The Lone Phone Call Theory of 911

[Goldilocks]

If (and I stress the word "if") any one from the US gvmt instigated 911, then I propose this is the only possible way it could have been carried off without creating scores or even hundreds of US witnesses or co-conspirators....

Quite simply, sometime before the election, someone in the Bush family (or one of their representatives) made a single secure phone call to the Bin Laden family (or to one of their associates) and asked them to plan and carry out a major terrorism attack on US soil sometime within the first year after Bush was elected. They did this because the Bushes are great friends and business partners of the Bin Ladens, and it is a member of the Bin Laden family who pulled the 911 trigger. This is a huge coincidence. It is also a coincidence that BushSr was meeting with Osama's brother on the day of 911.

The only other instructions on the so-called lone phone call were to later be informed of the exact date and targets of the attack, but little else.

Although I am no technical expert of any kind, I do have good technical and common sense instincts, and I have spent considerable time looking at and fact-checking error-prone conspiracy movies and debating the 911 issues, and details, and I am personally convinced the collapse of the Twin Towers came as much a surprise to the terrorists as they did to all Americans. In other words, the terrorist simply flew jets into the Twin Towers using barely trained student pilots who easily commandeered these pre-911 flights and, as it happened, the towers were not designed to withstand such impacts and forces. It is also obvious a jet was flown into the Pentagon.

Anyway, the Lone Phone Call theory is the only theory which a powerful US gvmt official or candidate would ever even consider carrying out due to risks of being found out. All other theories would require far too many expert paramilitary-style witnesses and co-conspirators, and even more luck than that enjoyed by the terrorists on 911.

Please note I did not say I believe this theory. Rather, I offer it to simply hilite its simplicity and to cut through all the absurdity in the other theories.

I will also add that it is highly likely IMHO that the Bush admin planted evidence at groundzero and did other things to ensure that accusatory eyes were directed toward known terrorists and not to his pre-911 incompetence regarding the threat warnings he received from Clinton and Clarke and others. This, as well, is why he resisted any 911 investigation.

[dailykoff]

1. Well, you're getting warmer. . . .

:eyes:

p.s. the truth is that they'd been planning this since Poppy was in the Oval Office. Don't forget the '93 attack, their housewarming gift to Bill, which they botched bigtime.

Bringing down those overbuilt behemoths was no accident.

[Goldilocks]

4. No, it wasn't an accident. Jets brought them down.

BTW, had one of the jets failed to hit one of the towers (or had both failed to hit), what would have happened? Would the traitors have pulled it down anyway with the hope we all would have believed it suffered damage from the other tower's impact and collapse? If not, would the so-called hidden explosives have been discovered after they inspected the second tower (and all other nearby buildings for damage)? Yes. Would YOU risk such a plan (have jets hit each tower and then explode whatever remains) knowing that if both towers weren't successfully hit that the explosives would later be found and hence evidence of a massive gvmt conspiracy that would bring down the Bush empire and the GOP and every major contributor, and so on? No. I think you'd instead make a single phone call to someone close to you with connections to terrorists and ask them to execute a major strike of their choosing and time. Even if the attack failed miserably, it would still serve you politically and help you launch your campaign of fear.

[dailykoff]

5. . . . and warmer. . . .

Yes, relying on jets to hit the towers would be risky, which is why they probably let CNN take care of that detail. Fooled ya, didn't they?

Hey you asked. :shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Have you studied the Iran-Contra conspiracy? It took many many people to

pull it off, it ran for years without discovery, and it was only discovered because a supply plane flying from the US to Nicaragua was shot down and an American working for the conspirators survived the crash and spilled the beans.

This conspiracy took hundreds of people to carry out, from loading TOW missils at US airfields to flying them to Iran, and the off loading to laundering money as well as the US suppy network to the Contra terrorists of weapons and supplies flown from the US to Nicaragua.

After the conspiratorors were discovered few were punished and even those that were, were let off on technecalities.

