates can be found elsewhere. I've written about all I'd write on the few points worth making. Need to redirect my energy to other things.

"I am not sure there of the entire scenario you are thinking up, but I do not see any real meaty motive there. "

There wasn't a real, meaty motive for the vast majority of military actions the U.S. has been involved in. If there's money or foreign influence, they'll kill for it. An example is Guatemala. The country was being economically raped by our companies like United Fruit. The newly elected leader seized that stolen land, gave the jobs/money over to locals, and offered to sell the product at market prices. Makes sense. United Fruit leveraged political power (maybe bribes) to push Washington to do something about that threat to U.S. economic interests (how they see it). So, U.S. sends the CIA in to launch a covert war on that government, overthrow it, and replace it with a dictator that gives our companies' what they want. In exchange, we support his people in their dominance of Guatemala, including teaching him terror/torture techniques to suppress the local population. United Fruit gets their land and cheap produce back. All that was necessary to motivate such horrors.

Note: The British were impressed by Guatemala. They took note when Iran took back their oil fields from BP. Asked CIA to come repeat their strategy in Iran (Operation Ajax), run from U.S. embassy. Clinton, Obama, and CIA (recently) admited we eliminated their democracy as "an act of U.S. foreign policy." Now does the embassy takeover make sense? ;) Can't find my summary by CIA analyst, but this guy seems accurate even if also a showman.

General Butler, a double Medal of Honor winner, reports in War is a Racket (free here) that the reason he led wars were always different from what public were told. It was usually for money, often for a specific company or companies. The military, he said, was essentially a giant mob that pushes our economic and foreign policy interests on the world. His book was his confession along with proposed solutions. Govt similarly lied about the USS Maine to start Spanish-American war. Luisitania was vessel giving covert military support to Europe because American people didn't want to be involved in WW1. It was [legitimately] destroyed, the U.S. govt lied saying a ship of innocent civilians was blown up, America was outraged, and we were in WW1.

We (and others) dominated Vietnam for decades in covert actions, fueled civil wars to weaken local defense, and so on. Eventually, Johnson administration staged aspects of Gulf of Tonkin event to give a pretext for a war in self-defense, formally invaded them, even used chemical warfare (Agent Orange) on them, suffered great losses from insurgent warfare, and withdrew after no success. Pentagon Papers later confirmed all the above, showing it was lies and imperialism. Nothing worth the loss of money and human life on either side except to secretive people in military/government/business.

So, the U.S. military and intelligence types consistently show they're willing to deceive the American people, stage events, launch covert wars, etc for little to no reason. The payoff is always negative for soldiers and taxpayers, but positive for a tiny few that get something out of it. (Just like Butler said decades ago.) This is consistent all the way back to around 1900. Might go further back if I had studied such things. (Well, the Native American genocide...) I just cited the cases where there's credible, public-domain evidence and the U.S. government admitted some of it. There's plenty more...

So, the question is did they covertly cause 9/11 as a pretext to enact domestic and foreign plans they already had? The "best evidence" as consensus panel has is that they knew it was coming, people made money off apparent foreknowledge, the buildings had explosives in them, evidence was destroyed, alternate evidence was fabricated, independent investigations were blocked, people who did worst got promoted, nobody was fired or imprisoned, and the event was used as leverage for all sorts of previously unjustifiable acts. These details, along with pervasive denials & revisions, indicate top individuals in government participated in this and are covering it up.

From there, I have to look at motive. Compared to past U.S. atrocities, there were an acceptable (to them) amount of casualties with minimal effect on our military capabilities. The payoff would be hundreds of billions in extra budget, specific people involved get rich (did btw), their foreign policies (including wars) would occur, their domestic policies (ditch Constitution) could occur, and less liability due to Congressional oversight and criminal prosecutions. That many of these were admittedly publicly as their agenda, seen as necessary to our survival, and all happened after 9/11 shows they'd have plenty of motive. They had more motive than any military heads since WW2. That they've cited terrorists and 9/11 to justify any BS waste of money, expansion of police power, reduction of civil rights, etc shows they're opportunists in practice who see it as a pretext.

Clive's evolving views on it are a nice change from his older comments. ;) His theory, if I'm reading it right, is consistent with mine: they worked through third parties to develop, encourage, and execute the terrorist attack. I'll expand that to say they did a covert operation over here to run simulateously with the Middle Eastern operation they were influencing. The domestic operation guarantees results in specific ways. The foreign operation is what the people will see, is kept in check by partners, and will leave a paper trail pointing a bullseye at an organization that all parties won't mind gone. It's the kind of thing the U.S., esp CIA, has done in many other countries by their own admission, often with success.

Now, I'll address some specific points your were curious about.

re Saudis (Clive beat me to that)

The 9/11 Commission Report mentioned a critical piece of evidence. At one point, a terrorist was being questioned by Arab Americans posing as Saudi's. They believed AQ was terrified of their Saudi opponents & it might make an effective technique. Instead, the terrorist is relieved, thanks them for showing up, says he's connected, starts giving off phone numbers for confirmation, etc. Confused, they give it to the CIA and they start checking numbers. Royalty, intelligence types... many powerful and influential people in Saudi Arabia. Further investigation indicates the terrorists operated with major financial support from Saudi Arabian organizations. Aka, powerful Saudi's funded 9/11. The specifics are in 28 secret pages of a report that remain classified.

So, we went into Saudi Arabia and smashed those organizations, right? No, instead Bush I see walking hand-in-hand with Saudi leader, cutting them good deals & training their security forces. I was also annoyed by all the "Saudi is our friend" ads on the local radios at the time. Propaganda... Our country then invades Afghanastan without getting bin Laden, smashes the AQ patsies, authorizes a lucrative oil pipeline long demanded, & lets the country degrade into our biggest source of opium. Then, they forge WMD evidence about Sadaam Hussein, smash his country, find no WMD's of course, leave the region unstable, and Exxon+China get huge oil support deals. We remain in both countries to influence the region, as per foreign policy I mentioned earlier.

It would seem if it was really about terrorism that things might have gone the other way around. The Saudi's that, according to *the official story*, financed the murder of 3,000+ Americans would be punished by military action. Instead, they get extra-special deals by U.S. Govt and Pentagon that most others don't, while two other countries are hit (one totally unrelated). While we're talking about motives, can you explain *that* while maintaining our goal was eliminating those supporting terrorism? ;)

re people that follow orders

You're confusing intelligence and ideology. The best example is religion. People of all types of intelligence believe irrational or improbable things on faith, sometimes making huge sacrifices for it. Church of Scientology, for instance, pulled off a huge operation against the U.S. with epic numbers of both targets and covert agents. Many smart, connected, and financially successful people that also believe Hubbard's science fiction is true. In the military and intelligence fields, you likewise have intelligent and capable people who ideologically believe what they're doing is necessary. Much of the information they see (eg classified files) is also controlled by those over them, further shaping their worldview. Funny thing is that many of them feel that they know (and shape) the *real* world more than those on outside when they're actually deceived and used by a few on the inside. Poor, deluded souls.

Fun example of a successful operator here. His story didn't end so well. That he is one of the few recent one's I have details on show that the majority in the field (hundreds to thousands) are more reliable, yeah?

re FBI agent claim

"This is a well known aspect of the case. As far as I have heard, there was no intentional screw ups, but typical secrecy and lack of information sharing. Disconnects between foreign intelligence and local intelligence and the boundaries set up between the two. CIA and FBI infighting seems to be a thing."

That's not what the agents said per the early stories I got. A joint team of FBI and CIA people were on top of them plenty. Had an amazing amount of data. FBI agents believed they were about to attack. They wanted to take them down, using existing evidence for prosecution. They were ordered to stand down. 9/11 resulted. They had what they needed and were told not to use it. That's not a failure of intelligence sharing: that's being denied the ability to act on existing intelligence and stop an immediate threat that's moving on their plans. So, the intelligence failure explanation is clearly a government lie if the agents are telling the truth. The task for independent investigation would be to identify if the agent's claims where true. If so, where the order came from and why. (eg incompetence or something else)

That they destroyed most of the records before investigations should be treated as a sign of guilt. Maybe charge them all with that and cut them a plea deal in exchange for corroborated information. Like they do everyone else.

re FBI stance on OBL

"I would like to see the "FBI's" stance there."

His wanted poster didn't mention 9/11. He said he didn't do it shortly after the attacks. In seeking to reject or accept that, I looked at his history. Virtually every attack was against a military or embassy target, with AQ taking credit plenty of times. So far, WTC and him denying credit are unusual. The government was working very hard to avoid giving any solid evidence to anyone, including Taliban pre-invasion. Additionally, there were numerous reports (example) that Bush/Cheney Admin. rejected Taliban offers to turn over bin Laden to us if we gave them evidence of his guilt & ended the bombing. It wasn't the first time we rejected an offer to take bin Laden, either.

So, AQ operatives or leadership might have been involved. So far, though, they have shown nothing tying OBL to it, blocked opportunities to provide such evidence, and maybe blocked an opportunity to get him. This behavior is more consistent with him being a covert partner of theirs (one assertion) or a fall guy for the world to focus on instead of the real perps. I'm leaning toward the latter as evidence supports that most.

re people standing to get rich

9/11 Consensus link I gave you has some information you seek. This page addresses insider trading that happened where people made very specific bets about disaster in a narrow time window. Essentially, you'd have to know people were about to hijack the planes of that specific company. Investigations showed people in the company worked (working?) for the CIA previously. So, a CIA connected company seems to know about a terrorist plot that CIA agents are tracking (see above), bet millions on the details of the plot, and their bet pays off thanks to... pure luck. Please...

WTC owners. WTC was a landmark and believed to be nearly indestructable. This was evidenced by surviving fire much more severe than 9/11 fires & a bombing. Yet, the operation was a financial mess. That Silverstein would even take it over for prices quoted is an odd decision. He did take out a policy for $3.5 billion in August. Buildings are hit in September. Two weeks later, he's suing for $7 billion claiming he should get paid twice because *technically* there's two events. WSJ reports that his battle is mostly over with the cap just over $4 billion, he's still battling aviation industry trying to get their insurance to pay, and now he's sitting on $6-10 billion liability.

So, he *might* have been tricked into thinking he'd profit off another smaller attack which turned out to be way worse than he was told. Or he's an innocent victim in it. Personally, I go back and forth on him because he acts like an aggressive opportunist thinking only of money, but also had legal obligations that would justify the insurance policy. (who knows...)

Dick Cheney. He has political and financial rewards tied to this. He's been one of the strongest promoters of covert and overt military dominance of the globe. Short version: he's a power mad, pyschopath in a position of great power, money, and secrecy. He's also a supporter of huge defense budgets and spending, which the pre-9/11 trends worked against. He also had financial ties to Haliburton, even being its (CEO?) at one point. Haliburton got plenty of contracts, including no bid's, after 9/11. Both he and them made plenty of money. His policies and spending goals were met. He couldn't be doing better after 9/11.

Rumsfield is more motivated by power and ideology than money. He's definitely got money as his Foundation shows and has held positions in think tanks and defense contractors. He likely makes his money from insider trading on defense stock as many in Congress do. ;) Post 9/11, he advocated hitting as much as possible, using it as an opportunity to reshape world like post-WW2, pretexting Iraq, info operations that might affect U.S. citizens, torture, and so on. His record indicate his moral philosophy is the end justifies the means. He co-authored the PNAC document that pushes for all post-9/11 activities they did. So, it's clear he wanted what 9/11 provided & had the potential to participate (esp propaganda). The other military people involved would have similar mindsets as Pentagon culture encourages that.

Dov Zakheim. He was a PNAC signatory, meaning he agreed with ideologies of other two. He was also a defense contractor and handpicked by Bush. So, he's in the clique at least. His job was to control and fix the Pentagon's accounting records. Ideal position to cook the books, too. Actually, that's a legit part of his job if you consider SAP's & USAP's, our black programs. The results of his stay indicate he might have been leaning toward the direction of sneaky stuff. So far, no evidence of his direct involvement. Yet, he ideologically, politically, and financially stood to benefit if it occurred.

Defense industry. They made a killing. Get it? Yeah, it's not funny...

Oil industry. They made huge profits with some of the largest CEO and shareholder payouts. Some of this was profiteering with Katrina as a patsy. Some of this was Middle Eastern activities where War on Terror cleared out their obstacles. They had contributed majorly to the campaigns of the President and many Congressmen, as usual.

Congress. A combination of campaign contributions by defense/oil/banking industries, votes from its million plus workforce, and votes/contributions by those that supported the military expansion. Whether they like it or not, they have motivation to get on the bandwagon. And a steady stream of "they'll kill us all unless..." propaganda helped.

Major media organizations. They're morally neutral. Anything that brings in attention for their ad revenue. They like using BS to incite fights because conflict and emotion draws attention more. Their participation in [mostly] censoring inconvenient facts would keep their privilged relationship to government, still give citizens plenty of stuff to fight over, and maintain high profits for they and their customers (advertisers). So, no matter what, they win so long as they appear to be informing citizens and the situation is messed up enough for people to talk about.

Investors. The War on Terror was largely financed with debt. The bankers, who also pay Congress, love to give loans to the taxpayer. The interest is almost guaranteed to keep rolling in. Plus, any people in government or private sector seeing this coming could invest in companies that benefit from wars. This could enrich them plenty. I know it did the banks but I didn't check the numbers on stocks so who knows.

Criminals. The war in Afghanistan was the best thing to ever happen for drug dealers. Previously, the Taliban had the stuff under control. Now, it's a $5 billion market according to one claim. The CIA's checkered history in this area and others certainly doesn't help us save face. Recently, Russia has complained that U.S. is protecting the poppy fields and is delaying destroying the opium labs they tell us about. Might be incompetence, might be same deals and profits from the past. Either way, pot and heroin dealers are making a lot of money thanks to our occupation.

Soldiers & contractors in the warzone. Some had great financial benefits. Many are killed, maimed, or suffer PTSD. So, barely beneficial or major loss for most, windfall for a few. Benefit to work & risk ratio way worse than many above.

Taxpayers. Hundreds of billions in debt with more coming due to veteran's future expenses. Also an opportunity cost where that money might have substantially benefited them in healthcare, education, infrastructure, R&D, and so on. Efforts are major loss for taxpayers and their decendents who will pay for events. (intergenerational tyranny)

So, plenty of motive, opportunity, and payoff. Only question is was the relationship between the three causal or fool's luck. Consensus says the only luck they had was that people didn't look harder at the causes. And people continue to pay the price with their money and liberty today. And the one-sided games continue.

albertOctober 4, 2014 4:32 PM

@JH
I must disagree slightly, regarding Snowden. He said he questioned some of the NSA activities internally. NSA says no. Snowdens revelations did nothing to dispel my opinion of the quality of gov't/corporate operations. I will never accept their moral bankruptcy. (Grauhuts 'Morgan Stanley' citation illustrates just how low 'we' have sunk in this regard).
.
Did the NSA misread Snowden? Would they have 'silenced' him in some way? Or did they just not give a rats ass about their secrets being outed? Really, history has shown that the sooner things boil over, the sooner we can watch the next episode of the Kardashians. If it were solely up to the MSM, Snowden (and everything more than 15 minutes old) would be ancient history by now.
.
Folks don't 'accept' such things, they learn to 'live' with them - repression is good for the soul. As time passes, things get worse (because limits have never been established for human greed). Eventually, depending on individual tolerance, i.e., the will to live, that festering hate explodes into some kind of blowback; unfortunately, usually directed against innocent victims of the very same immorality. This is true regardless of whether the instigators are individuals or groups. It is also true that such activities are marginalized, criminalized, and only serve to feed the monster, not destroy it.
.
The endgame comes when _everyone_ finally sees the truth (the "Naked Lunch" moment), but by then, it's too late. 'Help' must come from the outside, just like it did for Germany in WWII. Hopefully, our 'saviors' will spare US wholesale destruction, and settle for economic domination instead, but that's a difficult request, when one 'lives by the sword'.
.
Time will tell.
.
Do you see why I couched my narrative the way I did?
.

SkepticalOctober 4, 2014 5:26 PM


re 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Utter nonsense and have been thoroughly debunked from tip to tail.

@Nick P: There wasn't a real, meaty motive for the vast majority of military actions the U.S. has been involved in. If there's money or foreign influence, they'll kill for it. An example is Guatemala. The country was being economically raped by our companies like United Fruit. The newly elected leader seized that stolen land, gave the jobs/money over to locals, and offered to sell the product at market prices. Makes sense. United Fruit leveraged political power (maybe bribes) to push Washington to do something about that threat to U.S. economic interests (how they see it). So, U.S. sends the CIA in to launch a covert war on that government, overthrow it, and replace it with a dictator that gives our companies' what they want.

The problem with this narrative is the facts.

The US devised and approved a plan to overthrow Arbenz in 1951, under Truman.

The land reforms you're referring to occurred in 1954.

To understand why the Truman Administration planned the coup, you must remember what US foreign policy was absolutely fixated upon in 1951: the Soviet Union and communism.

The previous 6 years had witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain across Europe, the successful detonation of a Soviet atomic bomb, the victory of the CCP in China, the Berlin Blockade and Airlift, the invasion of South Korea, and, in 1950, the entrance of the Chinese into the war.

In 1950 the Truman Administration also adopted NSC-68, which adopted a more stringent policy of containment with respect to the Soviet Union, and viewed the USSR as a grave threat.

This was also at the height of the so-called "Red Scare" in the United States.

The US was wary of Communist parties throughout the Americas, viewing them largely as Soviet proxies, and Guatemala was no exception. While of course the United Fruit Company was a loser in Guatemala's land reform policies, there is no evidence that the coup was launched for their benefit. However there is enormous evidence that it was launched because of US fear of Soviet expansion.

Note: The British were impressed by Guatemala. They took note when Iran took back their oil fields from BP. Asked CIA to come repeat their strategy in Iran (Operation Ajax), run from U.S. embassy.

Nope. Operation Ajax occurred in 1953. The coup in Guatemala was not launched until 1954.

Moreover, as a British ship was mistakenly identified as offloading weapons and bombed during the operation in Guatemala, one doubts that they were all that admiring.

Govt similarly lied about the USS Maine to start Spanish-American war.

The US Government did conclude that the explosion sinking the Maine was "external." I don't know whether this was a deception. I don't think it was a necessary event for the US to ultimately demand that Spain grant Cuba's independence (a civil war had been raging there for some time, a subject which was luridly reported by some American newspapers), which led to a US blockade, followed by reciprocal declarations of war.

Needless to say, this doesn't establish anything regarding 9/11.

Luisitania was vessel giving covert military support to Europe because American people didn't want to be involved in WW1. It was [legitimately] destroyed, the U.S. govt lied saying a ship of innocent civilians was blown up, America was outraged, and we were in WW1.

The US did not enter WW1 until 2 years after the Lusitania was sunk.

The New York Times published the military cargo that the ship carried the day after the sinking. There was a large amount of debate within the US as to whether it was a legitimate act by Germany.

We (and others) dominated Vietnam for decades in covert actions, fueled civil wars to weaken local defense, and so on. Eventually, Johnson administration staged aspects of Gulf of Tonkin event to give a pretext for a war in self-defense, formally invaded them, even used chemical warfare (Agent Orange) on them, suffered great losses from insurgent warfare, and withdrew after no success. Pentagon Papers later confirmed all the above, showing it was lies and imperialism.

The Pentagon Papers revealed many things, but it certainly didn't show "imperialism" had anything to do with it. On the contrary, it's quite clear that Johnson's decisions were motivated by a combination of bad analysis of American prospects for success and concern about "US credibility" in the Cold War.

Nothing worth the loss of money and human life on either side except to secretive people in military/government/business.

Quite incomprehensible, I agree, if one omits any mention of the Cold War in one's analysis. There's no need to resort to speculations about it all being done for private profit, notwithstanding the complete lack of evidence for this.

Nick POctober 4, 2014 6:44 PM

@ Skeptical

"Utter nonsense and have been thoroughly debunked from tip to tail."

They initially said that about all kinds of things that were later proven to be true. Stay behind armies admitted to post-2000 comes to mind. Long time to keep a secret army. More recently, CIA confessed to Iran overthrow. In media, they still tell Americans it's just about religion & politics, leaving off real causes. Disinformation against the American people is a form of treason in my opinion. Pentagon Papers showed vast majority of Americans, media, soldiers, and even intelligence professionals involved in Vietnam were operating on lies and half-truths. If anything, the U.S. intelligence community and military leadership's credibility has been "debunked from tip to tail" for decades straight. They also couldn't get their story straight on the most basic facts of 9/11, even what physics allows. Malice or not, they're a low integrity source and I'll gladly use alternate sourcing like... the scene of the crime, eye witnesses, first responders, experts, etc.

Of course, I'm done with that topic for now. Moving to the evil that continuously repeats: Washington and Pentagon dreaming up new military interventions, public and secret.

re coup in Guatemala & Cold War

"To understand why the Truman Administration planned the coup, you must remember what US foreign policy was absolutely fixated upon in 1951: the Soviet Union and communism."

I do understand it. They had wrapped their minds up in an irrational fear that a threat would magically take over the world if they didn't control each country susceptible to it and deal with the threat. They and the media pushed that into Americans' heads as well. They also used it as a tool against politicians ("he's probably a communist"). They could overtly and covertly force each government to play by their rules and do good business with them. Guatemala was an example they set for other countries. This was good for politics and business in U.S.'s eyes. Per Butler, it was also consistent with their previous activities. Just more discreet. And such things became a trend whose "blowback" (CIA's term) haunts us to this day, from Latin America to Middle East.

re British and Ajax Guatamala

You got me there. My memory is mixing it up with another operation. There was a successful one that CIA did before Ajax that writers on the topic said inspired the British to ask their help. Not to mention the Brits would probably like to keep their hands clean seeing as BP would be the main suspect.

Of course, your statement was quite selective. You corrected the claim on Guatemala & argued it was for Cold War. You ignored the bigger part of that claim about our activities in Iran. Overthrowing Mossadeg, getting the Shah into power, brutalizing those people, and all so some oil companies can maintain a certain bottom line. Khomeni, the embassy takeover, etc were a direct result of that. CIA only recently admitted their role in it despite information being available for a long time. Then, the U.S. supported Sadam's 10 year war on them. Rather than an apology or peace negotiation, the U.S. continues to hit them with sanctions that stifle their economy and starve/kill innocent people and kids.

You would leave off what we're doing to Iran in a conversation on imperialism as combined UK and US actions in Iran are textbook imperialism. Come to think of it, you left off Butler's claims about the wars he led for capitalist motivations. That was quite a few and further established the profile my post sought to establish.

re Spanish-American war

The people on site said it was a coal bin explosion. A common thing back then. Even knowing this, the US military somehow turned it onto an attack on the Maine with a catchy slogan too. War followed.

re Lusitania

I wasn't aware of those news articles. Numerous school textbooks I'd read didn't mention a military angle at all. They said it was a European war, there were to be no attacks on civilian ships, Lusitania was a civilian ship, it was attacked unprovoked, and so we entered WW1. I then stumbled upon claims it was military, did research on that, and claimed it was hidden. Your claim indicates it was published and Americans as a whole knew it was part of the war effort, making it a legitimate military target. Debate followed. If that's so, then this is an example of revisionism on the part of American historians.

Since you're aware of such articles, I'm curious if you saw other significant details in it. The Lusitania had been camoflagued, had a secret compartment for military cargo, was subsidized by the British, wasn't flying a flag, and was sneaking through an area designated a war zone. That leaves a different impression than than a US news release just saying an oceanliner carrying some military cargo got sunk. Further, the British ships were violating the rules of engagement for civilian ships and even ramming some U-boats when they surfaced to allow civilians to leave. In such a situation with such a boat, the Germans firing on it would be understandable as the British were the rulebreakers & Lusitania was doing sneaky stuff. The Americans dying on board would be tragic for us, but collateral damage to the incident.

If anything, we should've been pissed at the British and warned Americans to stay off their ships & out of warzones. And then had an honest, national discussion about how the war was being carried out and if we wanted to enter it.

re Vietnam

The Pentagon Papers showed it started with French trying to turn Vietnam into a colony. There was resistance. Our first involvement was to help the French in the First Indochina War. That predates the Cold War by at least a year. Similar motivations: imperialism against small countries in Asia and containment of communist movements. Mentioning the Cold War does put much of the later intervention into perspective, but the first intervention was assisting French imperialism and the rest targeted at China.

"Needless to say, this doesn't establish anything regarding 9/11."

What it establishes is both a profile and patterns. The DOD brass have a tendency to see more threats than exist. They have a history of justifying a threat to themselves and covertly dealing with it, sometimes with blowback they have to lie about. They also have a history of overtly going into conflicts for political, economic, and other reasons with countries that didn't threaten or harm us. They have a history of using deception to convince the American people to go along with their plans, to the American people's detriment.

Plans like Operation Northwoods show that, in red scare mode, they were even willing to consider staging terrorism against Americans to start a war with a harmless country Americans didn't want to invade. The PNAC document indicated these military types, many who had been there decades, saw our survival as a country to hinge on radical transformations nobody would adopt. And evidence indicates they might have helped that along one September doing what they always did: covert ops, manipulations, murder, and so on for the "greater good." And by 2003-2004, they got about everything they hoped for in the late 90's. Mission accomplished.

AdjuvantOctober 4, 2014 7:12 PM

@Anura et al.:
While I can't engage in detail just now, it appears there is need to address a certain conceptual difficulty that is manifesting itself pervasively in this discussion. The simple fact that one cannot easily fathom certain species of political behavior has no bearing on their existence or non-existence, just as the difficulty of understanding the crimes of an Ed Gein, for instance, has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of serial killers. As NickP pointed out, the proper technique is to begin with the scene of the crime and follow the evidence.

One should not underestimate, however, the psychological barrier posed by the initial difficulty of grasping certain ideas. Specifically, it is both alien and painful for most to grasp the idea that state-sponsored terrorism can be considered, in the ruthless strategic calculus of high-level statecraft, as simply a case of needing to break a few eggs to make an omelette. The fact that many have extreme difficulty following such trains of thought is, to my mind, a testament to their basic decency (rather than, from another perspective, to the "primitive simplicity of their minds.") In response to the evident need, I've hastily thrown together a primer of sorts. Apologies for the length.

Psychopaths and Morality
Recent neuropsych research may provide some insight into the cognitive processes involved.

Joshua Greene, a psychologist at Harvard University, has observed how psychopaths unscramble moral dilemmas.... Far from being uniform, empathy is schizophrenic. There are two distinct varieties: hot and cold.

Consider, for example, the following conundrum (Case 1), first proposed by the late philosopher Philippa Foot:

A railway trolley is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who are trapped on the line and cannot escape. Fortunately, you can flip a switch that will divert the trolley down a fork in the track away from the five people—but at a price. There is another person trapped down that fork, and the trolley will kill him or her instead. Should you hit the switch?

Most of us experience little difficulty when deciding what to do in this situation. Although the prospect of flipping the switch isn't exactly a nice one, the utilitarian option—killing just the one person instead of five—represents the “least worst choice.” Right?

Now consider the following variation (Case 2), proposed by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson:

As before, a railway trolley is speeding out of control down a track toward five people. But this time you are standing behind a very large stranger on a footbridge above the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death. But his considerable girth will block the trolley, saving five lives. Question: Should you push him?

Here you might say we're faced with a “real” dilemma. Although the score in lives is precisely the same as in the first example (five to one), playing the game makes us a little more circumspect and jittery. But why?

Greene believes he has the answer. It has to do with different climatic regions in the brain.

Case 1, he proposes, is what we might call an impersonal moral dilemma and involves those areas of the brain ... principally implicated in our objective experience of cold empathy: in reasoning and rational thought.

Case 2, on the other hand, is what we might call a personal moral dilemma. It hammers on the door of the brain's emotion center, known as the amygdala—the circuit of hot empathy.

Just like most normal members of the population, psychopaths make pretty short work of the dilemma presented in Case 1. Yet—and this is where the plot thickens—quite unlike normal people, they also make pretty short work of Case 2. Psychopaths, without batting an eye, are perfectly happy to chuck the fat guy over the side.

See also: “The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas”
For the conscienceless among us, the ends always justify the means.

Case Study of a Practical Precedent: Gladio in Italy

For a thumbnail sketch of how this cold mode of moral reasoning might manifest itself practically, let's posit that the Cold War is on and the post-WWII transatlantic power structure considers it a strategic and moral imperative to prevent Western Europe from "going Communist" by any means necessary. A strategist with psychopathic leanings might well reason that in circumstances where the fate of an entire continent is at stake, in the context of a land mass in which hundreds of people surely die needlessly and meaninglessly every day, what -- in the grand scheme of things -- is the problem with causing a handful of additional meaningful deaths which advance a far greater strategy of saving millions from the ravages of the Iron Curtain? All that need be done is to blow up some innocent people and blame it on the ideological enemy. The basic strategy was famously and succinctly elucidated by Goebbels: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Because of this story's critical importance and massive underexposure, I will excerpt at length from an article by Prof. Daniele Ganser (formerly ETH-Zurich and U. of Basel, now Director, Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research (SIPER) in Foreign Affairs from 2005). Emphases are mine.

Since antiquity, strategists have advised the use of propaganda and other psychological techniques to spread fear among the enemy in order to bring about his defeat. However, the methods to create and manipulate fear also involve terrorism (sometimes state-sponsored) and may target domestic populations in order to make them receptive or hostile to certain political or economic policies.

...
If somebody can get access to our thinking and feeling without us noticing it he undoubtedly can exercise great power. However, once the target has noticed that his psyche is being manipulated through PSYWAR the technique loses much of its effect. This warfare, therefore, relies heavily on secrecy and on the ignorance of the target group.
...
A terrorist attack carried out by private or state actors in a public place such as a railway station, a market place or a school bus which necessarily kills innocent civilians is the typical technique through which the strategy of tension is being implemented. Terrorism is psychological warfare, for its aim is to spread maximum ‘terror’, the Latin expression for ‘great fear’. Terrorism is not only the most brutal but also the most devious version of PSYWAR. Most often it is extremely difficult to find out exactly who sponsored a terrorist attack.
...
[In a certain subset] of terrorist operations ... secret agents of the state, from the military, the intelligence services, or mercenaries hired by either the military or the intelligence services, carry out a terrorist attack and then wrongly blame it on a political enemy of the government. This state-sponsored psychological warfare technique is rather effective, as in most cases state sponsors stay at arm’s length and do not themselves show up at the crime scene, while explosives often destroy most traces.
...
[T]he target of the strategy of tension, are not the dead and the wounded as often assumed, but first the political opponents who are discredited through the attack, and second those who remain unharmed but hear of the attack over the media and fear for their lives and the lives of their beloved ones. For the aim of the strategy is to create fear, not in the few unfortunate dead victims who might number from one to three thousand, but in the millions who survive physically unharmed but emotionally profoundly distressed.

Surely nobody would apologize for such a strategy publicly? Let us hear from one man who did:

"You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game” right-wing terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra later explained. “The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the State to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the State cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”" --Vincenzo Vinciguerra

Who is this Vinciguerra fellow, and what's all this about? [Ed: Noting that "Christian" as used here seems to refer chiefly to the European Christian Democratic parties which were supported as a bulwark against the Communist left -- though I hope a European will kindly correct me if I've missed a nuance]:

An important breakthrough into Christian state-sponsored terrorism came at the end of the Cold War in Italy in 1990, where judges, parliamentarians and academics together continue to make a great effort to understand and describe the secret strategy. Italian Judge Felice Casson rediscovered the strategy during his investigation into a number of terrorist attacks from which Italy had suffered in the period 1960–1980.


According to Casson, the best documented historical case in which the strategy of tension was implemented occurred in the Italian village Peteano. There, on May 31, 1972, three members of the Italian paramilitary police, the Carabinieri, were lured to an abandoned Fiat 500 by an anonymous phone call and were killed when they opened the hood of the car which triggered a bomb. For many years, this terrorist attack was blamed on the Italian left-wing terror organisation Red Brigades until Casson reopened the case and found that the Catholic neo-fascist Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a militant anti-communist, had carried out the crime.Casson found to his great surprise that neo-fascist Vinciguerra had not operated alone, but under the protection of members of the Italian military secret service.
...
Judge Casson found that the SISMI had been at the heart of a number of terrorist attacks in Italy and arrested neo-fascist Vinciguerra, who on trial in 1984 confirmed that it had been relatively easy for him to escape and hide because large segments of the Italian security forces, including the SISMI, had shared his anti-communist convictions, and therefore silently supported crimes that discredited the Italian Left, especially the strong Italian Communist Party.

After the bombing, Vinciguerra recalled, “A whole mechanism came into action...the Carabinieri, the Minister of the Interior, the customs services, and the military and civilian intelligence services accepted the ideological reasoning behind the attack.” Elements of the Italian state, in other words, supported the terror and thus the politics of fear. For many years, this terrorist attack was blamed on the Italian left-wing terror organisation Red Brigades until Casson reopened the case and found that the catholic neo-fascist Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a militant anti-communist, had carried out the crime.

Casson found that by blaming the crime on the left-wing terrorist organisation Red Brigades the political enemy, the strong Italian Communist Party, was being discredited by the Peteano terror and other attacks. The directors of the military secret service and politicians argued, after the crime, that the ‘Communist danger’ justified increased military spending and a reduction of civil liberties in the interest of state security. In this way the strategy of tension, as executed through the Peteano terror attack, spread fear amongst the Italian population, discredited the political opponent and allowed for the implementation of conservative security policies. It was very effective, for nobody knew at the time that the secret services had themselves supported the crime.

Slippery Slope
Let's offer a (sickeningly) charitable assessment here, and attribute the "best of intentions" (according to psychopathic, "cold" moral reasoning) to the foregoing. Habits are difficult to break. Blowing up innocent people for "good reasons" lends itself to continuing such practices for less coldly "altruistic" reasons. Such a strategy is, counterintuitively, both effective and robust, even when discovered. Indeed, one infamouspractitioner set this out with astonishing clarity and frankness:

The broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

For a certainly type of personality, blowing up innocent people to achieve political ends and *succeeding* with no real epercussions must be the ultimate power trip. Most important, however, is the sheer effectiveness of this strategy. Indeed, it seems that, owing to the principle cited in the previous paragraph, it can be used again and again without any loss of potency.

Once we have understood the principle and grasped the undisputed precedent of its application -- once proof of concept has been established -- is it really so difficult to believe that this type of strategy would see continued use? That it would be applied to advance such grand ideological projects as a securing a "New American Century"? Anura's hand-wringing over the guilt of the cadre involved is both answered directly by NickP's model of a small nucleus of ~20, and obviated as an objection to the plausibility of the crime by the fact that proof of concept has already been established. Once one finally grasps that the "unthinkable" and "unspeakable" is entirely plausible, it becomes possible to evaluate the evidence on its own terms, rather than in terms of our preconceptions.

Epilogue
To repeat a quote from Ganser above: It was very effective, for nobody knew at the time that the secret services had themselves supported the crime.

Very few know this even now. For this reason among others, I would *highly* recommend for anyone who has not done so to watch Allan Francovich's https://archive.org/details/opgladio. Watch Vinciguerra and his ilk speak for themselves. Once you've done that, it wouldn't be a bad idea to watch Francovich's other films as well.

A propos, from Peter Dale Scott: http://jacketmagazine.com/34/scott-p-d-5p.shtml

I remember the defeat and fear in the face of Allan Francovich the last time he contacted me via a cut-out a mutual friend
one year before Allan dropped dead

while going through U.S. Customs Independent 4/28/97
whose film on Pan Am 103 and Jafar
could be shown in Britain but not this country Ganser 49

though he has since been posthumously vindicated

by a police chief’s signed statement
that key evidence in the Lockerbie trial
was planted by the CIA; Scotsman 8/28/05

and what happened to Danny Casolaro Goddard and Coleman 352-55

on the trail of the so-called Octopus Beaty and Gwynne 224-25
until he was “suicided” in West Virginia Buffalo News 8/27.93
with my name and number in his notebook.

AdjuvantOctober 4, 2014 7:20 PM

CORRECTION: Ganser's article was published in World Affairs, rather than Foreign Affairs.

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 7:42 PM

@Clive Robinson

I just finished lambasting Skeptical and his stance according to some of the same standards you are using here. I pointed out how the Wahhabists and the Shia really are very similar animals to the conservative Europeans and Americans.

To be honest I don't know if anybody can rationaly explain what goes on between the various sects of the Muslim faith, which finds it's self in much the same position as Christianity did with the break aways from the Holy Roman Empire and it's controling mystersism a few centuries ago which gave rise to many bloody conflicts some of which are still evident today. Suffice it to say that the "faith" of religion and the "power and control" of politics make a very bad combination which those drafting the US constitution were well aware of and wanted to avoid.

The influence of Catholicism is strongly alive to this day. Which is why the main pundits are all Catholic. O Reilly, Hannity, many on the National Review staff, on and on. These are the "hawks". Of course, many others have bought into their peculiar viewpoints.

Though the view is "secular" on the outside, the masses, and many of the leaders privately do not share this viewpoint.

...


Anyway, I argued this just now in last week's squid thread, so will keep that largely there.

Except to state that my view is the Wahhabists, like the Shia, and like the Euro-Americans all have ultimately very similar viewpoints in how their view government, and in how their view aggressive foreign policy.

...


Why, after all, are Communists the enemies of Euro-Americans? Because they are hard core atheists. Why are Shia and Sunni the enemies of Euro-Americans. Because they are hard core Muslims.

All of these groups have their eye on global domination. Euro-Americans, many other Americans and Europeans, Sunni, Shia, Communist (though, as I noted in that paper, China is historically isolationist and continues that stance these days.)


Now would democracy and liberty be better then Communist, and Sharia Law and Caliphates? I think so. If that is what one would get. But that is, of course, never what one gets.


All that said, I am pretty dismissive of the neo-con focus. I saw Greenwald's film, and found it highly biased. Of course it was biased. It was produced by a Democrat action group. All the governmental pundits were speaking on message for the Democratic Party.

My point there is: the crime there is they removed the blame from everyone else, to simply scapegoat Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Intelligence? They were all right, totally innocent. Diplomatic Services? They too were absolutely right. Military? They did absolutely nothing wrong.

Yet, as I knew would happen, what actually happens when Democrats got in the Presidency? They, of course, do the exact same things.

So, I do not put all the blame on Obama, either. Nor on Democrats.

No, the problem is endemic in the bureaucracies.


The problem is endemic in the people. Surely, as I have argued, conservative Americans are more at blame for horrible hawkish foreign policy. And who, exactly, are CIA, FBI, DoD? Liberals? No.


But, the doves and liberals take many of the exact same viewpoints. Because this is the society they grew up in.


They want to look pro-FBI, pro-DoD, pro-CIA, pro-NSA, they want to look strong. "Strong". It wins them converts. For politics. And they go the hawkish route.

So, in that way, I think there can be conservative blame and less liberal blame. But, that does not matter much, really does it? Believe me, now, all manner of Americans are roaring about the policy, and Europeans alike.


So, my viewpoint is, actually, that I do not view Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush as super scary masterminds of massive hidden secret operations. I view them as guys on a really big boat on a really big ocean. They are faces to the public, and internal faces. They were.


Likewise, if you asked me about Hitler, I would say Hitler found a message he knew people wanted to hear. And the really scary thing from the old video we have of them? Just how much they went with Hitler on that message.


These guys are ear pleasers.


I suppose, then, all of this relevant, to my perspective of 911. I do not think the Saudi Government did it. I do not think Pakistan. I definitely do not think the US nor Israel did it.

I think the US, Pakistan, and Saudi governments *enabled* Al Qaeda. But, I do not think anyone there seriously were for the attack.


Is it possible? Anything is possible. But is it probable, and does it fit the facts we have? That is where the problem is.

Probability wise, I think the facts that are now available seem very strong.

Al Qaeda had the means and the motive. I really do not think even the most Hawkish Euro-Americans did. More like everyone else, they just screwed up. Saudi government, no. Many powerful Saudis? Yes, surely. Just as many powerful Americans want to nuke the Middle East to hell and back. They are Muslim, why not go in there, they just attacked us.

Saudi, from what I have heard and seems plausible, Saddam was not loved and yet they were resistant to removing him. Because he was a buffer to Iran. Now that he is gone, the Saudi government has to deal with the revolutionary Sunnis and the Shiite. So, they were right in that stance. They have a very, very real threat that their own House of Saud might fall in a fundamentalist Sunni uprising.

Pakistan, same kind of situation as Saud.


Enabled, we all know the story. Maybe some Pakistanis and Saudis in government got personally involved. But if so they were acting on their own and for their religion, against the interests of their nation.


Americans? No. Nobody needed to do this, for one. Europeans? Same thing. Israel... of course not. Not anymore then Israel would want Hamas blowing up their buses.


So, I do not believe motive was there. And I do not even believe means was there. This is means as when people make it all into some sort of insane superspy mission where all the evidence is faked.

I think they watch too much tv and take it much too literally. I love spy shows. Spooks is great. Alias, awesome. Legends, the Americans -- incredible shows. But none of that is real. Mission Impossible is far from real. Salt? Is far from real. There are countless such shows, and none of them are real. The spy motiff is merely symbolic for the heroic virtue people have and hide. Nothing to do with real life.

Real spies are typically boring bureaucrats.

And the very, very few who actually live undercover do nothing like these things people are suggesting, and have none of those sorts of motives.

GrauhutOctober 4, 2014 8:39 PM

@SmokingHot The NORAD exercises on the same day, evil kind of luck? Or knowledge?

I dont believe any government planned 9/11, but it could also have been some kind of domestic terror. The military industrial complex was starving, they needed a "good war".

They had a motiv, knowledge about the exercises and the skills to manage some drone steering biz. And maybe the contacs to hire some terror actors who possibly thought they were part of an exercise and tried to play their role well...

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 9:05 PM

@Nick P, @Skeptical


Nick, I just made a post to Skeptical on my view of his viewpoint, here:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/09/friday_squid_bl_443.html#c6680095

That post also lambasts the hawk policies of Euro-Americans.

But, if you note: My viewpoint is not the same as yours, though we come to the same conclusions on some matters.

On this, however, unfortunately, I have to side largely with Skeptical.


My differences here: I think these projects should be condemned, the operations that have been exposed where the US Government interfered in the affairs of other nations. My viewpoint there is not the US Government is incarnate evil, however. I do not believe the Saudi government is even incarnate evil.


People are just people.

All of these groups want global domination, and they all believe it is for good reason. There is a bit of a caveat here: the living standards in Euro-American nations is much better then the living standards in a Saudi Arabia or Soviet Union. But, if they could, they would reduce the living standards to that level, and possibly even worse. Why? Because this, too, is a truism in the tendency of nations.