These crimes were called treason by many and were certainly very serious. Trading with a terrorist country (Iran) and supplying the terrorist contras in direct violation of the law.

I don't believe you have much of a grasp on history or how past conspiracies have operated to be able to imagine how 9/11 could very likely be an inside job. You assume many things which make no sense.

Have you read Welcome to Terrorland -- MOHAMED ATTA & THE 9-11 COVER-UP IN FLORIDA by Daniel Hopsicker


You can read the whole book here for free at the online library. Just scoll down the page to the table of contents.
http://www.american-buddha.com/911.welcometoterrorlandhopsicker.htm

[Goldilocks]

3. The difference between Iran/Contra and 911 is

that any Americans involved in Iran/Contra would not have deemed themselves to be preparing to murder 1000s of fellow Americans.

I am quite aware that there are rogue paramilitary-type Americans (like the swiftboat scumbags) running around doing fascist things in the name of rightwing ideology. These are the people who made those anthrax attacks on Democrats, for example, and who perhaps perform assassinations and other despicable things.

But I believe it is impossible to plan a 911-style attack in the way most conspiracy theorists would have you believe and not have some guilt-ridden witnesses come forward to expose the plot either before it was executed or at some point afterward. Again, I can believe there are Americans who would do that, but it would be a major task requiring many people of varying skills and some of them would spill the beans once they realized what they were being asked to do. Gawd, I hope you are wrong, because otherwise we as a nation are lost already.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. How many first responders and everyday people are dying because the

EPA lied about the air being fine? Thousands?

No one came forward, the way we found out is people dying and medical personnel raising the issue.

Where are the guilt ridden scientists who according to your hypothesis would have sounded the alarm?

You have succumbed to the BIG LIE. It is so big, you can't imagine anyone could make it up and tell you it with a straight face. You don't want to believe that anyone could be so sociopathic. Well sorry to break it to you. But these are the same people who let Americans drown during Katrina. They did nothing and they knew they were doing nothing and they knew people were drowning.

That is the nature of socio-paths.

50 thousand American troops died in Vietnam, the victims of a false flag event called the Gulf of Tonklin Incident. It was revealed finally, years later, by a mid level Pentagon analyst named Daniel Elsburg. Many people had to know that the Gulf of Tonklin incident was a fake, a conspiracy designed to move congress to OK massive troop deployment based on a lie.

Who was prosecuted for this conspiracy to deceive congress? Nobody, with the exception of Daniel Elsberg who was persecuted for leaking the truth. Read about it, it's quite available. 50 thousand Americans dead for a conspiracy. Not to mention millions of Vietnamese.

I live in Montana. We have a town here where hundreds of people are sick, dying or dead because the vermiculite mine next to the town was mining, milling, bagging and shipping asbestos laden vermiculite for use in people attics as insulation, gardens, playgrounds, etc. The company, W.R. Grace, knew it was full of asbestos, They knew asbestos was deadly and would eventually kill people. But they were making money and nobody became guilt ridden and came forward. It wasn't until people started dying that it came out. A lot of people started dying. Nobody is doing jail time yet for it.

Your theory that it can't happen here is wrong. It can and it is.

[Goldilocks]

7. This theory allows you to believe Bush is as evil as you claim.

You just happen to also believe for some reason that evil plots need to be diabolically complicated and risky.

The only difference between you and myself is that I adhere to a simpler theory.

There are scientists who came forward about the air quality. That's why we know about it.

There are people who came forward after Katrina.

There are people who told us Bush was focused on Iraq even before 911.

There are people who told us Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans.

There was a person who blew the whistle on Vietnam.

There are people telling us Bush was planning a nuke attack on Iran.

And yes, there are many wicked people, and Bush may be one of them, and so are the journalists who enable him and his systematic lies. BUT....in any large group, there is almost always one person who blows the whistle. And in a 911-style attack where scores, if not 100s, of Americans are rigging the system to pulldown 2 US skyscrapers and the Penatgon and Capital bldg, and perhaps kill 10,000s Americans, I believe at least one person would come forward and warn of what was to happen or tell us how it happened.

More importantly, the mastermind of 911 would think the same way I am. The mastermind would prefer more personal safety--fewer possibilities of exposure.

Anyone packing explosive in the towers would know they were murdering Americans. And most people working in the Iran-Contra affair might not realize they were even breaking the law. Do you see the difference?

If Bush is as evil as you say, then clearly the Bin Laden's are part and parcel of it and would be involved in some manner. They--the family which begat Osama and which is business partners with Bush and who was meeting with BushSr on 911 itself--would be part of the network you talk about that helped Bush pull off 911. After all, who supplied the Arab student pilots?

Of any two 911 theories, the Lone Phone Call theory is simpler to plan and execute, and it requires fewer witnesses and less luck. The only question is who placed the initial phone call? Bush? Osama? Cheney?

If it were provable there were no remote control jets or holographic images of jets striking the towers or a missile that hit the Pentagon, and so on, does that mean the mastermind (whoever it is) is somehow less evil than if he simply had made a phone call and ordered up a major terror attack that happened to go off more brilliantly than imagined? Of course not.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Do you use the word evil as short hand for sociopathic behavior?

I personally differentiate between the two words. You used the word evil, I didn't. Please don't attribute your choice of words to me. That is dishonesty.

You also fail to make your argument that simple = likely, except as regards yourself.

And you are intellectually dishonest in your characterization of other well known conspiracies that have, over time, been exposed. For instance, the air quality which is now killing people and which information about was suppressed at the time people were being exposed was revealed to the victims and the public at large not by the EPA agency scientists, but by health care workers observing the effects on humans of exposer to toxic air. These people didn't come forward to expose the conspiracy, they came forward to report the effects on humans that the toxic air caused. Apparently, in your world, this distinction is lost.

[Goldilocks]

14. So already, you accuse me of dishonesty instead of maybe

suggesting I am simply mistaken?

This already suggests to me that you will employ any debating tactic to win an argument for the sake of winning--even if you are wrong.

I have no interest in such kinds of closeminded debates. I am here to debate with integrity and to challenge both the conventional wisdom as well as mine.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em. If you have a problem with that,

perhaps you might want to exercise a little more restraint before you so obviously falsely characterize my argument.

You could say, "Sorry, you are correct, I Goldilocks used the word evil and you JQC didn't, and that was a mis-characterization of what you JQC said."

But instead you Goldilocks are trying to pretend you are a victim in this exchange.

That is again intellectually dishonest, strike two so to speak, and is further indication that my initial reaction was dead on.

[Goldilocks]

16. Whatever!

You are dealing with semantics. You say socio-pathic behavior and I paraphrased with the word "evil" (correctly or not) in the interest of email brevity and suddenly I am a dishonest person whom you have barely had a chance to talk with.

The proper thing for you to have done was to apologize to me for so suddenly going off kilter and assuming that every little inconsistency that you think you detect is due to dishonesty.

Your abrupt attempt to distract and to attack are recorded here for all to see.

So, go ahead and declare your silly strike 3, and then by alll means put me on IGNORE (or whatever mechanism they have here). I am not interested in further communications with negative and angry people like you.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

30. no debating tactics required..

he won the argument before his 1st reply..

[mhatrw]

20. Lots of people have "come forward" about 9/11.

You, and more importantly our corporate media, just don't want to believe what they are saying.

[MervinFerd]

26. Name them, please. Actual participants and witnesses, NOT

Alex Jones et al.

[mhatrw]

19. Sorry, but you are ridiculously naive.

Explain why the EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero then. Didn't this action condemn thousands upon thousands of US citizens to early painful deaths?

[MervinFerd]

25. Nice talking. NOT THE SAME AT ALL.

GOOD GRIEF!