Freedom is a new thing for nations. And it shows much strain.


The point I was really interested in was the economic point. The money trail. For that, you offered one link to some out of the way site. That kind of thing I do not jump to, seeing blogs and private such papers as biased and going to be a big mess of misinformation.

You may balk at this: but consider, that kind of story would be huge. So, where is it? There are plenty of papers that would jump all over this. Even if one believed in literal media conspiracies, there remains an enormous number of very powerful large news sites that would love to produce such stories.

Put another way, I want to vet sources and I am very wary of sources that do not have any level of credible standing. This is not unlike some loser online claiming he is something much greater then what he really is. Not you, the news source. I am inundated everyday by crappy, near personal news sources.

Schneier, is actually a solid, trustworthy news source. So is Vice. So is Slate. So is the NY Times. Washington Post. And so on. Even as they move towards left or right, the reality is there is quite a difference between some serious journalistic source with strict standards... and some dude's blog on the internet.

If there was credence to the story, it would be as big, even bigger then the Snowden story.

And, hey, maybe there *is* a story there. But, if so, it has yet to match up to the journalistic integrity of major news sources globally.

A story with hard evidence tying a corporation to massively profiting from 911 with ex-CIA as controlling interests in that corporation? That would be front page news across the planet.


Another problem here is people *do* make up crap about the US all the time. The same is true with other nations, but there are many interests opposed to the US who is the most powerful nation at this time.

So, there are a lot of interest groups that want that pony, and they generate enormous propaganda to that effect. That does have to be borne in mind.

There is distinct "cry wolf" weariness. I look through alternative considerations, because I am aware that some "cry wolf" may actually be true. But 99 times out of a 100, I find it is just another gigantic waste of time.


Couple that with the fact that I do not care that much. I view the US as irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

What is today is not going to last.

Though, the US is probably going to be a major influencer there on causing a historical reboot. It is not like, however, this is unlikely to involve any other nation, very much including US adversaries and rivals, as well as their best friends... like the Sunnis.

But, my viewpoint is also, that *if* this is the case, it has nothing to do with anything but, ultimately, the *drive*. Rather cryptic there, but I simply mean, to put another way, "what will be, will be". Criminals get caught and go to jail, bigger fish are always out there to eat up the fish that once ruled the pond.


I do believe there is some money motive mixed underneath everything with US foreign aggresive actions. There are other motives, as well. But, I have heard such things as "the Vietnam war was for oil", which is obviously complete bullshit with zero regard for the truth.

Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea... was because of the concern of the Communist threat. It was as much idealism as Wahhabist idealism.

The same can be said for the first and second world wars, with an emphasis on the second.

Or, really, all of these actions, even the ones such as Cuba and Guatemala which you are speaking of.


The "it is all about money" canard is just from secular, far leftist ideology. Really, it is from Marx and Engels. The main producer of it was the Soviet Union and the twentieth century Communist movement.

How *I* view those guys is that they are as depraved as any of the others, in some ways moreso, because they took positive, reasonable social movements of the time and turned them into a religion of totalitarianism and a screed of personal profit under the guise of "serving the poor (the workers)".

Very similar to the Euro-American, Neo-Catholic viewpoint of their agenda. But, not so distant even from the Wahhabist agenda or the Shia agenda. They all claim to be striving for global domination which will bring about some sort of paradise.

It is all a bunch of crap.

They are men, and that is it. They shit and fuck and lie and steal, they understand little at all and believe they understand everything.

They are inherently selfish and at every turn strive to present themselves as selfless.

They wouldn't create a paradise for everyone even if they could. Just like they would not work in a soup kitchen or work for invalids, unless it got them social esteem.

The desire for high social esteem is greater then the drive for money. And it is the very same thing as the drive for "power".

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 9:21 PM

@Grauhut

@SmokingHot The NORAD exercises on the same day, evil kind of luck? Or knowledge?

I dont believe any government planned 9/11, but it could also have been some kind of domestic terror. The military industrial complex was starving, they needed a "good war".

They had a motiv, knowledge about the exercises and the skills to manage some drone steering biz. And maybe the contacs to hire some terror actors who possibly thought they were part of an exercise and tried to play their role well...


There is always money made from war, but there really wasn't much reason to go to war with Iraq. They could have done that without 911.

Israel was suffering terrorism at the time, and of course, the US was also suffering terrorism. Nothing like, percentage wise, of what Israel was suffering, but terrorism has remained a big threat.

Nobody went to war over the first WTC bombing, which was tied to 911. And, nobody went to war over Oklahoma bombing. Which was a very big deal. And there are and have been serious domestic problems with Neo-Nazis here. But, there was not even any great push to create a plan to deal with that.

Likewise, the US has severe problems south of the border with the drug trade. 2003 it was not as bad as it is now, but it was still very bad.

So, there have been plenty of problems they could have put money into.

However, does this mean the War Machine, the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Politician complex was not starving? It was. And this was clearly a factor involved in these decisions.

But, 911 simply gave them a flimsy excuse. One which Democrat and Republicans alike signed up for.


Obama is still invading countries. Clinton invaded a country.


Frankly, I think it is likely Bush would have gone to war with Iraq even without 911. "Saddam tried to kill my dad". That is how I think he really thought. He said that, too, but I think he personally hated the guy.

In fact, had Bush done so, had 911 never happened, there would have been far less resistance by anyone. The resistance has been because of the jack ass attempt to tie 911 to Iraq.

Though, still, no WMD would have been found.


But, yes, there is that Machine, and it does need to be fed. It is like bureaucracy in general. The tendency is for inertia and growth. It is very difficult to cut down on government once it has been increased. Government does not have to worry about open market forces, it operates like a monopoly.


Really, it is just Occam's Razor, though. That, and the evidence.

Now, ghosts and demons and angels. I could write all about that. Kennedy Assassination an inside job? Maybe so. UFOs? No, but I think there is a reason for that, though I think it is a metaphoric way of angels to present Heaven to people -- which is exactly what Whitley Strieber has stated in his book, Communion.

Are there conspiracies of spirits that influence and control nations for malicious purposes? I actually believe so.

But, I am also very aware that people have little to no evidence on such things their own selves, so why even begin to argue it.


Someone out there could have evidence of 911 having some "inside hand", but that is yet to be seen. If it was solid evidence, like tracking back financial profit on 911 to a corporation with ex-CIA controlling stake holders -- it would be global front page news.


Does the NSA wiretap everything? Yes they do. We now know. Thanks to Snowden.

Some conspiracies are real. But myth and reality are always quite far apart. Myth is like the shadow of reality. The two are not the same.

And every theory is surely not right.

GrauhutOctober 4, 2014 9:52 PM

@SmokingHot "There is always money made from war, but there really wasn't much reason to go to war with Iraq. They could have done that without 911..."

Youve been writing a lot... I repeat my core question: The NORAD exercises on the same day, evil kind of luck? Or knowledge?

The planes destroying some Pentagon bookkeping files and SEC evidence in WTC7, incedible luck for those who had to fear some of these papers?

I know, no government could bring vitaly important parts of their elite to justice, does not work.

But in such cases its even more counterproductive to try to press people to believe in funny fairytales about sinister cabals of almighty camel-youknowwhats in secret caves under the mountains of Torabora. :)

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 10:30 PM

@Nick P, @whomever else, subject of *motive* and 911 conspiracy theories of "inside job"



re people that follow orders

You're confusing intelligence and ideology. The best example is religion. People of all types of intelligence believe irrational or improbable things on faith, sometimes making huge sacrifices for it. Church of Scientology, for instance, pulled off a huge operation against the U.S. with epic numbers of both targets and covert agents. Many smart, connected, and financially successful people that also believe Hubbard's science fiction is true. In the military and intelligence fields, you likewise have intelligent and capable people who ideologically believe what they're doing is necessary. Much of the information they see (eg classified files) is also controlled by those over them, further shaping their worldview. Funny thing is that many of them feel that they know (and shape) the *real* world more than those on outside when they're actually deceived and used by a few on the inside. Poor, deluded souls.

Fun example of a successful operator here. His story didn't end so well. That he is one of the few recent one's I have details on show that the majority in the field (hundreds to thousands) are more reliable, yeah?


The smithsonian mag is a good source, but I do not have the time to read a small book on Douglas Groat. I will try and read that later.

Scientology is a cult, which I am well aware of. A CIA officer or FBI officer telling his comrades he is a Scientologist, I think would not go over very well. Likewise, if they discovered that, they probably would consider the person an idiot.

Same could be said with NSA, DoD, and so on.

A bit like someone in the Saudi intelligence who was not a Wahhabist, but, say, a Shia.

The conservative element in the US is pseudo-Christian, and Scientology while a "pseudo-Christian cult", is very far outside the norm and surely not acceptable.


Secrecy can surely deceive people in intelligence, but getting someone to do something entirely against their world view just will not work.

Really, all this seems to reflect a lot of spy movie sort of plots and the like. This is not real life. It could be, sure. There are situations we know of where US intelligence has done bad things. These are bad things which everyone agrees on. This is why someone can post about these exposed conditions, like the Iran Contra affair, and Americans will all agree. Or Watergate.


Watergate did use ex-CIA people, including ex-CIA agents from Cuba. This is a good example. One of the main instigators, Howard Hunt, also wrote a tell all memoir. He was aware he was about to die, and he did. While I am sure he did not really say everything, his ideology was clear, as well as his thinking about Watergate.

He felt, as did these others, that maybe the Democrats had a secret Soviet Communist influence. Of course, one can objectively point out, he was also high on his posh White House job. He was well paid, and that was a high position to hold.

Cuban anti-communists involved, of course, were die hard anti-Communists. All of these people were.

Objectively, we can say today, the Soviets did not substantially penetrate the Democratic party, but if you can put your self in those times, it was a likely motive for these guys.


Cause does matter here, and if you notice, this reflects many of my views. A Wahhabist likes their cause, an Israeli Jew likes their cause, a Russian likes their cause, and so on. I like my own cause. You have a cause, or you would not post here, Skeptical has his cause. And so on.


We have all seen Swordfish. We have all seen the latest Bourne and James Bond. Bourne, of course, is probably much more realistic on these fronts. Why? Because it includes likely cause. Motive.


There is undue and crazy beliefs. I think everyone who is a human being has crazy beliefs, frankly. I just wrote an analysis of crazy US beliefs behind their hawkish foreign policy.


But... blowing up the Pentagon, the WTC towers... and for what? Iraq? Which they probably would have gone into, anyway? They did not need 911 for that. And worse, these guys are in bed with the Saudis. Osama made sure that the hijackers were Saudi for this very reason. So, why would they point the finger at the Saudis, when they are in passion love making bed with the Saudis? And that *is* one of the darker elements of these guys.

But... there are many, many points like these.


There are plenty of bad things the American intelligence officer is capable of. The Iran Contra situation is one of the worst examples out there. They are surely capable of murdering their enemies. They are surely capable of assassinations. They are surely capable of attempts at regime changes. Or misguided support of brutal regimes -- like Pinochet, like the House of Saud. But, there is always a larger "purpose" there which fits this particular animal.


Rogue individuals is a different matter entirely. One poster above presents the Ed Gein situation. Sure. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, these are actually good examples of such rogue behavior. Watergate is surely a pristine example, though it was not official CIA, in fact, the FBI helped cover it up.

These situations, however, are handfuls.

At least anything substantial. I am sure, personally, many agents have done bad things personally using the skills of their trade.

However, what you are talking about would require substantial funds and substantial support across many agencies. I completely disagree it would "only" involve 50 people. All of the evidence being faked would have involved hundreds of agents. And it would have to involve highly successful and experienced agents.


To which, really, I did not see any response on this matter: these guys are not capable of such things. They are just not anywhere near that good.

In fact, I find myself arguing the same thing to you as I argue to skeptical in this sense: He, also, attributes god like power to people of government. It is ludicrous. For him, it is believing god like power to be good. For you, to do evil. Both of you vastly over estimate the capacities of these very human, human beings.


History, which is well proven and sourced, not speculative history, has distinctive patterns here. Going into a gambling institution and winning every hand of blackjack, people will say that is impossible. It is. Past a certain number of hands. Pulling off what people say was pulled off with 911, that is as impossible as it is impossible for the CIA to magically change fundamentalist Muslims around the world into happy secularist pseudo-Christians.

Democrats and Republicans alike believed Saddam had WMD and ties to terrorists because they wanted to believe it. Some may have more knowingly lied then others, but all knew the standards of evidence was poor. And, speaking of, if they could have performed such astounding standards of evidence in the 911 investigation... why on earth did they not repeat that magic trick for Iraq??

Instead, everyone was humiliated. Real blame is forced on all.

Most are still standing, but that speaks to a deeper problem in that country.


As for money and such god-like powers attributed to these super villain spy organizations, there are so many ways they could profit from using their abilities it is impossible to consider.

Hundreds of billions in the world. None of them, I am betting, are ex-CIA.


You could even start much lower and go here, arguing there may be off the books intelligence divisions and agencies. Even that is not proven. If there is, why doesn't Russia or China find them and humiliate the US with that? Or why doesn't anyone prove that?


This is well worth mentioning, because maybe you might say, "but what if some billionares are ex-'Some Secret Agency in the US no one knows about'". Or, even simply point out that US intelligence - or any intelligence agency, anywhere - has these sorts of capacities.

They do not, and they can not.

They are just people.

People who fart and shit and have an awful need for sex. People who get tired and fail on tests, who know one language, maybe two. They are not MI Tom Cruise.

Black6October 4, 2014 10:49 PM

@skeptical and @Proof

9/11 is a very complicated topic and I don't think we're anywhere near understanding the real answers. However, we can demonstrably and empirically prove that the official story is pure bunk.

There have been many people doing yeoman's work going through the data, facts, physics, etc. Dr. Stephen Jones, The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (which incidentally received nationwide acclaim from their PBS documentary, viewable on youtube, as well as the work done jointly between Basel Switzerland University and University of Indiana (U.S.). Both of those latter video resources are very well done, and there is a ton of great academic research on the topic that has disproved the official narrative.

Over 1,000 P.E. S.E. and E.E. Engineers have signed a petition as part of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth organization. Their actual documentary includes video testimony from Presidential Science Award winners and at least 20 very professional and seasoned high-rise architects and engineers, Military EOD and demolition experts, Fire protection experts, very high ranking military officers and experts in damage assessment, etc.

Startpage search the following (for youtube videos):

Dr. Daniele Ganser 9/11 lecture (Basel Switzerland University)
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth full disclosure documentary
Pilots for 9/11 truth documentaries

It's not really a question any longer. The official story stinks. This U.S. Army officer (Me) agrees. We've been taken. It's worse than Binney states, and we'll be lucky to avoid another civil war based on it. Let's all pray very hard we can avoid that outcome though, and work to bring the perpetrators to civil justice.

Another good group to look up in your secure search engine or TOR is Oathkeepers. We are former and current military/ Law enforcement that will defend the constitution and protect our communities and neighbors should all else fail. We are everywhere. You are not alone.

"De Opresso Liber"

Black6

SmokingHotOctober 4, 2014 11:08 PM

@ Grauhut

@SmokingHot "There is always money made from war, but there really wasn't much reason to go to war with Iraq. They could have done that without 911..."

Youve been writing a lot...

Yes, though not for long. I am merely repeating the same points. Be it to you guys or to Skeptical. Skeptical believes that American Government has god like powers to fix the world, whereas you conspiracy theorists believe they have god like powers to pull of some intelligence operation which is... impossible for human beings.

The reason the later does not take much foothold in the mainstream public, besides lack of evidence, is because people are generally aware of what human beings are actually capable of.

The reason the former takes hold is because people want a religion they can physically see and personally relate with.

I also disagree that these people - or anyone - is incarnately good or incarnately evil, as either side takes. One side believes they are Satan incarnate, the other side believes they are Jesus incarnate.

This is as absurd as believing they have capabilities far beyond human capacity.


So, probably will finish with this.

I do have video games I could be playing. It is fascinating to me to see what human beings are capable of believing, and how they argue their beliefs. That is the value here for me. It helps me hone my own conclusions, my own judgments.

But, clearly, this, too, is at an end. Skeptical won't change his mind about the godlike capacity of the US Government, and their Jesus Incarnate purity and goodness. And truthers won't change their mind about the godlike capacity of the US Government, and their Satanic Incarnate impurity and wickedness.

I had no delusions there, but have found it curious how people respond.

However, for all of us, this would only become a broken record.



I repeat my core question: The NORAD exercises on the same day, evil kind of lucMk? Or knowledge?

The planes destroying some Pentagon bookkeping files and SEC evidence in WTC7, incedible luck for those who had to fear some of these papers?

I know, no government could bring vitaly important parts of their elite to justice, does not work.

But in such cases its even more counterproductive to try to press people to believe in funny fairytales about sinister cabals of almighty camel-youknowwhats in secret caves under the mountains of Torabora. :)


I think the reason I ignored the NORAD exercises the same day... and the "planes destroying some Pentagon bookkeeping files and SEC evidence in WTC7"... is because it strikes me as very likely urban myth level claims.

I am sure all sorts of documents were destroyed. And all sorts of important stuff happened in the Pentagon where it was destroyed.


As for Al Qaeda, they are real. And very plausible, and very human.... there is not anything fairy tale about that. 911 as an operation was very impressive, but very much not beyond the capacity of a deeply seasoned insurgency group trained by the US CIA and Pakistiani ISI.

They did not do anything humanly impossible, either, in that operation. It was far from a mind bendingly complex operation. Airport security, as well as airplane security, at the time was pure crap.

They failed blowing up the WTC the first time, further. This was their second attempt. They had a decade of anti-Soviet insurgency experience, and another decade of terrorist experience.


One of the planes did not hit the designated target. Another failure.


A lot of fundamentalist Muslims celebrated 911. I was eyewitness to this. They have basic reasons to. I also saw my far left leaning friends immediately conclude it was a conspiracy, before they had any facts at all. So, bias and motive definitely are there. Why doesn't anyone claim any of the attacks against Israel were secretly performed by Israel?

And Al Qaeda definitely has taken credit for 911. Once they got out of Afghanistan.

Fundamentalist Muslims, extremists do not like you, nor do they like any secularist, nor any atheist. They think you are effectively agents of Satan. They think your beliefs and social mores are absolutely corrupt and the problem with the world. They believe they will eventually rid the world of you and your kind. So, I kind of scratch my head at secularists with likely relatively hedonistic social mores defending these guys.


Anyway, nothing more to say on the subject. Plenty of documentaries out, most are utter crap. I have watched some of them, and heard the theories, and it is all complete crap. Might as well be Discovery Channel mockumentaries.

It is also pure FUD.

It is crying wolf, when there are real problems and real wolves out there.

It is further superstitious. It is the modern kind of superstition. It makes no sense and has no evidence, but it is a story some like to say and believe.

I do not get why people get into that sort of thing, anymore then I get why Skeptical believes the US will magically transform the Middle East into some utopian paradise.

He argues that "it just takes time", whereas you guys argue "maybe it is only fifty people that were required".

You, however, and likely these others ultimately believe not only has all the evidence against Al Qaeda been faked, and that there was control by this mystery super group over the FBI, DoD, Politicians, State Department, CIA to cover it all up... but also that there was nobody really on any of the planes at all. That, what, the WTC and Pentagon were rigged with explosives AND that the planes were just really big drones also with explosives? AND that all those victims were fake people with fake identities.

And this is reasonable and likely.

And you are not even being sarcastic or making a joke. You really believe this stuff.


These are some of the most bizarre behaviors out there. Four mysteries people may never understand... an eagle making its' way in the sky... the way of a man with a woman and a woman with a man.... we can add to this list: such things as these.

Black6October 4, 2014 11:25 PM

Wow "smokinghot" you post on here like it's your "job"... lol.

"De Opresso Liber"

Black 6

AdjuvantOctober 5, 2014 12:59 AM

@Black6: At least we have entertainment!

Noun 1. entertainment - an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention

SkepticalOctober 5, 2014 1:20 AM


@SmokingHot: Skeptical won't change his mind about the godlike capacity of the US Government, and their Jesus Incarnate purity and goodness.

I do not get why people get into that sort of thing, anymore then I get why Skeptical believes the US will magically transform the Middle East into some utopian paradise.

Sorry Smoking, you'll have to find someone else to stand in for that strawman.

I haven't said, nor do I believe, any of those things.

My view of the US Government - limitations, warts, past crimes and fuck-ups, achievements, and virtues - is realistic.

I don't think that the US will transform the Middle East into anything, much less a Utopia.

However, that doesn't mean that there is nothing that the US can do. It simply means that the US must act cognizant of the limitations its own resources and the need to prioritize as it allocates those resources. The US can act in ways to encourage nations to begin necessary steps to transition, and it can protect societies (such as the Kurds) that have made enormous strides.

Nor does it mean that unless the US has a solution to all extremism, it should refrain from acting against any particular extremist organization. ISIL has done things to render it a target worth killing.

@NickP: I appreciate the courteous reply, especially since we seem to disagree sharply on this matter. I'll post a response of my own soon.

@Black6: You are mistaken. The nature of the collapses has been exhaustively examined by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the British Institution of Structural Engineers, NIST, FEMA, and other leading professional and government organizations who have particular expertise in these matters.

The various dissenters - led by a person who is not an engineer at all - and including a scattering of various types of engineers, simply do not match the level of authority, credibility, expertise, or trustworthiness exhibited by groups such as the ASCE.

I've actually read (most of) those reports, and I've spoken with engineers that I trust on the matter. It left me with no doubt.

The "official version" is that on which a consensus of experts exists. At this point questioning it is a bit like question the "official version" of the moon landings. Have you ever read the people who do that? They'll focus enormous attention on a particular distortion in an image, ultimately explained by a quirk of the lens used, and ignore the massive assumptions they make in describing "alternative" versions.

9/11 has been called the most investigated criminal act in history. That sounds about right. And it was an investigation conducted in the open, by multiple parties and experts, under the constant glare of press and outside expert attention, and with the full knowledge that if they got it wrong, history would not treat them kindly.

Not surprisingly given the incentives, they got it right.

GrauhutOctober 5, 2014 4:56 AM

@Skeptical: "9/11 has been called the most investigated criminal act in history. That sounds about right."

Doesnt sound so for me. Where do we find some documented 9/11 investigative work that was not tunnel vision like focused on the usual suspects, the famous "almighty camel-youknowwhats in secret caves under the mountains of Torabora"?

How did they rule out other potentially suspect groups for instance, anyone else with a potential motive?


@SmokingHot: "I think the reason I ignored the NORAD exercises the same day... [...] is because it strikes me as very likely urban myth level claims."


The NORAD exercises on 9/11 are well documented. Lots of staff were looking north to Alaska and Canada, wrong direction on this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001#Planned_military_exercises

About destroyed SEC investigation files in WTC7:
https://web.archive.org/web/20011214090317/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701e.html

About the dead accountants of the Resource Services Washington unit:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090418044737/http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm
http://www.hqda.army.mil/rsw/


These people were not an urban myth, they died this day.

Was there any documented investigation in who had an interest in not having to pay back some tax payer money, with evidence buried in 9/11? It's not about US gov, its about big money and power elites.

Did you know that the WTC towers were a symbol of the decline of the former iconic US weapons and steel giant Bethlehem Steel and this industry as a whole?

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+bethlehem+steel

Sancho_POctober 5, 2014 11:03 AM

One point to add is the single root for surveillance (and war):

Some (of course not the majority of Americans, Europeans, …)
know hat mankind, as we know it, will come to an end.

I believe, however, most of us "know" that too but do not want to think about, as we do not to think about our personal, inevitable end, let it be in 50 years, next month or even tonight. We avoid that fact as much as possible.

For mankind the time is unknown (but it’s less than 50 years from now) and it is inevitable, too.

This “end” will be grim, far away from a sudden death, unfortunately.
Mankind “as we know it” suffers from an multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.
As mankind is not a single body many will survive, but the majority can not.
Our world religion “growth” will stall and be part, if not reason, of the collapse.
It could start tomorrow.

Some (powers, elite, think tanks, …) do not only know but try to be prepared.
But how to prepare for the unknown future?
They’d need wealth, intelligence and force to maintain their personal security.

- Wealth to stay on top. [1]
- Intelligence (including surveillance) to control their followers. [2]
- Force to control resources and the unfortunates. [3]

[1] This is the main challenge, which value will survive?
This is very disturbing: Since decades we “pay” (give money) for mother earth’ resources (e.g. oil). Strange, isn't it?

[2] Omnipotent surveillance can not go away because we need it.

[3] The Middle East is just a shooting range, a test field for armor development.
War on our own people needs intelligence, training and weapons, too.

Privacy ExTORtedOctober 5, 2014 10:02 PM

@Grauhut • October 4, 2014 1:16 PM

Many site block Tor because of text scrapers, rough bots.

That's not been my experience; of the ~100>200 bookmarked sites I visit, only two consistently/blanket-ban TOR exit nodes. I consider the implementers of such bans to be enablers and/or collaborators of the expanding police/security/surveillance-state (which includes their data-harvesting "corporate partners"). If ~>98% of my bookmarked sites (of widely-varying popularity) can survive the onslaught of alleged "text scrapers, rough bots," then any pretext or excuse offered for blocking those who value their privacy strains credulity.

Nick POctober 6, 2014 12:01 AM

@ SmokingHot

You used a lot of words to say very little about what was discussed. For the sake of others, I'm going to condense it down into what it seems like you said.

1. What those in power at the time wanted could've been done without 9/11. They said otherwise in their own writings, esp PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses. Said it wouldn't likely happen without a "new Pearl Harbor."

2. We and Israel were suffering terrorism at the time. Implying we were going through something similar in effect to Israel's experience or 9/11. My recollection is people were shocked & 9/11 was first time terrorism had a real effect on their minds. It was nothing like Israel's situation lol.

3. Certain low magnitude terrorist attacks, including one by a Christian local, didn't cause sweeping effects. So, a scary attack by Muslim terrorist killing thousands of people and hitting our war headquarters wouldn't have much power either. Not quite same thing.

4. Ignore all strongest points on 9/11.

5. Ignore all examples I posted citing a consistent US policy of imperalism, covert warfare, and deceit of its people supporting those going back almost 100 years.

6. You ignore the point about Scientology's Snow White operation because it shows (a) massive infiltration & subversion of US government by ideologically crazy agents is possible; (b) many intelligent people will go along with such crazy stuff just because people they trusted asked them to; (c) they can get away with it with little to no evidence left. 9/11's core team, by comparison, needed less than 1% of the personnel and hit under 10% of targeted agencies.

7. You cite Iran-Contra and Watergate, two isolated examples that have nothing to do with the trends I referenced.

8. You build an argument that the covert, evil stuff is only isolated cases. You leverage the red herrings you introduced as evidence of this argument. You supported your faux position by ignoring the trend and leveraging the red herrings. Playing games?

9. You bring up angels and UFO's. You must *really* want this topic dismissed by a huge chunk of readers.

10. You demand a specific kind of evidence that exceeds the burden of proof in many criminal investigations of serious felonies. You ignore the fact that lying to Congress, lying to courts, and destruction of evidence in criminal investigations are all crimes themselves. My original report indicated they did each of these things and provably per their own people or materials. Further evidence isn't necessary to put them in prison or plea them for more evidence.

11. You reference the Snowden leak that proved that the NSA did far more than most conspiracy nuts claimed they did. People reading this might forget that hundreds of thousands of people knew about that and only a few came forward. Four people out of hundreds of thousands. A criminal action like the 9/11 operation with 20-50, handpicked people might have 0 leakers at that rate.

So, your overall approach is to ignore strong evidence relating to the event in question and the trends for the government, while bringing in red herrings that distract from such evidence or turn an audience away. I have no idea why you're doing this. I do know it can only take us away from whatever truth is there. So, I'd prefer any conversation to stick with... what actually happened that day or in U.S. military/intelligence history. Meanwhile, you seem to have an agenda that might be personal or professional so I'm moving on.

Nick POctober 6, 2014 12:32 AM

@ Black6

Indeed, many credible people think the official story is made up. That includes quite a few government people from FBI, CIA, etc. Good to know more in the Army are seeing through their BS.

@ Skeptical

"You are mistaken. The nature of the collapses has been exhaustively examined by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the British Institution of Structural Engineers, NIST, FEMA, and other leading professional and government organizations who have particular expertise in these matters."

That's not really true. Most analyses on the other side leverage data presented by the government and explicitly reject hypotheses like demolition before hand. The problem with relying on government data is that NIST's declassified report itself only had access to a tiny amount of physical evidence, the evidence was delivered by those we're investigating for fabrication, it excluded virtually everything that contradicted it (like eyewitness testimony of explosives), and the investigations also ingored all hypotheses but a collapse due to fire or plane crash. That's not an investigation into the crime scene at all: that's cherry picking evidence and hypotheses to back a conclusion you've already made.

So, if that's what U.S. govt did or others leveraged, their analyses are rigged and void from the start. They could have all the brains in the world thrown at that methodology without producing a truthful, conclusion. I'll also add that the 2005 NIST report mentioned that the data they input didn't cause a collapse. They "adjusted" the input and variables until the conditions they were looking for were reached. Read: they changed the details of the situation to get what they were looking for.

They also said: "it does not include the structural behavior of the toward after conditions for a collapse initiation were reached..." In other words, everything that happened from the collapse itself onward wasn't considered in the government investigation of why it fell. A building imploding the way it did leaving behind what it left behind is *very* important to understanding the collapse mechanism. It's crucial to the demolition hypothesis, for example. By NIST's own admission, the US government ignored explosion claims & everything about how the buildings fell in exchange for arbitrary input into a model not reflecting the actual situation.

That's not validation. That's utter bullshit. That they and US govt funded labs "validating" their claims all tradeoff the physical evidence and collapse data in exchange for pure theoretical models whose input is arbitrary suggests their scientific integrity is compromised. The architects, engineers, and pilots questioning the official theory are starting from the physical evidence. That's an investigation. That many are qualified to evaluate such data and are evaluating *what actually happened* rather than bogus models suggests that their credibility is much higher than the others. Even if the others are a majority.

FigureitoutOctober 6, 2014 2:03 AM

Nick P RE: 9/11 and "SmokingHawt" Rebuttal
--If you can call it a rebuttal...More like a retard argument, looks like posts of someone vaguely familiar...

What s/he (it?) won't consider when Hawtsauce says it's not possible for humans to carry out such an evil operation is how LEO organizations always follow orders from "their superiors", as in I guess they accept they are "superior" to them. Then compartmentalization which is accepted as normal; only problem is any random Joe Blow can spoof and claim being a different "secret" part of the department and tell any investigating officer they risk prosecution if you ask me for ID. Meaning, anyone can exploit this hole LEO agencies opened; and it happens...Like when someone fakes being a cop and rapes then murders someone they pull over w/ a fake light on their "undercover" car...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation

Anyway, back to 9/11. I don't want to get back into it, but the building 7 really did it for me. Why didn't any other building collapse around the towers like it did? Not only that, but the video evidence of it starting at the very top, some little part collapses first, then a very demolition-like fall happens. If fires from the other buildings weaked the bottom of the building, wouldn't it have collapsed more like a jenga-game or a human falling over?

Good ole' Skeptical as usual has blind faith and weak non-existent arguments of fluff and doesn't even remotely question that which comes from gov't sources. And SmokingHawt didn't really address any of those points w/ any meat. Moar fluff and non sensical rambling. As an onlooker of the argument, you're still winning it by a lot lol.

AdjuvantOctober 6, 2014 2:55 AM

Just a couple further bits, beyond sources I've mentioned earlier in the thread.

@Figureitout et al.
If you haven't seen it already, here's a brilliant piece of {strike} trolling {/strike} regulatory jiu-jitsu known as the NYC Highrise Safety Initiative, which will mandate the city of New York to investigate high-rise building collapses past and future, the Twin Towers specifically exempted. The catch, of course, is that WTC7 would not be exempted. Predictably, despite their apparent success in collecting the necessary signatures to get this referendum on the ballot in NYC, all the stops are being pulled out to make sure it doesn't happen. Some coverage:

http://gothamist.com/2014/07/10/911_conspiracy_group.php
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/09/06/update-petition-to-put-911-probe-on-nyc-ballot-jumps-big-hurdle/

Toronto 9/11 Hearings

Also, with the benefit of hindsight, it was positively criminal of me to omit mention of the work of the Toronto Hearings back in 2011, as distilled in their final report published 2012.

Over the four days of the Toronto Hearings, noted authors and scientific experts presented the best evidence gathered in the previous decade to a panel of distinguished individuals whose opinion on the strength of the evidence should carry considerable weight in the public sphere. The four panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell. Much of the evidence these panelists heard and questioned during the Toronto Hearings is presented in the opening chapters of this report.

I still need to read the final report in its entirety, but I have seen large portions of the actual event, videorecordings of which may be seen on its website Essential work.

vas pupOctober 6, 2014 10:33 AM

@Albert:
Q: Is collection criminal intel through undercover LEO of confidential informant legal or illegal? Unfortunately, you did not get the difference between criminal intel activity by LEA and evidences obtained in order to be presented in the court as the base of prosecution. Latter (parallel reconstruction) is often based directly or indirectly on former. Sometimes criminal intel has as primary goal to stop dangerous crime in progress first rather than get evidence for prosecutors admissible in the court. But I agree with you that any intel gathering could not be obviously illegal like use force (e.g. torture, threat of harm to relatives, etc - that is from mob arsenal, not LEA). So, I am pro 'passive' intel (observation, etc.) versus brute force intel towards criminals (with exception of nuke case scenario).
@Smoking Hot. Yes, you do have reasonable mistrust in LEAs because they applied lies as day by day activity as a tool to do their jobs. That is why you have all those amendments + Miranda. Cops are not coming from the Moon (or North Korea - kidding!), but they are mirroring all things in society. Unfortunately, role behavior changed their personality.

AlanSOctober 6, 2014 6:08 PM

@Skeptical

"My view of the US Government - limitations, warts, past crimes and fuck-ups, achievements, and virtues - is realistic."

Realism is understanding that the "achievements and virtues" are dwarfed by the "warts, past crimes and fuck-ups".

Bacevich in WaPo: Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll still lose the bigger war

Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed....And that’s just since 1980....U.S. efforts to promote stability have tended to produce just the opposite. Part of the problem is that American policymakers have repeatedly given in to the temptation to unleash a bit of near-term chaos, betting that longer-term order will emerge on the other end. Back in Vietnam, this was known as burning down the village to save it. In the Greater Middle East, it has meant dismantling a country with the aim of erecting something more preferable — “regime change” as a prelude to “nation building.” Unfortunately, the United States has proved considerably more adept at the former than the latter. Mostly, coercive regime change has produced power vacuums....In place of governing arrangements that Washington judged objectionable, the United States has found itself coping with the absence of any effective governments whatsoever....By inadvertently sowing instability, the United States has played directly into the hands of anti-Western radical Islamists intent on supplanting the European-imposed post-Ottoman order with something more to their liking.

WaelOctober 6, 2014 8:18 PM

@Figureitout,

Anyway, back to 9/11. I don't want to get back into it, but the building 7 really did it for me. Why didn't any other building collapse around the towers like it did?
Perhaps because the other buildings were not pulled? So says Larry Silverstein...

AlanSOctober 6, 2014 8:22 PM

@Skeptical

"9/11 has been called the most investigated criminal act in history. That sounds about right. And it was an investigation conducted in the open, by multiple parties and experts, under the constant glare of press and outside expert attention, and with the full knowledge that if they got it wrong, history would not treat them kindly. Not surprisingly given the incentives, they got it right."

So open that they redacted Twenty-Eight of the most important pages. I don't history is going to be kind to them for covering up and continuing to cover up those pages.

WaelOctober 6, 2014 8:24 PM

@Nick P,

For the sake of others, I'm going to condense it down into what it seems like you said.
Thanks! Nice summary, but a bit on the lengthy side. Maybe you need to relax a little after this effort :)

Nick POctober 6, 2014 8:48 PM

@ Wael

re pulled

That was actually a clever prank by Alex Jones [that got me in earlier years I'll admit]. Pull isn't industry slang for demolition far as anyone knows. A vertical demolition would take considerable prep work. It's not something you can setup on the spot while a building is on fire. That I'm aware of, at least...

Nick POctober 6, 2014 8:53 PM

@ Wael

"Maybe you need to relax a little after this effort :)"

Thanks. :) Probably do. Of course, still got personal battles to beat and high security schemes to build. Plus, DARPA's newest R&D program might independently discover the invention I just made recently. It requires no modifications to most hardware, is cheap to add on other hardware, has zero to little performance impact, will work with some legacy systems, and stops all forms of low-level code injection. I'm really considering patenting it to ensure they don't do it first and take it off the market. It's also compatible with lawful intercept or NSL's if necessary. (In US, that's necessary...)

How's that sound? Is that the shit or what? :O

WaelOctober 6, 2014 9:17 PM

@Nick P,

That was actually a clever prank by Alex Jones
I agree, the first link looks like it's been doctored. However...

A vertical demolition would take considerable prep work. It's not something you can setup on the spot while a building is on fire
And who dismissed that it wasn't prepped months before, even as far back at the time the buildings were built as a "safety factor"? As for the term "pull"... http://911review.org/WTC/WTC7_pullit_Industry-term.html whether it's "standard" demolition expression or not is irrelevant. How else would you interpret Larry's words?

WaelOctober 6, 2014 9:32 PM

@Nick P,

I'm really considering patenting it to ensure they don't do it first and take it off the market.
If you can afford to part with 10K, then you should patent it. Then you can license your technology to others that can afford it.

Nick POctober 6, 2014 10:25 PM

@ Wael

The word was used plenty that day according to numerous sources. None are quite suspicious. That they would've spent plenty of time preparing for the actual, covert demolition I agree with. I just doubt that's what Silverstein was talking about. I also doubt he would even know about it. If we assume he's involved, telling him the specifics is unnecessary ("need to know") and makes him a liability. He wouldn't have known what they were doing. Even the company allegedly reducing the security of the building doesn't need to know what's going to happen.

Honestly, it makes no sense to tell him a covert demolition is happening. The risk of the op runs too high. But conspiracy sites' advertising, books, and vids sold plenty with such things. So, I leaned toward them making the stuff up because we must remember they have the same selfish motives as the other side.

"If you can afford to part with 10K, then you should patent it. Then you can license your technology to others that can afford it."

Yeah, that's the problem. Gotta have a sponsor. Both for the patent and initial development. I'd rather it be done at least by good coders, if not by expert security engineers. I considered trying to get the sponsor to give OpenBSD people a huge donation in response for certain coders (a) developing my solution and (b) ensuring their OS works on it. Or CHERI team as they already converted FreeBSD to a capability-based processor. My conversion would be... so much simpler. And work side-by-side with theirs.

Just don't got the money by far. Plus, I'm not willing to give ownership over to a VC firm. I have to control the I.P. to keep it on the market despite pressure from numerous parties & ensure the security of critical operations. So, it would have to be a group thinking of it as charity, government funding (haha), or a loan that just made a certain interest rate if the business is successful.

Nick POctober 6, 2014 10:34 PM

@ Adjuvant

Good link. Haven't vetted it yet but it's the kind of precursors to a good inside job that I've been talking about. If true, it only further cements the theory as giving them every bit of access they need to do the job and preventing their operation from being detected (i.e. bomb sniffing dogs removed). I recall there was a claim that the same Bush also helped get the insurance policy. Not sure if that's the case but being charged with security for the building, getting a financial stake in the [negative] outcome of that, and reducing security would be a suspicious, dangerous combination.

SkepticalOctober 6, 2014 11:37 PM


@Nick: That's not really true. Most analyses on the other side leverage data presented by the government and explicitly reject hypotheses like demolition before hand.

NIST FAQ WTC Investigation

They considered the hypothesis. They rejected it in favor of a far superior one.

The problem with relying on government data is that NIST's declassified report itself only had access to a tiny amount of physical evidence, the evidence was delivered by those we're investigating for fabrication, it excluded virtually everything that contradicted it (like eyewitness testimony of explosives), and the investigations also ingored all hypotheses but a collapse due to fire or plane crash. That's not an investigation into the crime scene at all: that's cherry picking evidence and hypotheses to back a conclusion you've already made.

See above. Almost every one of those sentences is incorrect.

So, if that's what U.S. govt did or others leveraged, their analyses are rigged and void from the start. They could have all the brains in the world thrown at that methodology without producing a truthful, conclusion.

Again, multiple organizations with expertise in structural engineering and specifically structural failures looked at this. No reputable organization came to the "demolition" conclusion.

I'll also add that the 2005 NIST report mentioned that the data they input didn't cause a collapse. They "adjusted" the input and variables until the conditions they were looking for were reached. Read: they changed the details of the situation to get what they were looking for.

NIST attempted to understand the interior dynamics of fire, thermal loading, and structural stress and movement by beginning with what they knew about the buildings, and building a reference model. They then explored different scenarios of aircraft damage, fire, structural effects, etc., matching these scenarios to key observations (e.g. buckling that appears in a given wall at a given time).

They endeavored to construct a model within the bounds of what each element could contribute that would produce the best fit with external observations.

They also considered the possibility of internal explosions, but found these inconsistent with observations of the fires and the changes in the structures from impact to collapse.

They also said: "it does not include the structural behavior of the toward after conditions for a collapse initiation were reached..." In other words, everything that happened from the collapse itself onward wasn't considered in the government investigation of why it fell. A building imploding the way it did leaving behind what it left behind is *very* important to understanding the collapse mechanism. It's crucial to the demolition hypothesis, for example. By NIST's own admission, the US government ignored explosion claims & everything about how the buildings fell in exchange for arbitrary input into a model not reflecting the actual situation.

The conclusion you draw from that quote is not true at all. NIST's conclusion about the nature of the collapse draws heavily on observations made as the collapse was in progress.

I'm not sure which NIST report that quote is from, however, so I can't shed more light on it. But it's completely false that NIST just ignored what happened after the point of collapse.

The architects, engineers, and pilots questioning the official theory are starting from the physical evidence. That's an investigation.

The professionals who evaluate structural failures for a living also began with physical evidence. And using vast resources and expertise that far outstrips the scattered, for the most part amateurs, who come forward to propose various alternative hypotheses that eventually, inevitably, end up in some video with an ominous soundtrack.

The engineers who evaluated all of this aren't patsies or incompetent. They have forgotten more about investigating structural failures than you or I will ever know.

Look, I understand how you feel. When TWA 800 went down, I strongly suspected a bomb at first. But, the conclusion of the investigation, if you give it a fair read, makes good sense. One could still construct alternative hypotheses, point to eyewitnesses who claimed to see rockets or missiles streaking towards the plane, ask why additional tests weren't run, why more outside labs weren't used, why more samples weren't tested, etc etc etc.