"Officials fudged data and hoped for best"

DOES NOT EQUAL (<>)

"Officials planned suicide attacks that would kill thousands"

Just ain't the same. It's the difference between not fixing your brakes and being causing an accident and deliberately ramming a school bus with yor suv.

OK?

[MervinFerd]

24. How many Americans died in Iran Contra? How many CIA suicides?

It's not the same thing at all.

AND you still have to have that little thing:

EVIDENCE.

Not Conspiracy Evidence, but real, actual, facts.

[Spoonerian]

27. JQ, Have you read the comments

at the ends of some of the chapters of Welcome to Terrorland? on your ABOL Library link above?

The ABOL lady commentator has a Fintan Dunnish opinion that certain Hopsicker key witnesses including Amanda Keller and Simpson the cabdriver are government cut-outs created to trick us.

Possibly partly because the idea of the government mafia concocting these sorts of cover-up tricks is even more intriguing than less skeptical CT theories, I'm inclined to give a lot of consideration to them when I read them at places like that ABOL Library site that you link to.

It would be nice if Hopsicker...AND the ABOL lady...AND Fintan Dunne would pay closer attention to the people they respectively believe might be government plants. For example, in the 1 week Nort Port apartment rental caper (which includes the Key West 3 day-party caper), we all (including Hopsicker apparently) are left wondering why the Laconca woman says in the 9/14 news story that Mohamed was NOT in the first picture she was shown of the guy who supposedly flew the first plane into the towers (see paulthompson's comment and Hopsicker's posts on this DU thread):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x38702

Likewise, if Amanda Keller and the cabdriver are government plants, wouldn't proving that they are government fakes almost be easier (and more revealing and more interesting) than investigating the main conspiracy?

[Sinti]

8. How about, Poppy knows he is leaving office and sits down with his

old friends the bin Ladens, and they get to talking, "you know we could all make a hell of a lot of money..." They bring a few others on board, like Cheney, send Usama out of the nest to build up more cred with the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups (Usama left home in '92, I believe, after returning from working hand-in-hand with the CIA in Afghanistan). He threatens the Saudi throne, though he had been friends with Prince Turki (current head of Saudi Intel) since college, Prince Turki hand-selected him to recruit and raise money for the Afghanistan mission. This really gets him in good - because the jihad movements just hate the Royals. They feel the Sauds are getting too rich on the oil, and starving the masses while they sit in golden palaces.

Once UBL has proven himself to these forces, he recruits and trains men. They undertake a couple of attacks - setting you up for the big one. They drop the plans for Operation Bojinka all written down nice and neat for our guys to find, somewhere in Spain. He has Arianna Airlines (the Afghani Airline) at his disposal to use as he sees fit,and could have trained these guys much more efficiently than we've been told. He has the ISI in his pocket, the royal family, and his own family, along with the ISI pay for his minions over here, the administration makes it real easy for them to get into the country and get access to what they need, then BOOM - and the billions start to flow.

Look at the stock gains of certain companies since 9/11, because of what they build and/or do. Then go to Edgar and look at who is invested in what. $2.3 trillion dollars disappeared from the Pentagon right before 9/11, where the hell did that go? No one is asking. Halliburton stock price rose 3000 percent in 2005.

I personally think it's the biggest con every pulled in the history of mankind.

FWIW, though, the WTC towers were designed to withstand a plane impact (a 707 IIRC), but what ultimately happened to them is irrelevant to MIHOP/LIHOP.

[Goldilocks]

9. I'm with ya on that, except that the WTC chief designer said the towers

were not designed to withstand the kinds of impacts that happened on 911. 757's are much faster and heavier than the 707s.

Also, if he had things to do over again, I doubt he'd have ever made those claims if he knew then what he knows now.

Bush didn't need the towers to collapse. All he needed was videos of jets hitting them and having 100s of deaths in order to commence his reign of fear. Trying to install explosives in the tower would have exposed Bush to exposure. Had one jet failed to hit, the evidence would have been there for all the world to see. Too risky.