In the end, the alternate hypotheses just had two many epi-cycles - too many ad hoc explanations for why certain residue wasn't found, why certain signatures of an explosive device were not discovered, and many of these explanations depended on hypothesizing a circle of psychopathic government conspirators.

Really, not all that different from the "alternate hypotheses" put forward about 9/11 - or JFK, or a million other complex and extraordinary events.

Black6October 6, 2014 11:44 PM

@Nickp

Stop watching Alex Jones. Then stop limiting the possibilities based on what you believe to be true. Follow the empirical evidence. Only 3 steel framed high-rises have EVER collapsed from "fire" in the history of professional engineering and building construction. Those collapses all occurred on one day, 9/11.

Follow the scientific method. Don't go searching for evidence in support of your hypothesis like most modern pseudoscience is conducted. Let the evidence guide you to genuine and demonstrable truth.

"De Opresso Liber"

Black 6

Clive RobinsonOctober 7, 2014 12:13 AM

@ Wael,

Nice to see you are still around :)

With regards your almost throw away comment about the WTC being "preped" during design / construction, the answer is almost certainly yes. But not in a deliberate way which others might regard as suspicious or evidence of a conspiracy.

The WTC was a "first of it's kind" in many ways and designed at a time when it was thought either not practical or in some cases possible to build a building that tall.

It's design was unique and thus widely studied at the time and was an object lesson in how to get around problems for many years, and I was just one of hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects world wide who were either aware of it's new design or had studied it. For instance it's design of elevators was just one originality, that effected the design of lifts from that point onwards, which in turn caused electrical engineers to study the design, on how to actually get the bursts of power etc required.

Another was how they got structural strength without the weight. I won't go into all the details but as anyone who has ridden a push bike knows there is something almost magic about spoked wheels.

We know there is no way the wire at the bottom of the wheel will support the weight of the bike let alone the rider. The magic is that contrary to what we first think the weight of the bike and the rider is actually hanging from the spokes at the top of the wheel, and passed down through the wheel rim. The rim also is incapable on it's own of supporting the weight of the rider, the trick is to use the spokes at the side of the hub to stop the rim colapsing outward. Thus the spokes never work in compression only tension and thus can be very very much lighter by a factor of well over a hundred.

The WTC was built in the same way the central core or hub that supported the lifts was in reality the main element that was in compression, the floors radiated of this like the wheels of a bike stacked up hub upon hub, and the outer skin of the building was effectivly the wheel hubs. But the walls also used the same tension not compression trick to keep the building stable. In effect it was like pulling on a paper tube, not pushing down on it. Think how easy it is to crumple up a sheet of A4 paper into a twist (compression) now try pulling not tearing the twist of paper till it snaps (tension). Even toddlers can do the former, but few if any adults can do the latter.

The result was an extreamly strong structure and was much written about at the time. Back then aircraft were not the size, speed or mass they are now. What I cannot remember was if they took the WWII incident of an aircraft flying into a skyscraper one Saturday morning into account or not. I doubt they considered what effects burning jet fuel in those quanties would do because at the design time it was virtually a compleate unknown.

Suffice it to say that when a jet hit, it did not leave anything outside the building, it in effect pilled up against the building core. This was fairly evident on the live video stream going out around the world. It is highly likely that such a shock caused various types of shattering effects in the concrete core ranging from micro fractures upwards to full on structural failure. It's fair to say at this point it was compromised beyond recovery as the integrity of the concrete was gone, and it was just the internal rebar that was in effect now a cage holding a lot of rubble. Thus all that was keeping the building up was the rebar cage and the outer skin of the building.

Now steel under tension whilst strong at room temprature becomes as soft as toffee when heated up to the tempratures you would expect in an enclosed jet fuel fire, thus they would start to stretch. At some point the rebar cage would start to collapse and the concreate likewise to collapse out of it further exposing the rebar to the fire. It's also likely the concrete would further degrade due to trapped moisture and the rapid setting chemicals in common use at the build time.

Further the floor members in tension would stretch and soften and the mass of the building transfer to the outer skin, that would burst like an over ripe banana and peal outwards and the mass of the building start to drop like a game of dominos where as one floor colapsed down it's mass would add to the mass of the floor below, this would suddenly see twice the mass and give way twice as quickly, increasing floor by floor, causing the building to fall in on it's self.

The above is almost the same I told my horrified work colleagues at the time within minutes of the tower collapsing, when they were asking "how" in shocked bewilderment.

Now I suspect that no further action would have been required to bring the building down the way it did. But if somebody did want to do so adding quite small shaped charges near or around floor members in tension at the building core end would probably have been sufficient.

But this gives rise to the question of "why did they wait?", that is why not blow the explosived much closer to the time of the plane crashing into the core. It's what people would expect to see if the building were to colapse.

Because we got the significant delay, it's why I have significant difficulty beliving it was deliberately assisted with explosives etc. Also if the idea was to terrorise, more people would have been killed by early not late detonation of explosives.

I know you should not use Occam's Razor with human actions, but personally I don't think "inside assist" arguments stack up sufficiently to pass the reasonable doubt test.

AdjuvantOctober 7, 2014 1:00 AM

@Skeptical When TWA 800 went down, I strongly suspected a bomb at first. But, the conclusion of the investigation, if you give it a fair read, makes good sense.
In the end, the alternate hypotheses just had two many epi-cycles - too many ad hoc explanations for why certain residue wasn't found, why certain signatures of an explosive device were not discovered, and many of these explanations depended on hypothesizing a circle of psychopathic government conspirators.

So, I gather that we're expected to rebut your new crop of assertions and thereby open ourselves to charges such as: "Adjuvant believes the official story is always a a lie and everything is a cover-up and conspiracy." Or is the objective simply to deflect discussion from 9/11 to comparatively more benign subject. Otherwise, why bring up this questionably-related example at all?

The best work on the TWA 800 story was and continues to be done by Kristina Borjesson. Out of my immense respect for her, I'll play ball here nonethless.

First, Borjesson's edited volume, which she put out after she forfeited her previously stellar (Emmy and Murrow award-winning) career with CBS and CNN by pursuing the TWA 800 story, ought to be required reading.
Into The Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press

Critics described the first edition of this highly acclaimed book as "fascinating and disturbing," "uplifting" and "infuriating," as well as a "penetrating collection of powerful essays." This highly acclaimed book won the National Press Club’s Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism and was selected by the New York Public Library as one of the most extraordinary titles of 2002.
...
Among the other contributors are: CBS’s award winning investigative producer Helen Malmgren; veteran investigative journalist and author of DuPont: Behind the Nylon Curtain [also author of the monumental Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil and, until recently, president of the National Writer's Union --A] Gerard Colby; veteran print journalist and editor David Hendrix; founder and Director Emeritus of Project Censored Carl Jensen; former DEA agent-turned-journalist and best-selling author Michael Levine; author or editor of seven books, including [the essential --A] Rich Media, Poor Democracy, Robert McChesney; award-winning CBS documentary producer Maurice Murad; independent investigative reporter and author of the current bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy Greg Palast; New York Daily News investigative reporter J. Robert Port; Emmy Award-winning producer and author Monika Jensen-Stevenson; Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Gary Webb; and New York Observer columnist Philip Weiss.

Second, watch this brief panel segment in which she describes her experience of career evaporation.

Finally, investigate and watch the documentary she was finally able to complete over a decade later.

Review:
http://www.bu.edu/bostonia/winter-spring14/what-really-happened-to-twa-flight-800/

That's enough distraction for now, but many thanks to Skeptical for the opportunity to name so many other worthwhile sources of information!

WaelOctober 7, 2014 1:23 AM

@Clive Robinson,
Thanks! Was still around reading and watching the show from afar. I like your analysis - haven't heard the bike analogy before - and need to think about it a bit. I am not a conspiracy nut, but the story is full of apparent holes from several angles. You didn't elaborate on the "prep part during construction" after saying its almost "certainly yes"! What kind of prep did you have in mind?

FigureitoutOctober 7, 2014 1:33 AM

Adjuvant
here's a brilliant piece of...trolling
--Sigh...been awhile, evidence will keep decaying and more time for destruction.

Wael
--But why the top of the building beginning to fall first? Too many questions.

Clive Robinson
--That's for buildings 1 & 2, what about 7?

Andrew_KOctober 7, 2014 2:33 AM

Caution, this comment contains conspiracy theory and a bit cynism.

Also apologies for delayed comment. It was intended to be posted next to this comment. So, my apologies, if it is outdated by now.

I am not a "beliver", but I there are surprisingly few contradictions. Well, I know, that's what makes for a good conspiracy theory.

Point 1.
There is no such thing as an ex-marine, marines told me. After someone got a marine, he will stay it for the rest of his life. Why should there be such a thing as a former intelligence agent/director/whatever? Aside: Being a former something makes a good cover story for selling almost everything to the media since the person is perceived both trustworthy and independend.

Point 2.
What if Snowden still works for NSA, playing the role of his life? I would really like to know, what Russians have shown or told him so far. He is smart, he learns from questions and he knows how to communicate securely.

Point 2.5.
The published documents are very well selected not to endanger ongoing missions (compared to e.g. some of the revelations made by Der Spiegel or Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk and Sueddeutsche Zeitung which endanger ongoing BND missions).

Point 3.
Raise your finger if you honestly belive that Journalists or German politicians (who are part of German Intelligence Control and since can be assumed under surveillance) can meet with Edward Snowden multiple times in hotel rooms without the whole five eyes noticing. If the right person gives the command, Snowden will be dead ten hours later -- or less. Resist the urge to compare to Osama bin Laden -- he was not giving interviews to tracable people.

If this would be a plot, what are the stakes?

Of course the NSA lost much of its credebility in this mission -- wait a second. Not the NSA lost credebility, the U.S. Administration (remember, the one starting with "change" and "close down Guantanamo") lost credbility. How convenient for some intelligences. The NSA itself does not even need to care about what people think about it. Or what policitians think. They got a license to lie to everyone, including those ought to control them. It literally does not matter to their work, what anybody thinks. Whoever wants to work for them will apply anyhow. Whoever needs to be working for them will be forced to do so anyhow.
Granted, some NSA programs got public. Some companies lost reputation. Still no real damage to the NSA since many of these companies are to big to fail. There is no way to evade Microsoft's products if you're running a multinational business. Tough many people are aware of this, the big jump to FOSS in corporate environments hasn't come yet. If I were NSA, I would bet it will never come.

Hint: Has there been any statement of the NSA stopping any of these programs (aside from the Merkel thing)? Has there been any real damage to the outcome of these programs?

What could be motivation?
Once programs are leaked, new programs need to be funded to replace them. Big programs. Expensive, powerful programs.

Edited to Add:
Regarding theories, we have a medival problem. We cannot prove if it's the sun turning around earth or vice versa. We just have observations. Many theories are out there to explain them with few or no contradictions. This makes none of them truth. We just have to realize and perhaps also accept that we cannot decide without further knowledge.
We can - however - use these theories: Act regarding to the worst-case consequences. Encrypt. Be subtle. Stay within the crowd. Don't expose. Avoid being diagnosed with paranoia.

Clive RobinsonOctober 7, 2014 4:52 AM

@ Wael,

The "prep" was the deficiencies in the design.

That is whilst the design was sufficient for a building, it was not sufficient for having tonnes of jet fuel injected and ignited in the way it was. The design was a little to stiff and did not roll with the punch, and it had an insufficient failure margin.

Probably unbelievably to many, we can design buildings today that would survive the impact of a jet passenger aircraft in a better way. That is where tension members have more energy absorbing ability and behave more like springs than glass rods and also have energy absorbing dampers with sufficient frequency response. Not unexpectedly the ideas originate from designing not for the incredably rare case of aircraft impact, but from the rather more mundane high energy storms and earthquakes.

WTC twin towers were a leading edge design at the time, and we learnt much from their design both good and bad long before 9/11, it's doubtful a new build would be allowed to be built that way today even if aircraft had not flow into them.

@ Figureitout,

As for building seven I did not see it's destruction on live news footage at the time, nor subsiquently, so I cannot make a comment on it in the way I did shortly after witnessing the live news feed.

I also need to be carefull because I'm known to have an intense dislike for the major resident there who were I suspect --like one of the city officials-- commiting massive mortgage fraud.

What is known about 7 WTC is it was not a good design when it was built, it was in essence structuraly weak in the core section as it was built on foundations originaly designed for a much smaller building. Thus it had two sets of foundations that in effect were independent of each other and a strange cantilever load balance system. It was in short an engineering bodge job from the get go.

Unfortunatly what was an initial bad design went worse with time due to the needs of various occupants at various times it ended up being an office building straddling not just a major power substation but oil powered power generation system sufficient for a small town along with the oil storage to run it.

Then the major tennent decided to gut out the building and build a new building inside it to accomadate a new tradding center. This involved making over a thousand tonnes of changes over a relativly short period of time, and ended up being nearly four hundred tonnes heavier. I have no idea what this did to the cantilever balance or other previous building modifications and I dred to think of what might or might not have shifted and set up or moved stresses within the building.

Of concern is how did the building ever pass it's safety certificate with a realy antiquated and insufficient fire suppression system. Basicaly the sprinklers had multiple points of single failure --most definitely not alowed these days-- and required manually starting --likewise not allowed-- but worse still it was reliant on city water mains preasure, which was virtually non existant after the twin towers were down.

What is apparently not known is how the multiple fires were started, or how much of an impact the collapsing north tower had on the building by either direct strike, or vibration/movment to it's foundations.

From what I've read in the past there were questions as to if the "building within a building" work had damaged not just the buildings integrity but also the fire suppresent covering of steel members within the building.

If the A180 coverings had been damaged then you would have had all the conditions for a "perfect storm" for structural integrity failure.

The problem I have is that the complexity of the building design makes actually thinking about failure modes difficult to impossible in your head, you would need to have way to much --unavailable-- information from the various changes in the building long prior to the "building with in a building" and as far as I'm aware the measurments were never done in the depth required.

So from my point of view 7 WTC would not have been a building I would want to be even close to let alone inside (which applies to a lot of NY buildings) as "house of cards" metephores spring to mind...

SmokingHotOctober 7, 2014 12:54 PM

@Black6

Wow "smokinghot" you post on here like it's your "job"... lol.

"De Opresso Liber"

Black 6


In the late sixties, I was Army Special Forces, and officially went MIA in Laos. Or that is my birthdad. At the time, we were under the direction of the CIA. Somehow, I have hardly aged at all.

If one dug into the details of my background they would find seeming connections to the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Air Force, as well.

Almost as if the point is to distract people from what agency or group I really work for.


Which is great stuff to say to a very paranoid group who is very focused on conspiracy theories.


Further, if one looked at many of my jobs, it would seem that while the companies appear to be legitimate, they very well may be fake. Though no one can prove that, nor can anyone prove any of the above connections. Besides photographs and records.


But, here is the thing: if so, why on earth would someone like this ever post on such matters?


The fact is none of that is real. They are not coincidences, sure, they are just fake pieces of paper. A paper trail, many paper trails, which all end up on dead end roads.


Reality is: I can cover a lot of material quickly. It does not take me long to write my statements. It is usually almost all from memory. If not all. I am merely expressing my opinions here. Moreso, I am honing my opinions. Getting a wide variety of very critical feedback helps me do this.

If I really were some kind of super deep undercover superspy, believe me, I would not say any of this. In fact, where I do have real secrets, these are not those things but merely diversions and there for protection.

And I do, but they are such secrets that people simply would not believe even if they were told them. Not the sort of secrets that could do anyone any damage. Psychological and emotional damage, sure, to the people that would discover such secrets, if they stumbled onto proof. But not to myself, nor anyone I know.

And even that psychological and emotional damage would be temporary. Typical of someone having their mind blown.

;-)


SmokingHotOctober 7, 2014 1:17 PM

@Skeptical

'@SmokingHot: Skeptical won't change his mind about the godlike capacity of the US Government, and their Jesus Incarnate purity and goodness.'

I do not get why people get into that sort of thing, anymore then I get why Skeptical believes the US will magically transform the Middle East into some utopian paradise.

Sorry Smoking, you'll have to find someone else to stand in for that strawman.

I haven't said, nor do I believe, any of those things.

My view of the US Government - limitations, warts, past crimes and fuck-ups, achievements, and virtues - is realistic.

I don't think that the US will transform the Middle East into anything, much less a Utopia.

However, that doesn't mean that there is nothing that the US can do. It simply means that the US must act cognizant of the limitations its own resources and the need to prioritize as it allocates those resources. The US can act in ways to encourage nations to begin necessary steps to transition, and it can protect societies (such as the Kurds) that have made enormous strides.

Nor does it mean that unless the US has a solution to all extremism, it should refrain from acting against any particular extremist organization. ISIL has done things to render it a target worth killing.

Skeptical, I appreciate you correcting me. This sort of statement was simply me trying to figure out your stance. It gave you a chance to defend and explain your self, and you did so.

Duly noted.

I do not have a problem with the US acting against ISIL. They are making legitimate threats against the US, so it is within their reasonable right to do so. I do believe, however, the way they are going about this is very well set to cause more problems then they solve.

I do not believe you are fully cognizant or willing to admit there just the sort of chaos the US has wrought in the past on some of these operations.

- the second Gulf War created the conditions that enabled Al Qaeda in Iraq to eventually thrive, and so they have, changing their name to "ISIL" and taking over the Sunni province of Iraq

- the US getting involved in Syria was a bad decision. This also helped ISIL become what it is.

- while I believe enabling the resistance fighters of the 80s war in Afghanistan was useful, I believe the exit strategy was very bull headed and created the conditions for the Taliban to take power there

The first Gulf War, I have no problem with the US and other nations reacting to that.


The sanctions against Iraq were much too strong.


The US should not be so close to the Sunnis. This is where problems will arise. But, they are, and this is causing them to make many of these serious mistakes.

The US would also do well to consider being far more diplomatic (nicer) to Iran, Russia, China, and the Middle Eastern Shia populations.


Does or has the US any obligation to act in any of these arenas? No. With ISIL, yes, they do. But also taking down Assad is a very bad decision. You will just end up with Sunni militants in control of Syria and the Iraq Sunni province. Effectively, replacing ISIL with some other group who will be equally as dangerous, and probably even moreso.

Assad has a peace treaty with Israel, so you can expect that peace treaty to go out the window.

That treaty, with the Egyptian treaty, are core peace bonds that have helped keep the Middle East stable all of these years.


I can further note: the way the US is going about all of this will have very low chance of success. "Success" of ridding the region of ISIL at all. ISIL is not so far from viewpoint of the engaged Sunni nations. Not their diplomats, sure. But the people in those units. Enabling those ultra conservative Muslims to connect with ISIL is very likely to cause some serious problems.

Just as enabling the Pakistani ISI to connect with the Arab-Afghans during the 80s war had severe blowback consequences for the US, and for the world.


SmokingHotOctober 7, 2014 1:58 PM

@Nickp, @etc, regarding 911 conspiracy theories


8. You build an argument that the covert, evil stuff is only isolated cases. You leverage the red herrings you introduced as evidence of this argument. You supported your faux position by ignoring the trend and leveraging the red herrings. Playing games?

9. You bring up angels and UFO's. You must *really* want this topic dismissed by a huge chunk of readers.


Let me correct your perceptions right here and now.


You guys are repeating some outlandish points about your theory in this thread. I have merely been trying to point out that some of these points *are* outlandish. If you want traction, you need to work hard at figuring out which aspects of your theories are implausible, outlandish... and jettison those.

Stick to the best evidence out there, and have evidence driven theories, as I have said before, and I now see someone else saying.


No, I do not always communicate directly. In this kind of situation, it is simply more effective not to do so. I am, however, doing so now. You have to first establish rapport with someone, then break that rapport.

I do, however, always comment on situations where I do not communicate directly. If, at all, possible.


Your instinct that is burgeoning that I am "someone" and "do work for someone", is true. I have not hidden this fact. If I did, I would not express my thinking processes born by experience on a very wide range of matters.

Those thinking processes show people who also have them that I am where they are.

So, you do pick up on that, but you are trying to tie this to what I am saying on 911. As if my statements on everything else are just some kind of clever cover. This is not true.


I am also sitting here arguing down the capacity of human beings while, at the same time, showing that human beings do have a capacity more then what people typically try and think they have a capacity for.

That is part of my "sarcasm" and method for trying to talk to someone about matters they would not believe if they were told directly.


In other words, even if I knew anything, I could not tell you guys directly because it would not fit the picture of what you already believe. So, I have to rely on this sort of communication. It is not thought out, it is just what happens.


I am very certain, whatever conclusions you may come to (probably unfriendly ones at this juncture), that there are people "out there" who are pursuing and "on top of" every manner of serious corruption within the US Government.


SmokingHotOctober 7, 2014 2:01 PM

@Black6

Apologies, I thought that motto posting was a "shout's out" of sorts. Afterwards I read some of your posts and see you simply use it as your signature.

Nick POctober 7, 2014 2:13 PM

@ Skeptical

Actually, they didn't per their own report and statements in interviews. I'm only talking about what their actual investigation did and worked with. Most of the steel was rapidly destroyed, with NIST getting only a little of it. Most of their data was based on a simulation-driven process that is quite thorough, but seems to selectively omit or modify critical variables.

@ Clive, Skeptical

Read this link's section titled "Twin towers WTC1 and WTC3... NIST Final report on collapse 2005."

Note: I'm not endorsing the site or all it's claims. It just has a link to NIST final report & criticisms that seem to be valid.