Also, the explosives worked flawlessly after the jet strikes though the sprinklers and other systems all failed. Sorry. Too coincidental to believe the explosives could survive but nothing else would.

Do you have a link on the 2.3 trillion loss? Which 2.3 trillion? The entire US debt created since 2000 has been about that much, so I doubt 2.3 trillion was lost in the Pentagon alone.

[Pastiche423]

10. Re: Missing $2.3 trillion

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[FogerRox]

11. Far more trillions have vanished, 2.3 trillion is nutin

The COnspiracy to re-industrialize Germany after WW1 involved thousands of people. The average American has no idea about the complicity of GM, Ford, IBM, Dupont, Remington, JP Morgan etc, I am keen on the Kiss theory, but you don't make your case.

These "people" believe they are doing these things for good of the people, in their own hearts they are Patriots. ANd among Patriots there is no need to keep secrets.

[Goldilocks]

13. I haven't made my case?

Well, no-one has made their case. And no one--I repeat, NO-ONE--can make their case in a few short forum exchanges. Not even the 911 commission (after how much effort?) has made their case.

And certainly none of the alternative conspiracy theorists have made their case despite having 6 years and 100s of websites and 1000s of proponents trying to do so.

All the unofficial theories would have it that Bush has an invisible network of accomplices who helped him carry off his evil 911 deeds. After all, the mastermind couldn't have executed 911 all by himself.

As such, one of the easiest conclusions anyone can make is that the Bin Laden family must be part of that network--this is because Osama Bin Laden is the man suspected of plotting 911 and who our entire military can not capture or kill and who is part of that same family.

According to wiki (google "Bush Bin Laden business conections wiki") BushSr met with Osama's brother on the very day of 911.

Let's connent a few well-known dots right now: dot#1-Bush family connected to Bin Ladens. Dot#2-Bin Laden family connected to Osama Bin Laden and other Arab terrorist elements. Dot#3-Arab terrorists pilotted the 911 jets. Conclusion: Maybe the Bin Ladens had something to do with 911!!! Egads! This is so simple, yet inconvenient for every conspiracy theorist on the planet.

Why has no other theory made this simple observation about their relationship and integrated it into the theory? What bias or agenda are you all exhibiting by ignoring this?

This theory has to be a front runner among unofficial theories because of its simplicity and power, and because unlike any other theory, I have actually provided NAMES of the people who Bush called to coordinate 911. Can you name any other theory which actually puts real names on that hidden 911 network?

Moreover, this theory dovetails NICELY with the official version of what happened on 911 yet makes ONE MORE simple observation: namely, that perhaps Bush made use of his special relationship with the Bin Laden's to order up 911.

This means, unlike any other conspiracy theory, I have the findings of the entire 911 commission on MY SIDE buttressing this theory (in terms of the events that occurred on 911).

SOMEBODY piloted those jets into the WTC and Pentagon and into the Pennsysvania turf (and please do not tell me CNN faked the jet impact on the tower) and there are publicized recordings of Arab hijackers on the radios, and public videos of them going thru airport security, and testimony from US pilot schools that these same Arab men underwent pilot training.

Hence, SOMEBODY provided Arab men to man the jets, and that SOMEBODY is most likely the Bin Laden network to which every Bush family member has a speed dial number in their cell phone.

Why has no one--especially the conspiracy theorists--repeatedly asked why Bush is friends with the family who begat Osama Bin Laden? Why is it so easy for you and others to somehow QUASH and ignore this huge coincidence? Are you part of the disinformation campaign to keep the Bin Laden's safe? (ha ha, sorry, couldn't resist)

I haven't made my case?

PUllleeezzzzzze!!

So again, given the simplicity of the Lone Phone Call Theory--and the factual and unchallenged fact that the Bush and Bin Laden families are closely connected both to each other and to Arab terrorists--it means this theory can not be casually dismissed by any person searching for the truth of what happened on 911.