The biggest problem with all those analyses is they ignore all the reports of bombs going off from massive ones near support structures in basement to minor ones throughout building (mainly near core). That witness testimony was sealed, with NYT fighting for a year to get it out. These aren't *sounds* of explosions but actual explosions that injured or killed people. Electrical explosions of transformers or oxygen generators explains some of it. Not all though. And certainly not why authorities would hide it or allege explosions were fraud.

So, planes (cept for WTC7) do damage to specific sections, fires didn't reach higher than 600C degrees per NIST physical analysis, a bunch of explosions go off in all *three* buildings for over half an hour, all core beams (per vid analysis & NIST report) fail simultaneously in each building, every floor falls simultaneously at near free fall, and massive pyroclastic clouds come out the area during collapse with wreckage smoldering for days to weeks.

NIST was supposed to test for explosive residue (eg combustables in building) such explosives going off *just might* affect building stability. They didn't do that test, although managed to reject demolition hypothesis without testing for it. (Very sciency...) That explosions were ignored, denied, and sealed by US govt at different times suggests a cover up. That an implosion with explosives would require a professional firm with intent to reduce collateral damage & extensive access leads to the inside job hypothesis. Terrorists wouldn't have the capability & they'd try to knock the building sideways to meet their motive of max damage. They sure as hell wouldn't wait for people to evacuate.

That University of Coppenhagen chemists found thermite in a sample is more interesting. My first thought was hoax until I saw what kind of thermite it was: a superior, non-public blend produced with nanotech for covert operations teams in U.S. military. A person with access to classified files on our "superthermites" and expensive fabrication equipment could have produced this. Then they could have obtained exact type of metal as WTC core, subjected it to immense pressure/heat, planted the thermite in it, and then sent that to the lab for lulz.

Or it's a real rock from ground zero with residues of what destroyed the core. A nanothermite blend designed for U.S. military's covert demolition of equipment and structures (per their publication) was found in an structure allegedly demolished by covert operators. Didn't you reference Occam's Razor, Clive? ;)

SmokingHotOctober 7, 2014 2:54 PM

@Grauhut

The NORAD exercises on 9/11 are well documented. Lots of staff were looking north to Alaska and Canada, wrong direction on this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001#Planned_military_exercises

About destroyed SEC investigation files in WTC7:
https://web.archive.org/web/20011214090317/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701e.html

About the dead accountants of the Resource Services Washington unit:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090418044737/http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm
http://www.hqda.army.mil/rsw/


These people were not an urban myth, they died this day.

Was there any documented investigation in who had an interest in not having to pay back some tax payer money, with evidence buried in 9/11? It's not about US gov, its about big money and power elites.


Thank you, Grauhut, those are some good sources.


A quote from the news article on the victims:

One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.


You maybe be onto something there. Are you aware that not everyone who serves in the Army is actually Army? This is noted in Prouty's book, "The Secret Team". He pointed out how military is often used for cover for CIA units. This provides them a consistent paycheck, a consistent legend, and a relatively stable cover in general.

It could also be someone or something else has been doing things that they want to erase records of. With the key emphasis on "erasing records of".

Something that can be a very daunting problem these days.

I remember, once, I wanted to put down on my resume some work I had done as part of my progress towards a social work degree at a school for people with cereberal palsy. It had been a few years. Unfortunately, the woman I got on the phone told me the place burned down, so the records were no longer available.


Next topic.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system. One of these cases was a sexual harassment charge filed on Sept. 10 against Morgan Stanley, one of the prime corporate victims of the World Trade Center disaster.

A statement from the commission said that "we are confident that we will not lose any significant investigation or case as a result of the loss of our building in New York. No one whom we have sued or whose conduct we have been investigating should doubt our resolve to continue our pursuit of justice in every such matters."


I would only point out here that what some intelligence agencies do is operate out of front companies. Some of these front companies are legitimate enough. Most or a lot of people there have no idea they are working for a front company. They have real products, real services, and so provide perfect cover for the owners.

Next topic.

The military exercises (war games) planned for September 11, 2001 included:

Global Guardian, an annual command-level exercise organized by United States Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and NORAD. Primary purpose is to test and validate nuclear command and control and execution procedures. Global Guardian is performed in conjunction with NORAD's Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior, as well as exercises sponsored by Air Combat Command (Crown Vigilance) and Space Command (Apollo Guardian).[3][4]
Vigilant Guardian, the semiannual NORAD exercise that had been running in conjunction with Global Guardian for several days and which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. Vigilant Guardian is a Command Post Exercise (CPX), meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. The exercise involves all NORAD command levels.[5] Out of a range of scenarios being run on September 11, 2001, one was a "traditional" simulated hijacking.[6] According to General Eberhart, after the first attack, "it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world situation.[7] Because of an increased number of staff, the exercise would prove to be an enabler of rapid military response for NORAD and its NEADS component, as senior officials who were manning NORAD command centers throughout the U.S. were available to make rapid decisions.[8]
Vigilant Warrior. In his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke recounts that there was a NORAD exercise ongoing called Vigilant Warrior.[9] The claim is based on a comment that Richard Myers made to Clarke via a video link on September 11, 2001. However, there is no other record of a NORAD exercise named Vigiliant Warrior. Myers was possibly referring to Vigilant Guardian (the aforementioned yearly NORAD exercise held in conjunction with Global Guardian) or Amalgam Warrior (a large-scale, live-fly, CINCNORAD sponsored exercise which is held twice annually).[10] Vigilant Warrior was also a 1994 operation by the US army in the Persian Gulf region, in response to Iraqi troop movements towards Kuwait.[11]


Annual and semi-annual exercises. Which means they were planned far ahead of time. How many other annual and semi-annual exercises are done by military each year? If it is many, then there is likely not a pattern here.

If it is little, it may be something.


Clive RobinsonOctober 7, 2014 4:58 PM

@ SmokingHot,

With regards the excercises, the time of year they tend to be picked for is often climate based and designed to have a minimum impact on equipment ( got to cut costs ) and manpower ( training and vets medico bills are expensive ).

And yes they are planed a long time in advance, sometimes several years for large multination excercises. And because of this longterm planning the dates of such excercises is generaly widely known not just to military personnel but also large numbers of civilians.

Now the assumption has been made that 9/11 was used as the date because it was the emergency phone number. However it could also be quite likely that the date was picked because there were military excercises at the time that the attackers had found out about or had been told about.

Therefore it's worth considering the pros and cons of having the attacks coincident with military excercises.

Likewise for other events that the various organisations in the WTC buildings might have had pending.

As I said one organisation in 7 WTC was certainly being investigated due to the way they had purchased mortgages in what was considered a fraudulent manner. I know this for certain because the partner of a friend of mine had been requested to give evidence in writing as her name had been fraudulently used. It all fizzeled out and disappeared after 9/11 so I know that she certainly believed that there was a lot more behind it than a terrorist attack.

Likewise investigations into the Police for corruption and all sorts of other sleazy or illegal behaviour stopped dead after 9/11. Various reasons have been sugested including the "zero to hero" effect, that the NY Police had overnight become "heros of the hour" and that chasing them for corruption etc would be very bad publicity.

So you have two favourable out comes one where it's suggested that a financial organisation had prior knowledge and used it to there advantage, and another where a LE organisation had no prior kbowledge but in effect used it to there advantage.

Thus you could argue just as well that the financial organisation had no prior knowledge and the police did because the outcome would have been the same for both organisations.

And this is a fundemental problem of any major event and nearly all forensic cases you end up arguing "from effect to cause" which is not the scientific method at all.

Thus you have to ask the question would any organisation that had benefited from the "effect" actualy had a different outcome if they did not have "prior knowledge". When you ask this of quite a few organisations that benifited in some way that the would have received the same benifit irrespective of having "prior knowledge". Which means that a conspiracy theory "prior knowldge" is not required to show the benifit, therefore it is safer to assume there was not "prior knowledge" unless you can clearly and reliably show it at "beyond reasonable doubt levels".

Clive RobinsonOctober 7, 2014 5:11 PM

@ Nick P,

What you say about NIST saying temps not above 600C is laughable. At the very least the engine turbine blades would have been hotter than that, which is why they are made of interesting alloys. Further the "chimney effect" on office furniture would have been up around 1500C or more as is frequently seen in house fires.

Further steel is not particularly soft at 600C...

Can you check that NIST actually claimed the tempratures could not have reached above 600C, because it most definately does not sound correct.

GrauhutOctober 7, 2014 6:53 PM

@SmokingHot: "If it is little, it may be something."

IMHO good enough as a cause to have a deeper look at it.


Imagine a scenario like "Exercise Vigilant Guardian, hijacking simulation: Airport security test and test of a new anti hijacking remote control system with actors from a foreign agency" gone completely out of control of those who thought they had this under control...


If someone asks how:

"Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August — all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system. ...

Military and civilian jets have been landing on autopilot for years, but the Raytheon test used technology that provides the extremely precise navigational instructions that would be required for remote control from a secure location.

Unmanned, ground controlled reconnaissance aircraft have been used by the military for missions over Iraq and Kosovo. The manufacturer for some of those aircraft — Thomas Cassidy, president of the Calif.-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems — has written Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta suggesting the system for possible commercial uses.

"It's a reliable system," Cassidy said in an interview Monday. "As a last resort, it's better than flying into the side of something you don't want to fly into.""

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm


"Strange remote landings", making a cruise missile out of civilian aircraft was proven workable since then... Smells like a kind of RQ-4 LRE/MCE unit attached to a Boeing autopilot system bus.


9/11 was 3 perfect strikes out of 4.


Statistics: Wich system is more reliable in hitting a target with an aircraft perfectly? A Raytheon control system or stressed arabs that were barely able to land a Cesna sitting in a cockpit they only knew from simulators?

"The combat-proven Tomahawk is the world's most capable cruise missile and is ideally suited for critical long-range, precision-strike missions against high-value ..."

Flight 93 maybe ended in an accident caused by trying to get rid of a remote control.


Who could have hacked, reprogrammed and thereby weaponized a brand new anti hijacking remote control system for civil aircraft? Outsiders?

Raytheon losses in 9/11 flights, could have been supervising engeneers:

AA11

"Peter Gay, 54, of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. vice president of operations for electronic systems based in Andover, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for more than 28 years."

"David Kovalcin, 42, of Hudson, New Hampshire, was a Raytheon Co. senior mechanical engineer for electronic systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for 15 years."

"Kenneth Waldie, 46, of Methuen, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. senior quality control engineer for electronic systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for 17 years. "

https://web.archive.org/web/20011019034628/http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html


UA175

"Herbert Homer,48, of Milford, Massachusetts, worked for Raytheon Co."

https://web.archive.org/web/20011009050253/http://www5.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html


AA77

"Stanley Hall, 68, of Clifton, Va., was "our dean of electronic warfare," said a colleague at Raytheon, a defense contractor."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

AnuraOctober 7, 2014 7:20 PM

@Grauhut

"Statistics: Wich system is more reliable in hitting a target with an aircraft perfectly? A Raytheon control system or stressed arabs that were barely able to land a Cesna sitting in a cockpit they only knew from simulators?"

You are making the assumption that they were aiming for that exact spot of the Pentagon, and not just the Pentagon itself. I can go to the shooting range, shoot at a target, hit the outer ring, and then say "Hey, try to hit that exact same spot of the outer ring" and they other person could have trouble. It doesn't mean that I'm a better shot than them, because I wasn't necessarily aiming for that spot.

Nick POctober 7, 2014 8:49 PM

@ Clive Robinson

I agree. So, I looked up NIST info again. Their website says this:

"Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat."

And the site is powered by ColdFusion. Interesting.

@ Anura

Yes... the Pentagon hit...

The destruction of records, implosions of 3 buildings, no interceptors, and denials of independent review of the physical evidence were my first clues of a coverup of criminal activity. However, the Pentagon hit was a big red flag for me. Here's why.

The terrorist has little to no experience flying a 757. His goal is to cause massive damage to our capabilities and loss of life. Supposedly meticulous researchers, he'd know which section key capabilities & Joint Chiefs would be in just reading a children's book on it. (Also have a web site and such.) The plan would be either to race straight to that spot; come in low, raise up, and ram downward into that spot to avoid any air defenses. According to numerous military officials afterward, hitting the roof or especially the center would led to thousands of deaths with who knows what other damage. That's the obvious route for the terrorist with little skill, too.

Not what happened at all. The pilot is lined up to do that damage with an easy shot. Instead, the pilot makes a risky, corkscrew turn... nearly crashing multiple times... bounces off the ground, hits lightpoles, and rams a specific wall of the building. Pilots for 9/11 Truth's 757 pilots start calling bullshit saying it's not even physically possible and if it was it was too hard for a novice. They show pilots repeatedly failing to pull it off in simulator. So, how could a novice do this maneuver under high instability on his first try? And my question was: what the hell was in that spot worth risking the entire mission for?

So, I reviewed what was there. Nothing. Nothing of value to the terrorists. The area was mostly empty as it was under renovation where they were installing bombproofing into the walls. This bombproofing was intended to resist cars or trucks full of explosives hitting the wall at full speed, followed by a detonation. This was public knowledge. So, the pilot aimed at the toughest, emptiest, and riskiest part of the Pentagon. One official said "If he hit anywhere else, the damage could've been catastrophic."

In review, the pilot was a scared amateur with knowledge of Pentagon and aiming for max loss of life/capabilities. The pilot was lined up to do this. The pilot instead risked the entire mission performing an ace maneuver to hit the emptiest, strongest part of the Pentagon. The result was scary on TV, but had essentially no effect on Pentagon capabilities. It was as if the terrorist wanted to attack the building without causing real damage or killing many people. Definitely not the motive of a terrorist.

Alternative hypothesis: inside job. Should covert ops authorize strike on Pentagon, it would have to succeed with as little effect and damage as possible. The location hit already makes an ideal target under this motivation. The possibility that it wasn't a plane, the plane was under computer control, or they used an ace pilot from spec ops would make this easier. On top of this, I found that this spot was the location of the records for the audit of the Pentagon's books. Killing those people and destroying those records could make billions of dollars difficult to account for, plus wiping out evidence of crime. It would be literally ideal for a false flag that solves two purposes: stages an act of terror to move Wolfowitz Doctrine planning forward; removes evidence of dirty bookkeeping or even funding of the op that did it.

I also noticed the same situation with WTC7. It hadn't been hit by a plane, they largely weren't commenting on it, it fell the same way, had the command center that all the responses ran through (evidence), and the huge SEC investigation's evidence as well. There are some fringe benefits to a hit there. So, it seemed the Pentagon hit's motives and WTC7 were worth looking into if an inside job hypothesis was considered. The Pentagon hit's properties reeks of an inside job as the amateur pilot used literally ace skill to hit the most unimportant (to terrorists) part of the building.

re remote control

Haven't seen evidence of its use although it would explain some things. What I will tell you is that Zackheim's company, SPC, made remote control technology for aircraft and had them on lease. He was handpicked by Bush to be the Pentagon comptroller. He oversaw the dirty books. He was also on PNAC. If it was off-the-books AND taxpayer funded, he would likely have to be involved. He also had both motive and opportunity. If an independent investigation happens, he's worth questioning under oath.

Note: There used to be a link right to the product I'm describing but they removed it during site reorganization. This might be it. (Can't remember name.) They also built (or are building) guided sniper bullets. So, the technology for the 9/11 operation was within their capabilities. They also do heavy analysis, planning, engineering, weapons, and "creative solutions" for the Pentagon. It's why many suspected Zackheim to be their mastermind. Again, though no proof of anyone with most evidence pointing at Cheney, the NORAD head, Giuliani, and the company shorting stocks with great luck.

AdjuvantOctober 7, 2014 8:54 PM

@Anura, Grauhut

Some more quality grist for the mill. No specific endorsement, just some interesting avenues to investigate with respect to feasibility assessments,
http://911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html
http://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-steal-an-airplane-from-911-to-mh370/

@Anura As to why many feel that specific portion of the building was specifically targeted, see press clippings here: http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html#empty
Certainly a major coincidence in any event.

RGP SecurityOctober 7, 2014 11:05 PM

One could start a website where technicians look at each piece of equipment in detail and then develop counter-measures.

FigureitoutOctober 7, 2014 11:37 PM

Clive Robinson
As for building seven I did not see it's destruction on live news footage at the time, nor subsiquently, so I cannot make a comment on it in the way I did shortly after witnessing the live news feed.
--Uhh..I don't get that; why does that matter? There's many angles to its collapse all over the 'net, I'm not even going to link as I know you've already seen them. So the very top of the building, very top; why does it begin collapsing before all other layers, I don't get it. Problem now is what footage has been digitally altered, in fact that was a problem at the onset; if you have a clue of what's possible.

If such a crime has taken place in this country and the perps got away w/ it, then we're already doomed from such a massive crime being allowed to happen, so I don't research how it should be out of depression and apathy, nor do I have access to already gone evidence so physically not possible for me and I'm done stirring up the pot of retards in the National "security" complex. But aren't most buildings w/ little sheds on top, not directly linked to the steel cores of the building?

Basically all I'm saying is, no fire is visible in footage (and we don't have FLIR-like imaging for temp. readings), but if fire below renders steel cores weak and buckle, then wouldn't we not see the top of the building collapse, instead of that part of the building?

Simple observations of simple visible forces, all I'm looking at and of the few things I will actually "brag" about, is I'm skilled in having a sense for how things will happen physically. Just am, just common sense to me; helps me on numerous physics problems where other people just want the math but don't see what's actually happening. "Invisible" forces, those are troublesome; and there's lots of those.

MacOctober 8, 2014 5:15 AM

Thank you for thought provoking comments.

Point 1.
There is no such thing as an ex-marine, marines told me.

That's what marines said, but I'm sure ex-marines tell you otherwise.

Point 2.
What if Snowden still works for NSA, playing the role of his life?

Highly probable, but whatever he brought forth has to have some logical truth, otherwise nobody's dumb enough to believe him.

Point 2.5.
The published documents are very well selected not to endanger ongoing missions

Without know specifically what their core ongoing missions are, it's very hard to agree with you.

Point 3.
Raise your finger if you honestly belive that Journalists or German politicians (who are part of German Intelligence Control and since can be assumed under surveillance) can meet with Edward Snowden multiple times in hotel rooms without the whole five eyes noticing.

It's not entirely impossible. Snowden had threatened them with full release of his trove, if anything they had attempted any harm.

Clive RobinsonOctober 8, 2014 5:55 AM

@ figureitout,

The reason I've not commented on 7 WTC is for the reason you say in your first paragraph "what footage has been digitaly altered"... I'm reasonably confident that what I saw on live news footage at the time was not altered (not sure I'd say that for live footage these days which can be altered real time).

As for the way buildings collapse it's offten "odd" even with carefully prepared demolition. There is footage of buildings in earth quakes and the behaviour can be quite bizarre to watch.

However after reading the bit from NIST that Nick P has put up, if it's to be believed 7 WTC was a death trap before 9/11 and could well have collapsed for other reasons like a mild seismic event. So read on to see why I say that,

@ Nick P,

OK what NIST is saying is the 600C limit is realistically the point at which steel goes soft, and bellow that it expands --like one of the strips in a bi-metalic strip thermostat-- and that the limit they are talking about applies to the steel under the A180 / SFRM not in the temprature of the fire outside of it. Which makes more sense, but is an unreliable premise to make unless all relevent steels have been fully examined (which I believe is not the case).

We know that the major tennent had caused significant structural changes to the building, leading to what was called "a building within a building" that caused changes that were the equivalent of a thousand tonnes of mass movment, and ended with nearly four hundred tonnes of extra mass at the end of it on this cantilever load distribution system to the two sets of foundations, thus position not just extra mass is critical.

We further know that 7 WTC was built on two sets of foundations, an original set designed for a much smaller and lighter building and a second set of more robust foundations designed to take the excess mass of the building via a cantilever design to share the mass across the independent foundations. Such cantilever designs are often dependent on both compression and tension in their members with compression the most difficult to deal with with the likes of columns and other vertical members.

Now if you read the NIST parragraph, they are saying that the building was dificiently designed as the small percentage expansion or movment in the steel support structure was sufficient to cause it to fail and the building to collapse...

This supprises me because they are saying in effect the various sets of structural engineers are legally liable because they failed to build in a sufficient safety margin and thus the building was a death trap waiting to happen well prior to 9/11.

Now I don't know much about the insurance wrangling after 9/11 but usually insurers have clauses and exceptions about terrorist activity, especialy if a building has been attacked before. In the UK it's usually left to the "insurer of last resort" --ie Gov-- to pick up the bill not the normal risks insurer after a terrorist attack.

If NIST are saying as they certainly seem to be that the building design was deficient, then it would be expected that the insurance of the structural engineers would pay, and you would normally expect to see it contested in court with opposing opinion from experts for the structural engineers as it's not just an insurance company argument but the structural engineers reputations and thus lively hood on the line and possibly their liberty as well.

So does such opposing opinion exist and if not why not, I can not see even the US Gov writting a blank check for this claim, unless there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

Clive RobinsonOctober 8, 2014 7:27 AM

@ Adjuvant,

Thanks for the link.

On reading it and skiming some of the refrences, it looks like a three ring circus came about, and the question of if 7 WTC was safe or not never came up despite the NIST report, most odd.

And the fact a jury was prepared to accept argument that a double payout on the destruction of one asset beggers the belief in common sense, even if the rushed insurance was baddly written.