[Sinti]

17. Here ya go

From Rumsfeld's own mouth

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[rman]

21. weight and speed of 707 and 757 are not very different

757
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html
max takeoff weight: 123600 kg
cuise speed: mach 0.8 ~ 980 km/h (*


707
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
gross weight: 152400 kg
cruise speed: 977 km/h


*) mach = 1,225.08 km/h at sea level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number

[MervinFerd]

23. Explosives are foolishness; collusion between Bush and Saudi's.....

is worth thinking about.

Does it really matter what the -designer- of the towers -says- they were -designed- to withstand? The proof is in the collision. They -did not- withstand a 757. The designer has his ass to cover. The consensus of the structural engineering community is that the collapses are entirely understandable and that study of the collapses will help in the design of new buildings. Besides, as the OP points out, planting explosives AND hitting the buildings with planes just doesn't make sense in a lot of different ways.

OTOH, the LTR between the Bush's and the Saudi's raises a lot of questions that deserve answers.

[mhatrw]

18. Sorry, but I'm not convinced.

The military has issued seven different "official" stories about its air response that day -- all contradicted by the 9/11 Commission.

A lot of people had to have flied, fueled and directed those fighter jets. More must have seen (or not seen) them on their air traffic control radar scopes. Yet no one has come forward to tell what really happened even as the military lied about its own response to the events of 9/11 time and time again. How can you explain this, given your assumptions of what is and is not too risky because of "loose lips"?

[MervinFerd]

22. What good would this "Lone Phone Call" do the attackers?

They had plenty of money. Presumably the motivation already. What would a call from the Bush clan accomplish?

Classically, a spy passes information about the location of defenses, dates of weakness, etc. But, for the 9/11 attacks what useful information could be passed? Possible military responses were already minimal. I just can't see the point.

But, yes, something along this line is the plausible conspiracy.

[HamdenRice]

28. Sorry but this is just silly

You may disagree with various claims of the 9/11 truth movement, as do I, but at least most of them are discussing various elements of evidence.

Do you realize that your lone phone call theory is not based on one iota of evidence, and yet you claim it is more likely than every other theory?

Also, criminal conspiracies are never organized with just one phone call. When business or government officials want to communicate without the communications being traced, they do very simple things -- like meet face to face and take a walk in the garden. That's why those who write about the 1980 October surprise focus on the probability that George HW Bush personally flew to Paris to negotiate the US hostages in Iran not being freed.

Presidents routinely use back door channels to communicate with each other -- ie send a trusted person in the private sector to talk to government leaders in other countries.

There is no support in either evidence or abstract logic in your lone telephone call theory.

[BlueSpark]

31. We need to analyse the theory charitably,

particularly since he makes quite clear that he doesn't believe it. I wouldn't say that his theory lacks evidence: his evidence is an appeal to human nature in these sorts of situations. The point of his theory, I believe, is that the only way such a heinous and murderous act could have been perpetrated by our own government would be to keep the inner circle very, very small, as small as would be achieved by a "lone phone call." Whether the "call" is an actual phone call, or an e-mail, or a meeting in a parking garage, or a letter doesn't matter. Unlike other conspiracies mentioned in this thread, such as the EPA lies about air quality, or the Gulf of Tonkin, or Iran-Contra, a 9/11 conspiracy asks all of its members to participate in the outright murder of American civilians in a handful of major cities, with no clear payoff except, possibly, to a few politicians. How many people are you going to get to sign on to such an enterprise ("okay, help me kill Americans so that...I can invade Iraq in a couple of years even though that action will be utterly unrelated to the attacks")? And remain silent? A lie can emerge from the EPA because people want to keep their jobs; a lie can emerge with regard to assisting the Contras because the people involved may have thought they were being patriotic and furthering the cause of freedom. But it is highly improbable that you could get the eclectic group necessary to pull off the 9/11 attacks together and feel at all confident that you wouldn't get found out.