If you or I tried to claim twice for the same asset say in a multi car pile up in all likely hood we would be facing a criminal prosecution...

SmokingHotOctober 8, 2014 9:13 AM

@Clive Robinson

And this is a fundemental problem of any major event and nearly all forensic cases you end up arguing "from effect to cause" which is not the scientific method at all.
Thus you have to ask the question would any organisation that had benefited from the "effect" actualy had a different outcome if they did not have "prior knowledge". When you ask this of quite a few organisations that benifited in some way that the would have received the same benifit irrespective of having "prior knowledge". Which means that a conspiracy theory "prior knowldge" is not required to show the benifit, therefore it is safer to assume there was not "prior knowledge" unless you can clearly and reliably show it at "beyond reasonable doubt levels".


Investigations should be evidence driven. Part of an investigation is to prove motive. Proving motive and 'evidence driven' investigations are often at odds. In a case like this, you are correct, many may have the motive.

If this was intelligence driven, then they keep a firm principle of disinformation in whatever they do. The more likely suspects, the better for them. Every mature intelligence agency in the world operates this way.

So I would firmly agree, trying to prove "who did it" by merely seeing one or two entities who may have had motive and then stopping your investigation there would completely undermine your findings.

Means is another important point. Motive and means.

SmokingHotOctober 8, 2014 9:48 AM

@Grauhut

Statistics: Wich system is more reliable in hitting a target with an aircraft perfectly? A Raytheon control system or stressed arabs that were barely able to land a Cesna sitting in a cockpit they only knew from simulators?

Landing is actually very hard to do. Hitting a very large object with a very large object, probably is not so difficult to do. Navigating to that object and keeping the passengers at bay is another matter.

You are trying to solve a case where:

(1) You do not have hands on access to all of the evidence
(2) You believe any or all of the evidence may be faked
(3) You believe any or all of the investigating agencies may be suspect
(4) You do not have training nor experience in solving criminal cases, and even if you did these areas covered are not in your training or experience area
(5) You are not sure who the suspects may be, because they are a hidden group capable of pulling off the biggest operation ever pulled off which is known in the history of the world


There are probably some more bullet points which could be added here.

I do not look at "arabs" as being natively incapable of flying airplanes or pulling this off. If I recall, a number of these individuals were college students. They were well traveled and spoke multiple languages. Plausibly, the ISI and CIA trained the Afghan-Arabs in pulling off covert operations.

Maybe some one else did. The story is that Osama Bin Laden picked Saudi Arabians for the job because he wanted to hurt relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

A plausible enough story, but it is a story and so may not be true.

What we have in the Middle East today is the US Government very much in bed with Saudi Arabia. They are and have been working very closely with them over both ISIS and Syria. They are training and supporting their efforts to change the face of Iraq & Syria. Iraq & Syria are part of the Middle Eastern puzzle. Saudi Arabia, being the nation for Sunnis, to put it one way, has Sunni interests all through the Middle East.

There may be two forces at play there: one force is the House of Saud, the other force are the Sunnis. Saudi Arabia has a very real internal and external threat. Whomever controls their nation controls global Islam. Their nation is very deep in religious Sunnis, and global Islam, Sunni brand, has a very vested interest in their nation's leadership. Be they agree, or disagree with it.

Their stability is effected by Iran and the Shia problem. And their stability is effected by Israel and the Israeli problem.

I think, when you are looking at some group like Morgan Stanley, you are barking up the wrong tree.

They do not have motive, and they surely do not have means.


Nick POctober 8, 2014 11:28 AM

@ Clive Robinson

You'd think engineers would have some responsibility. I'm not sure how much or if he even thought of it. The reason it might have no dawned on him is that, IIRC, Larry Silverstein's company commissioned WTC7. The others he acquired through lease, but I think WTC7 was straight up his. Now, there's a difference between paying for a building to be built & designing/implementing that. Not sure what companies did the latter. They might be liable as you pointed out. This would also be a better strategy than going after the airlines' insurance, which WSJ reported he did recently. Their report said he's capped at around $4.5 billion, costs are expected to hit $10 bil, and legal action is essentially over far as his insurance company.

"If you or I tried to claim twice for the same asset say in a multi car pile up in all likely hood we would be facing a criminal prosecution..."

Maybe true in UK. In U.S., which has majority of world's lawsuits, people are rarely punished that way for making a claim. The lawsuit is more typically tossed out before/during trial, the person made to pay court costs, and optionally a steep fine. With court costs & potential fines, the courts here have a financial incentive to let people try arbitrary claims.

@ SmokingHot, Grauhut

Regarding the planes, it's worthwhile to investigate Pilot's for 9/11 Truth's claim that the data recorders contradict the physical evidence. Here's some videos.

SkepticalOctober 8, 2014 4:09 PM

Just to address in general a few of the 9/11 comments above:

Flight 77's turn into the Pentagon:

"Alternative" theory has this as an "ace" maneuver enabling the plane to impact a reinforced section of the Pentagon and destroy accounting records.

None of the theory makes sense.

First, if the pilot was in fact highly skilled, then he would have been able to line up with the desired wall and approach it in a manner more certain to hit the target. It's bizarre that a highly skilled pilot would be so out of position that he'd need to pull off an "ace" maneuver (whatever that is) and then wildly adjust all the way to impact.

So, if that wall was the intended target, then odds are actually that the pilot was not highly skilled at all.

Second, the maneuver wasn't particularly skillful. He made a descending right turn, coming around 330 degrees, and selected maximum power as he managed to drive into the side of a huge building. If at any point he approached the edge of the flight envelope, then this indicates ignorance, not skill.

Third, accounting records. This part of the theory rests upon completely misunderstanding Rumsfeld's remarks concerning the antiquity of the DoD's finance system.

Of course, the nice part about targets like the Pentagon or the WTC is that you can devise "just so" conspiracy stories regardless of where the planes impacted.

As to the theory that someone made money in the market by betting heavily on a disaster occurring in the timeframe of 9/11, the SEC and the FBI investigated all positions that would likely have turned a profit as a result of the events. Nothing criminal was found. Believe it or not, it's not unusual for lots of money to bet - or alternatively to simply hedge against - airline shares dropping in value.

As to the multiple investigations of the collapse of buildings at the WTC site - NIST actually says that they ruled out a demolitions theory based upon the nature and spread of the fire and the structural observations preceding and during collapse. The FAQ they've put up actually addresses those claims.

These will be my last words on the subject for some time, though obviously that shouldn't dissuade anyone from responding.

@Nick P: You corrected the claim on Guatemala & argued it was for Cold War. You ignored the bigger part of that claim about our activities in Iran. Overthrowing Mossadeg, getting the Shah into power, brutalizing those people, and all so some oil companies can maintain a certain bottom line.

From the US perspective, Iran was also all about the Cold War (as the British well knew). That British oil interests were involved actually made the US reluctant to get involved at all. Only when the US became convinced that Mossadeq and the Tudeh Party were (the former perhaps less knowingly than the latter) leading towards Communist control of Iran did the US act.

Remember that the US actually viewed the vestiges of colonial empire that European nations sought to hold as an inconvenient irritant. Hence US refusal, for years, to become involved in the First Indochina War, and Eisenhower's enraged reaction to British and French military action against Egypt in 1956.

Khomeni, the embassy takeover, etc were a direct result of that. CIA only recently admitted their role in it despite information being available for a long time.

Well, since the 1979 Revolution was 25 years later, calling it a direct result is a little strong. The policies of the Shah, and his own personal difficulties, in conjunction with economic conditions, led to the conditions that allowed the 1979 Revolution to succeed.

Then, the U.S. supported Sadam's 10 year war on them. Rather than an apology or peace negotiation, the U.S. continues to hit them with sanctions that stifle their economy and starve/kill innocent people and kids.

The US, along with the rest of the world, has imposed sanctions for one reason: to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. That the US supported a coup in 1953 hardly means that it would be prudent not to use sanctions to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Come to think of it, you left off Butler's claims about the wars he led for capitalist motivations. That was quite a few and further established the profile my post sought to establish.

I'd say that the period in question (roughly from 1898 to WW1) did see US military interventions in Latin America for a combination of economic and strategic interests. Further, I'd say that US companies actively intrigued in politics in various countries in that region, often with negative effects.

But it's a grievous error to extrapolate from that small set of incidents in over a period of roughly 20 years to all military interventions. It is this error that provided much of the power behind the isolationist sentiment which gripped the US during the 1930s and helped permit WW2 to occur.

And to extrapolate from that small set to 9/11... it's much too far a leap.

This is getting a bit long, so I'm going to skip ahead a little

The Pentagon Papers showed it started with French trying to turn Vietnam into a colony. There was resistance. Our first involvement was to help the French in the First Indochina War. That predates the Cold War by at least a year.

Actually the US didn't become involved until after the Cold War had begun.

What it establishes is both a profile and patterns. The DOD brass have a tendency to see more threats than exist. They have a history of justifying a threat to themselves and covertly dealing with it, sometimes with blowback they have to lie about. They also have a history of overtly going into conflicts for political, economic, and other reasons with countries that didn't threaten or harm us. They have a history of using deception to convince the American people to go along with their plans, to the American people's detriment.

No, the manipulation that occurred during, for instance, the months leading to the Spanish-American War wasn't at the hands of the fairly small US military, but at those of the publishers. In no case do I see the military manipulating the public into a war.

I'd agree that the US has intervened militarily over the course of its history for various reasons, some good and some bad.

But I'd caution against painting every era with the same brush. Nations and policies change.

The PNAC document indicated these military types, many who had been there decades, saw our survival as a country to hinge on radical transformations nobody would adopt. And evidence indicates they might have helped that along one September doing what they always did: covert ops, manipulations, murder, and so on for the "greater good." And by 2003-2004, they got about everything they hoped for in the late 90's. Mission accomplished.

Not at all. The PNAC document argued that unless the US increases defense spending to around 4% GDP, and adopted "transformative" approaches to military modernization, then at some point in the future the US would lose the preeminence it currently enjoys. That's all.

It does not claim that our survival as a country is in jeopardy or adopt any position that would suggest that unless immediate action is taken, the US is lost.

Nick POctober 8, 2014 8:12 PM

@ Skeptical

re 9/11

The "ace" maneuver designation was given by US Air Force people during interviews. *They* thought he handled it like an ace. Pilots for 9/11 Truth's career 757 pilots also repeatedly failed to replicate the maneuver in realistic simulators. Someone could've pulled it off by now as I haven't checked in a few years. But, for years straight, no 757 pilot was able to do what that person pulled off on his first flight. Beginner's luck or ace are the appropriate terms.

And then there's the physical evidence that it should've been impossible. And the data recorder says the plane didn't do that at all: it had a different flight route that never took it below 180ft. The official flight route seems to be made out of thin air per the data recorder.

"Third, accounting records. This part of the theory rests upon completely misunderstanding Rumsfeld's remarks concerning the antiquity of the DoD's finance system."

No, there's based off some known situations. One is that the Pentagon's accounting systems are so numerous, contradicting, and hard to integrate that it couldn't do a single audit (per GAO). Past reporting on it shows a defense contractor or two spent billions trying to get it in shape, only to end in failure. The problems added up over time until the DOD couldn't properly account for over a trillion in transactions. They also lost track of tanks, planes, and other stuff. This was all reported in legit sources tracking Pentagon BS before 9/11. I already knew about it as I offered to apply enterprise integration software to fix the problem.

After 9/11, I find that the pilot avoided a direct hit he was already lined up to do in order to pull a crazy maneuver, hitting a certain wall. Had he done research like they said he did, he might have found that this spot was literally the least damaging place he could hit. So, fails the terrorist motivation or tactics tests. I switch to a different hypothesis, it suddendly makes sense as a lot of key accounting data and personnel were stationed there. The main reason to hit it was it causes little damage. The accounting is icing on the cake.

"As to the theory that someone made money in the market by betting heavily on a disaster occurring in the timeframe of 9/11, the SEC and the FBI investigated all positions that would likely have turned a profit as a result of the events. Nothing criminal was found."

Those two organizations didn't manage to imprison anyone for 2008 fraud despite those involved confessing they did it as they asked for $1 trillion. What they believe doesn't constitute evidence. Fortunately, some experts on the subject applied standard techniques to the trading data and found strong evidence of insider trading. If it is insider trading, those involved knew an incredible amount of detail about the plot. If they did & were CIA connected, then one hypothesis starts looking more and more accurate.

"As to the multiple investigations of the collapse of buildings at the WTC site - NIST actually says that they ruled out a demolitions theory based upon the nature and spread of the fire and the structural observations preceding and during collapse. "

They presented no evidence of that (merely asserted it) and didn't do standard tests for combustables. So, believing it is essentially an act of faith. I'm not rejecting a decent hypothesis on faith in them.

re Imperialism

"From the US perspective, Iran was also all about the Cold War (as the British well knew). That British oil interests were involved actually made the US reluctant to get involved at all. Only when the US became convinced that Mossadeq and the Tudeh Party were (the former perhaps less knowingly than the latter) leading towards Communist control of Iran did the US act."

Interesting point. I hadn't explored that angle as much. Might do so in the future.

"Well, since the 1979 Revolution was 25 years later, calling it a direct result is a little strong."

We put the guy into power knowing how we was. The revolution was a backlash against him. We directly caused the situation that led to the revolution and indirectly caused the revolution itself. We surely didn't do anything to get him back out of power or replace him with a different guy. That means the US wanted him there.

"That the US supported a coup in 1953 hardly means that it would be prudent not to use sanctions to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon."

It's debatable. They've offered concessions before on the issue and U.S. wouldn't listen at all, per European diplomats. U.S. is aiming for dominance and control. Of course, we let Pakistan develop nuclear capabilities and be a top SIGINT partner despite being a top sponsor of terrorism.

I'll also add that the country dictating who has nuclear weapons is the only one that ever used them offensively. On civilian targets, no less. Pot calling the kettle black on top of questionable foreign policy.

"But it's a grievous error to extrapolate from that small set of incidents in over a period of roughly 20 years to all military interventions."

I agree. It's why I didn't do that. I showed they did exactly what I said to illustrate the culture of the organization. Then, I showed examples over the next 100 years demonstrating the same issues with the added red scare on top of it. That gets us to the 1990's, when Wolfowitz Doctrine & PNAC stuff starts hitting paper. Ideologically, much of it is similar to the previous "use power to control the status quo" mindset. And then we get 9/11 and all sorts of that gets rolled out quickly. Then another war on false pretenses that mainly benefited a few financially, while killing more Americans than 9/11. My model predicted that they'd do that, further increasing confidence in it.

"Actually the US didn't become involved until after the Cold War had begun."

The Pentagon Papers showed we covertly aided the French in Vietnam in the First Indochina War, regardless of what we said in public. That started a year or so before the Cold War by most accounts. They're similar in motivation, though.

"the manipulation that occurred during, for instance, the months leading to the Spanish-American War wasn't at the hands of the fairly small US military, but at those of the publishers."

The final version shoved on the American people came from the military via the publishers. If they give publishers fake information, then they are the ones causing the problem.

"The PNAC document argued that unless the US increases defense spending to around 4% GDP, and adopted "transformative" approaches to military modernization, then at some point in the future the US would lose the preeminence it currently enjoys. That's all."

It's nice how you leave off preventing other nations from achieving superpower status through resource controls and preemptive war against anyone declared a threat. Quite a bit more than a mere spending increase and military improvements. And then we saw that doctrine executed in Afghanastan and Iraq with full conventional forces. Thank goodness the current administration has rolled back their nonsense into more targeted and careful action.

SkepticalOctober 9, 2014 1:07 AM


@Adjuvant: The SEC and FBI investigated the option holders and found there to be no connection to 9/11. The largest holder of the UAL puts options, apparently, had also bought 100,000 shares of AAL around the same time, as part of a trading strategy. The author you cite looks only to see whether there are calls purchased in equivalent volumes to puts to indicate a hedge. In fact options can be used to hedge against any position, including share ownership.

Bottom line Adjuvant is that the parties holding the put options were investigated, and it was determined that there was no connection.

There is no evidence that the investigation was poorly conducted, or a cover-up (moreover, quite frankly, if someone had advance knowledge of 9/11 and wanted to make money, they could have done much better).

@Nick: And then there's the physical evidence that it should've been impossible. And the data recorder says the plane didn't do that at all: it had a different flight route that never took it below 180ft. The official flight route seems to be made out of thin air per the data recorder.

Not sure what you're talking about exactly. Here's the FDR report - looks okay to me: https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf

As to Indochina, US aid began in 1949, no? The Cold War was well underway at this point, and the rather minimal US aid to the French in Indochina - at that point - would have had more to do with concern about Europe than Asia.

As to the PNAC document you referenced, I don't recall it containing any urging to preemptive wars. Another point that you should consider is that the type of military investment encouraged by threats of terrorism arising from failed states are precisely of the kind that military transformation advocates wanted to avoid. Counterinsurgency and counterterrorism are missions for which weapons platforms like the F-22, Prompt Global Strike, and national missile defense, are less relevant.

There's no doubt that the neoconservatives took advantage of the heightened sense of threat following 9/11 to push their case for toppling Hussein. But allowing, or actively conspiring to effect, 9/11? It's not the kind of event that really suits their cause. They wanted to shift the US military into higher tech weaponry and investment and develop long-range, precision strike capabilities - all to preserve what they saw as a preeminent American position in world largely at peace - a peace underwritten by US power. 9/11, tried as they did to turn the energies released by that event in their preferred direction, actually did the opposite of what they would have preferred. It delayed military transformation efforts, it took the focus off of the Pacific and Asia, and it held the danger of a series of expensive counterinsurgency efforts (nation-building, in effect) that would further sap and distract US strength and focus.

AdjuvantOctober 9, 2014 4:43 AM

@Skeptical: I take it you are referring to footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Report, which reads in part:

[F]urther investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. (Joseph Cella interview (Sept 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

So far, so good. But what happens when oneone tries to dig into the details underlying these bare assertions? As Lars Schall wrote in a landmark 2012 piece linked from the 2013 piece I cited earlier:

David Callahan, the editor of the US magazine SmartCEO, filed a request to the SEC about the put options which occurred prior to September 11 within the framework of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The SEC informed Callahan in its reply of December 23, 2009 under the number "09 07659-FOIA" as follows:
This letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the September 11 (9/11) Commission Report... We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed. [32]

Therefore, we will unfortunately never know exactly how the SEC and the 9/11 Commission came to their conclusions regarding the 9/11 put options trading for their final report, because relevant documents were not only held back, but also destroyed - and that in spite of an agreement between the SEC and the National Archive of the United States, in which the SEC has agreed to keep all records for at least 25 years. [33]

@Skeptical: The author you cite looks only to see whether there are calls purchased in equivalent volumes to puts to indicate a hedge. In fact options can be used to hedge against any position, including share ownership.

To be precise, I cite a financial journalist who cites three different academic articles, each featuring from one to three authors and each varying in scope and methodology:

Allen M. Poteshman: “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, published in The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, 2006, Vol. 79, Edition 4, page 1703-1726. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645


Wong, Wing-Keung and Thompson, Howard E. and Teh, Kweehong, Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks? (April 13, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588523 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1588523

Chesney, Marc and Crameri, Remo and Mancini, Loriano, Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets (Posted January 13, 2010; Last revised May 8, 2014). Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 11-42. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1522157 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1522157 (with Schall's subsequent summary of the 2014 revisions here)


In all honestly, therefore, I'm not sure to whose work you're objecting, precisely. Conceding at the outset that I'm no economist, nor do I work in finance, I'd nonetheless venture a guess that the methodological objection you raise would be dismissed as spurious by the academics who authored these studies. Here's why:
Given a broad layman's familiarity with a brokerage account and a penchant for varied reading, I do have a basic grasp of the common varieties of exchange-traded derivatives and of the potential, specifically, of using options to hedge open equity positions -- enough so that I am aware that such strategies are ubiquitously employed. Options contracts associated with such equity-position-hedging strategies would therefore be reflected in the historical derivatives transaction data used as a baseline or control in the each of the academic studies, equally as would options contracts associated with any other type of strategy. In other words, the particular case of transaction that you complain has been ignored is already baked into transaction data, including the put/call ratio. The anomolous patterns of derivatives transactions confirmed by these authors therefore remain stubbornly anomolous in the aggregate, albeit potentially explicable on an individual basis.


@Skeptical: moreover, quite frankly, if someone had advance knowledge of 9/11 and wanted to make money, they could have done much better

Perhaps. And perhaps certain parties did. (After all, as the trader's dictum goes, "greed makes you stupid.") I'll grant at the outset that evidence is entirely circumstantial and the interpretation inherently speculative, but as a thought experiment, consider Mark H. Gaffney's alternate interpretation, which Schall goes on to cite in his 2012 Asia Times piece:

Notice … the commission makes no mention in its footnote of the 36 other companies identified by the SEC in its insider trading probe. What about the pre-9/11 surge in call options for Raytheon, for instance, or the spike in put options for the behemoth Morgan Stanley, which had offices in WTC 2? The 9/11 Commission Report offers not one word of explanation about any of this. The truth, we must conclude, is to be found between the lines in the report’s conspicuous avoidance of the lion’s share of the insider trading issue.

Indeed, if the trading was truly “innocuous”, as the report states, then why did the SEC muzzle potential whistleblowers by deputizing everyone involved with its investigation? The likely answer is that so many players on Wall Street were involved that the SEC could not risk an open process, for fear of exposing the unthinkable. This would explain why the SEC limited the flow of information to those with a “need to know”, which, of course, means that very few participants in the SEC investigation had the full picture.

It would also explain why the SEC ultimately named no names. All of which hints at the true and frightening extent of criminal activity on Wall Street in the days and hours before 9/11. The SEC was like a surgeon who opens a patient on the operating room table to remove a tumor, only to sew him back up again after finding that the cancer has metastasized through the system.

This interpretation is a bit of a leap, perhaps, but not inconsistent with what we've seen.

Schall subsequently proceeds to report a number of further unsettling details backed by hard data, but I'll leave those to any interested reader's initiative.

In any case, lest we non-specialists become lost in hopelessly ambiguous minutiae, it's worth recalling that the component of financial activity is one small piece of a much larger puzzle and certainly does not, in itself, prove or disprove any theory. For further reading that simplifies and summarizes many of the main points of this component: Paul Zarembka (SUNY-Buffalo)'s work, as presented to the 2011 Toronto Hearings (as cited above): http://ithp.org/articles/septemberinsidertrading.html#

W LucasOctober 9, 2014 9:49 AM

@Adjuvant


[F]urther investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

Supporting a claim of innocence based on probable ties to al-Qaeda was deceptive when al-Qaeda did not destroy the towers. They were destroyed by the government. The official story in the Ommission Report has more holes than a conspiracy theory.

name.withheld.for.obvious.reasonsOctober 9, 2014 11:41 AM

@ Skeptical

There's no doubt that the neoconservatives took advantage of the heightened sense of threat following 9/11 to push their case for toppling Hussein.

Wow, the most apologetic statement made about what were OBVIOUS war crimes that should be held to account at the court in the Hague. A first strike invasion of a sovereign country in which 100's of thousands lost their lives and no substantiated threat existed. Where we wanted to plant permanent bases in the Middle East and--where the neocons believed it was our god given right to their oil resources. I would be curious if you've thought of a career as a press agent for the third Reich.

SmokingHotOctober 9, 2014 12:10 PM

US history


Here is my take:

The 53 Iranian coup was performed by the CIA at the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt. Kermit stated that the US should not do such a thing again, that it was only possible because the people were already favoring the change. This was entirely about the Cold War, as almost all US actions were about which are controversial during the Cold War.

My complaint about the US has nothing to do with the 53 coup. It simply has to do with the US getting in bed with the Shah during that time of his rule, and not pushing him away from the grievous actions he was inflicting on his people.

I have the exact same manner of complaint about the US being in bed with the Sunnis right now.

The US thinking is, "we have to have some bad bedfellows". This is wrong thinking. They should keep their distance, but they do not. So the victims blame the US, and rightfully so. It is one thing to be friendly, it is something else to get in bed with them.

It makes the US complicit. We have seen this backfire time and time again, and the US continues to not learn from her mistakes.

The US policy in the Middle East largely has been a disaster. This is not intentional, as far as I have evidence for, it is simply incompetence. Look, governments are not subject to the force of competition and consumers, so they tend to perform badly. We all, surely, know this. Of course, they made heinous mistakes.

There is a money element to many of these mistakes, but the *story* that the US is and has been solely motivated by money I believe is a very weak one. It comes from the Soviet era, back when all the world's liberals believed Communism was the way of the future. Long before they heard the truth about Stalin. Which happened in the mid-50s.

Die hards continued in the 60s believing the general Marxist line: nations that are not Communist are "capitalist" and they are invariably evil. They run only by money. Marxist thinking is deeply flawed. They should be ignored.

Power and social esteem are far more conducive to corruption then mere money. Idealism is very conducive to corruption. The Communist nations were just as corrupt at the non-Communist nations, and the Christian ones as the Muslim ones. Money is a factor with all these nations, but not *the* factor.

If, I personally, compare the US to a Muslim nation or a Communist nation, or say an oddball like Russia... my analysis is they all do bad things. I think if you x out anyone else doing bad things, you are misunderstanding their mindset. You are misunderstanding the mindset of the US, and you are misunderstanding the mindsets of the Communist, Muslim, and other nations.

Right now, because of the extraordinary power the US has: the US is really the primary instigator of instability in the Middle East, however. It is obvious that this will cause severe problems there. And they already have caused severe problems there, problems they are refusing to own up to.

To some degree, the US is in a rock and a hard space. They created ISIS, effectively and indirectly, and ISIS is threatening them. The US deeply screwed up Iraq, and they have continued to deeply sour relations with Iran.

In all of this the US has deeply soured relations with both Sunni and Shia in the area. Not that their bed fellows, the Sunnis, ever would really like them. They have a belief system of intolerance.

Money wise, there are severe problems in the US system. But, there are also severe bias problems. For instance, much of what people hear or see is filtered through the lenses of either the Republican or Democrat party. And people accept that.

So, for instance, you have Greenwald's anti-Iraq war video which had Democrat speakers from a wide variety of positions in the US government. The ones who spoke "on message" got the most air time. Coming away from that, what would one think? Their message is what one would think: the Iraq war was all about the Republicans.

And this seems right, virtuous. Never mind that the film *tells you*, upfront, it is sponsored by the Democrat propaganda group, moveon.org. It *tells you* it is biased. And you accept that.

The *problem* is not that they are "evil". The *problem* is the documentary made it out that "The Problem" was Republican. When it was not. Otherwise, we would not see Democrats doing the very same thing. "The Problem" is in the Government: in the political structure and the way it interacts with lobbyists and defense contracting firms, in secret surveillance and the way it interacts with politicians, in biases with the general American viewpoint which ultimately is nearly like a religion. Not at all unlike Muslim or Communist nations.

The problem is the entire mindset. Just as it is the problem with Muslim or Communist nations.

During the Cold War, there was one mindset. Now, there is another *sort of* "Cold War", and the mindset is very similar.

All nations are "evil", as in they are below what a *perfect* nation should be and do. But, because of the extraordinary power of the US, they do have the capacity to do more harm then other nations. And this is what they are doing.

But the people *mean well*, they just have not really thought matters out, nor are they really capable of doing so.

So, they are in trouble and creating trouble, and this they will get back.

But, putting the US through someone else's filter won't work. You will only end up with biased observations. You have to look at the language of their culture, their ideals and mores, to understand them. You have to look at their "conservative language", the language of their nationalists and leadership, their policing, intelligence, politicians, military, and diplomats. And you have to look at their common shared language with the people.

Same with a Muslim nation or Communist.

Or any nation.

I say there "conservative language", not meaning "Democrat" or "Republican", but the base, traditional language of the people. It is what defines their meanings and where their mindset is stored in commonly shared definitions. So that a Democrat or Republican both speak and understand each other.

Ultimately, you can not even say, "A Democratic nation shares the same language with other Democratic nations, and a Muslim nation shares the same language with other Muslim nations". Because each nation has its' own needs and interests. But on a far deeper level then between conflicting ideologies they are able to share commonalities and understand each other.

So, as everyone on each side of the bedroom knows: the US and the Sunnis should not be bedfellows. Their core interests are not aligned. This is likely to upset the Sunnis much more then it upsets the US. Which is what people should be concerned about.

Who can conceivably replace ISIS? Who can conceivably replace Assad?

The US mindset is, "I don't know, but these are the bad guys. We have to get in there and stop them." Assad becomes ISIS. But, Assad was already alienated. And I mean before there was any evidence he used chemical weapons. You isolate these nations and people, as the US tends to do, and they go desperate. Then, the US tends to make it into a "good guys" versus "bad guys" scenario.

To even consider *not acting* is equivalent of allowing "evil" to operate. But, they never stop and ask, "Why are we working in someone else's country. And have we been making severe mistakes and not correcting these mistakes?"

And so many more questions they should be asking, but are not. Like, "is there not another way".


SmokingHotOctober 9, 2014 12:19 PM

@Skeptical

There's no doubt that the neoconservatives took advantage of the heightened sense of threat following 9/11 to push their case for toppling Hussein.


Blaming this ALL on the "neoconservatives" is very wrong and why these problems are repeating themselves today. It is why this is not new for the US. I realize people think this is wrong to say, because it seems to be defending them. This is not at all correct.

The problem is far deeper in the US Government.

Intelligence and military was involved there, as well as Democrats.

This is probably the number one reason why many in America, and in the world, tend to allow the US to do these kinds of things again. "Well the Neo-Cons are out of power, and it was all their fault".

They were simply the guilty face of the monster, and the convenient scapegoat. They spoke what others were thinking more directly to the public then what Democrats tend to do -- or even then what other Republicans tend to do.

The US still has horrible intelligence, they still have the same mindset, they still cause disasters in the world. Not because they are more evil or "capitalist", but merely because they are more powerful and all nations are wrong. Effectively, this "power" means they are unleashed, as well.

Like a bloodthirsty rabid dog let loose on the Middle East.

name.withheld.for.obvious.reasonsOctober 9, 2014 12:50 PM

@ SmokingHot

The US policy in the Middle East largely has been a disaster. This is not intentional, as far as I have evidence for, it is simply incompetence.

For the most part I agree with you, but, as the Pentagon papers have shown greed has played a major role in our interventionist policies. Greed, power, corruption, and stupidity have all played a part and are inseparable from the whole of the problem(s).

Don't think for a moment the MIC isn't heavily leveraged towards aggression as a means to take and maintain power and control. "Help, help. Come see the violence inherent in the system!" That's what I'm getting on about--did you see him repressing me?

AGAIN. A WORLD BOYCOTT OF OIL WILL DO MORE TO CHANGE THE PROBLEM AT THE TOP. The powerful have made the weak their playground while the intelligentsia mentally masterbates.

SmokingHotOctober 9, 2014 2:24 PM

@name.withheld.for.obvious.reasons

Yep, it is definitely a part of the problem. That response was not to you, however, but I noticed some posts from others have this very black and white view that it is **all** about money. There are a lot of problems with that analysis, is all.

(I noticed your response to Skeptical's, and wanted to hop on that train, not having seen Skeptical throw out that canard again. He looves to blame the neo-cons and defend the intelligence community. But the intelligence community is deeply at fault here. The US has really crappy intelligence in the ME & in areas like N Korea. So they are open to going with any party. That said, obviously, Cheney profited from Iraq via his Halliburton ties. And obviously there are deep monetary ties with many current and former military and intelligence officers... and war businesses -- defense contractors and other war profiteers. It is completely improper.)

Don't think for a moment the MIC isn't heavily leveraged towards aggression as a means to take and maintain power and control. "Help, help. Come see the violence inherent in the system!" That's what I'm getting on about--did you see him repressing me?

That definitely describes the American mindset. Frankly, I think Monty Python pinned it very well back in the 70s. And it remains true today. "Team America" well pinned it. Sad to say people could become so educated by taking such comedies more seriously.

AGAIN. A WORLD BOYCOTT OF OIL WILL DO MORE TO CHANGE THE PROBLEM AT THE TOP. The powerful have made the weak their playground while the intelligentsia mentally masterbates.


Before this, the ME was useful because they were the channel to the Spice Islands & India & China.

Before that it was because they had frankincense.

Now, just oil.


But, I am sure this won't happen. Nor will the money be spent instead of on war and holding up horrible regimes and parties on finding better alternative energy solutions.

Instead, the oil will be taken from everyone by force when the ME flares up again, this time much more seriously then before.

name.withheld.for.obvious.reasonsOctober 9, 2014 2:39 PM

@ SmokingHot

That definitely describes the American mindset. Frankly, I think Monty Python pinned it very well back in the 70s. And it remains true today. "Team America" well pinned it. Sad to say people could become so educated by taking such comedies more seriously.

"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship."
"I'm your king!", "Well I didn't vote for you."
Yes, the Python thesis seems to be timeless sad to say. Team America was okay, it just didn't rise to the level the Python's proffer.

At the SPAMALOT play in Vegas I found I was alone in laughing. Seems the audience found themselves at a play they knew nothing about. It was quite an object lesson in US ignorance and hubris.

Yeah, @ Skeptical is a shill and shameless cheerleader for the US hegemony.

WE MUST HAVE A REPONSE FROM THE BOTTOM THAT THREATENS THOSE AT THE TOP THAT WOULD SEND OUR MOST DISENFRANCHISED INTO THE HANDS OF WAR!

let.COctober 9, 2014 4:36 PM

And here are some reasons why this Land Of The Free (likely referring to the criminals that are ruling over this country and walking free) is superior to other countries and is thus entitled to invade them at will:


NYPD Cop Takes Cash From Man: Shocking Scene As Cop Allegedly Snatches $1K From Construction Worker
http://www.inquisitr.com/1527563/nypd-cop-takes-cash-from-man-shocking-scene-as-cop-allegedly-snatches-1k-from-construction-worker-video/

According to information obtained by The Daily News, a police officer reportedly stopped Lamard Joye around 12:20 a.m., shoved him against the fence of a basketball court at the Surfside Gardens housing project in Coney Island and frisked him. Then the cop took more than $1,000 cash from the man’s pocket.
New York explained that Lamard Joye had the large sum of money in his pocket because he planned to take his wife out to celebrate. It was his 35th birthday.

Two Sisters Seized By Phoenix Hospital, Mother Ordered Not To Talk – Another Medical Kidnapping?
http://www.inquisitr.com/1524122/two-sisters-seized-by-phoenix-hospital-mother-ordered-not-to-talk-another-medical-kidnapping/


In a case that is chillingly similar to the Justina Pelletier case, two preteen sisters have been seized from their parents’ custody by CPS and Phoenix Children’s Hospital. In just five months in state custody, the oldest has lost 25 percent of her weight. The sisters are being used without their parents’ consent for genetic research. While their mother fears for her daughters’ very lives, she has been court ordered not to talk and to remove all discussion of the case from social media and the internet.

AdjuvantOctober 9, 2014 5:47 PM

Wow. So much activity on this thread all of a sudden -- and so little of it relevant to the topic at hand!

justin curiousOctober 9, 2014 7:32 PM

entertaining, but not entirely irrelevant, IMHO

Bill Binney, the ‘original’ NSA whistleblower, on Snowden, 9/11 and illegal surveillance
http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Interview-the-original-NSA-whistleblower

He alleges: The NSA buried key intelligence that could have prevented 9/11; The agency’s bulk data collection from internet and telephone communications is unconstitutional and illegal in the US; The NSA is ineffective at preventing terrorism because analysts are too swamped with information under its bulk collection programme; Electronic intelligence gathering is being used for covert law enforcement, political control and industrial espionage, both in and beyond the US; Edward Snowden’s leaks could have been prevented.

SkepticalOctober 9, 2014 8:53 PM


@Adjuvant: Unless you have access to a party's entire portfolio, you simply would not be able to tell whether certain options were purchased, or written, as part of a larger strategy.

As to the authors cited, I've only read the first one, but it's pretty weak. They found the number of SPX puts to be "abnormal" compared to the same period last year. Since a lot had happened between January 2000 and September 2001, I'm more wary of such comparisons.

As to the rest, well, here's the SEC on the subject:

On Sept. 12, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation to determine whether there was evidence that anyone who had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on September 11 sought to profit from that knowledge by trading in United States securities markets. In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. In the course of our investigation, we examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11. Along with the New York Stock Exchange, NASD, the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Pacific Exchange, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, we reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets. We also reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. In addition to working with the exchanges and NASD, we worked with criminal law enforcement authorities, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, as well as our regulatory counterparts in the U.S. and abroad. Finally, we sought and obtained information from the legal and compliance departments at securities firms and other financial institutions to determine whether any unusual trading activity had been observed by their staffs in the period prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Someone wants to claim some kind of massive cover-up, fine, but they're going to need a lot more than "hey trading 3 weeks before 11 Sep 2001 looks significantly different from 11 Sep 2000 to muster even a prima facie case.

@name.withheld: as the Pentagon papers have shown greed has played a major role in our interventionist policies.

Please cite any portion of the Pentagon Papers which shows greed has playing a major role in US military intervention in Vietnam.

Where we wanted to plant permanent bases in the Middle East and--where the neocons believed it was our god given right to their oil resources. I would be curious if you've thought of a career as a press agent for the third Reich.

The US already had permanent bases in the Middle East, and the US made abundantly clear that the oil resources of Iraq were the property of the Iraqi people - to which end the Iraqi Government was able to award oil contracts to whomever it pleased, not simply American companies.

But, name.withheld, I guess when you're able to call those you disagree with "Nazis" you don't need to worry much about the facts. Sometimes I can't tell whether you're acting out a parody of the silliest forms of internet trolling or if you actually think comments like that are intelligent.

@Smoking: Right now, because of the extraordinary power the US has: the US is really the primary instigator of instability in the Middle East, however. It is obvious that this will cause severe problems there. And they already have caused severe problems there, problems they are refusing to own up to.

This is completely wrong. Were the US not a presence in the Middle East you'd have severely greater tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and much greater likelihood of a broad regional war.

As to "causing problems" let's get real about ISIL and the US for a moment. The US invaded Iraq, did not provide sufficient forces to occupy in the early years, and allowed an insurgency to spark and then burst into flame.

But in 2007 the US changed strategy. It provided substantially greater resources and embarked upon a different counterinsurgency approached - and it worked. The Shi'ite militias were cowed, and al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated.

Perhaps the US withdrew a bit too soon. But the corruption which was permitted to erupt within Iraqi Security Forces, and Maliki's other actions, completely alienated the Sunni population, which provided the remnants of AQI, harboring in the chaos of Syria, with opportunities to find new openings with the Sunni tribes of Anbar and beyond.

These were choices made by Maliki, and the Iraqi Government. They were choices that Iran permitted, if not encouraged. And they are reaping what they have sown.

The US mindset is, "I don't know, but these are the bad guys. We have to get in there and stop them." Assad becomes ISIS. But, Assad was already alienated. And I mean before there was any evidence he used chemical weapons. You isolate these nations and people, as the US tends to do, and they go desperate. Then, the US tends to make it into a "good guys" versus "bad guys" scenario.

Yes, the US isolated Assad. Along with most of the rest of the planet. If you recall how the Syrian civil war started, and how Assad has conducted it, you'll see why.

Is Assad ISIS? No. Is he someone who will eventually need to leave power for there to be peace in Syria? Yes.

To even consider *not acting* is equivalent of allowing "evil" to operate. But, they never stop and ask, "Why are we working in someone else's country. And have we been making severe mistakes and not correcting these mistakes?"

The US has been refusing to intervene more substantially in Syria's civil war for years now. It has been a topic of ongoing debate and discussion. Indeed the current argument between Turkey and the US is that Turkey wants to expand the coalition's intervention to include measures that are clearly aimed at Assad, and the US is refusing to do so. So the idea that the US never stops to ask why it should intervene in another country is nowhere near the truth of the matter.

SmokingHotOctober 10, 2014 8:30 AM

@justin curious, @anyone on Binney & 911


From Justin's article:

The exercise revealed that the NSA had intelligence about Al Qaeda hijackers before and after 9/11 but had not shared it with the FBI or other government agencies. An early 2001 report on Al Qaeda’s movements had also been suppressed.
“Make no mistake. That data and the analytic report could have – should have – prevented 9/11. Top NSA management knew that. They knew that I knew that,” Drake later wrote in an open memorandum to President Obama.
The project was immediately shut down, Drake claims: “In spring 2002, the remnants of Thinthread were unceremoniously put on the shelf in NSA’s ‘Indiana Jones’ data warehouse, never to be seen again.”


It sounds like Binney goes with the main story line on 911, but simply believes due to incompetence - and not a little to do with his own rejected projected being rejected - that the NSA dropped the ball on 911.


The thrust of the article is also about how the NSA is inundated with too much information making intelligence useless. Not exactly a new thing for a country that has the track record of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, screwing up relations with Latin America, and generally getting a bad reputation across the entire planet.

They don't need good intelligence to do what they do. They just need theater.

SmokingHotOctober 10, 2014 11:05 AM

I have responded to Skeptical's post in last week's Squid Thread, because it has gone well off topic and some are complaining.

SH

John March 24, 2016 1:58 AM


So very little mention in all this that the Narus 6400 equipment that taps the
Telco switches of the US and many other nations was made in Israel by a company
linked to the Israeli intelligence. Why this glaring oversight even
when the news first broke in Bamford's book The Shadow Factory in 2008?

If there is a back door in tnat equipment, as has been alleged, e.g. by Christopher Ketcham, then this surveillance system is a monstrous breach of national security--not implemented to protect our national security but to allow Israel to spy on Americans and the world, etc.

Also, this may explain why the privacy protection aspects of the THINTHREAD
program were extirpated, e.g., encryption of data pertaining to any individual until probable cause is court approved and an automated self-analysis program to monitor and record all uses or queries of the system to prevent abuse.

Contrary to on commentators allegation, Binney's program was not rejected; it was hi-jacked by GROUNDBREAKER minus the privacy protection aspects and used contrary to the Constitutional intent of those who developed the program.

Further, by inundating the analysts with a plethora of data, the GROUNDBREAKER system is designed to thwart terrorist detection, not prevent terrorism, insofar as it inundates actionable intelligence in a blizzard of irrelevant data. That, too, would serve the aforementioned purpose, which is not to protect America, but to create the ideal spy system for Israel, which can use this plethora of data for industrial espionage, blackmail, insider trades, and helping to make their own operatives invisible.

After all, the Narus 6400 equipment, e.g., in the Folsom San Francisco AT&T room 6401, on the sixth floor, has first grabs on the data, not the NSA.

Stephan eldred Vanhoek February 12, 2017 1:32 PM

Still nothing has been done to help the good Americans who where targeted, or too root out the coruption this brought about

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.