Viewed charitably, then, the point seems sound: if 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy, then the U.S. government's involvement in the actual planning and execution of the attacks had to be very, very minimal. Best to leave the actual attacks to someone else. This approach allows for greater deniability later on as well.

Of course, I don't believe that this is what happened. I think that the U.S. government was not involved in the attacks, and I think this for many reasons, one of which is this: it is just too big a risk. No government could know beforehand what the American public's reaction to the attacks was going to be. It is possible we would rally around the president, but it is also possible we would run the president out of town on a rail. So the benefits of pulling off the attack and not being found out are vague and unknown, while the punishment for being found out is extreme: you go down in history as the worst president ever and one of the worst human beings ever. (And Bush/Cheney seem to be able to achieve such distinctions without having to resort to killing American civilians. I mean, why kill Americans when there are plenty of Iraqis out there?)

[Nozebro]

32. The Gov't uses PR, Disinfo & Propaganda campaigns precisely in order

to manage and manipulate information and evidence, discredit/destroy skeptics, and anything else necessary to prevent the public from finding out the truth about 9/11.

[HamdenRice]

33. I think it goes against the best evidence

I take your point that the OP should be taken figuratively, but the OPoster has not presented it that way.

Moreover, I tend to analyze government complicity in 9/11 by looking at evidence of contacts and information leakage that has appeared in the mainstream press. This information suggests that the premise of the OP and your response is actually not correct. The information leaked out, and many people knew about the impending attack, so the idea that information was successfully and tightly controlled through one or two communications tends to contradict the available evidence.

Are you familiar with the Porter Goss-Mahmoud Ahmad-Mohammed Atta connection? If not, briefly it is this: Despite the 9/11 Commission's assertions, one of the main state sponsors of Mohammed Atta's activities in the US was Pakistan (rather than as usually claimed, Afghanistan). The head of the Pakistani intelligence agency (the ISI) was Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. According to mainstream media outlets, Gen. Ahmad ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the hijackers, which Atta allegedly used for flight school training. Gen. Ahmad had the money sent through a rather infamous ISI agent named Saeed Sheikh.

But Gen. Ahmad was in intense discussions with the US defense and intelligence establishment in the days before 9/11. Gen. Ahmad flew to Washington DC around September 6, 2001. I find this stupefying -- that the financier of the worst terrorist attack in US history would fly to DC and meet with the head of the CIA, top officials of the Defense Department, the National Security Council and on the morning of 9/11 as the planes were flying into the towers, he was having breakfast with Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee and a former CIA agent himself, and representative of the district in Florida near where Atta went to flight school. Also present was head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Bob Graham, also of Florida.

Goss later told the press that as the planes were flying into the towers, the group, which he publicly admitted included Gen. Ahmad, were discussing terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. In fact, there are press reports that Goss and Graham flew to Pakistan in the last weeks of August 2001 to meet with Ahmad.

So the intense communications between the financier of the 9/11 attacks and the heads of intelligence and defense establishments, and congressional intelligence oversight, show there was more than a "lone phone call" if there was complicity.

Incidentally, this recent rehashing in the media of Richard Armitage threatening to bomb Pakistan leaves out an important element that was reported at the time -- namely that the threat was made by Armitage to Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, bag man for the 9/11 hijackers.

Also, Wall St. Journal reporter Danny Pearl was tracing the money trail back to Pakistan in the months after 9/11 and was conveniently kidnapped and beheaded by -- wait for it! -- Saeed Sheikh, the man who Gen. Ahmad ordered to send the money to Atta.

When you add to this that there was suspicious trading activity in airline stock and that it has been documented that a Brooklyn Muslim school boy from New Utrech High School pointed to the towers a few days before 9/11 and said the towers were coming down -- it seems to me that the information leaked out like a sieve.

It is largely cognitive dissonance that prevents us from naming what is right in front of our faces.

[savemefromdumbya]

29. no lone phone call