How big was the conspiracy.

[Realityhack]

I hope that everyone here can agree there was a conspiracy that resulted in the events of September 11th.
Some of us think that a number of hijackers and backers conspired together, others think it was government agents and special effects crews.

My question for you is... how big do you think the conspiracy was?
What size conspiracy is needed to explain the events (in your opinion)?

[reinvestigate911]

1. if the OCT posits 19 hijackers, why would an alternative theory require any more?

The typical arguments against US government complicity are (1) “Thousands Would Have to Have Been Involved”, (2) "Someone Would Have Blabbed", (3) "Why Would the Government Kill Its Own?" or (4), the "Incompetence Theory". These are nothing more than boilerplate denials that rationalize the dismissal of evidence and the abandonment of science, reason, and the need for a truly independent investigation. Specifically:

1. It’s a logical fallacy to assume that government complicity would require “thousands of conspirators” when the official conspiracy theory alleges that it only took 19 radical Islamic fundamentalists with little more than box-cutters and airplane tickets. (see this, http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html">9/11 a 7-man job)
   
2. Governments can keep secrets. The Manhattan Project (Atomic bomb) was kept secret from the American public for several years. The illegal slaughter of 40K Indonesians in East Timor between 1975 and 1976 was kept secret from the American public for almost a decade. There are plenty of precedents for governments keeping secrets. More to the point, however, is that there are whistleblowers: Ask yourself why the MSM doesn't report on http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559">Colonel Anthony Schaffer (“Able Danger” intelligence program, US Army), or http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-23-whistleblower-translator_x.htm">Sibel Edmonds (former FBI Translator).
   
3. Why would the government kill its own citizens? A stock response to this might be “for the greater good”, but the question itself is essentially naive. Why would the government send thousands of soldiers to fight and die in unjust wars when the US was not attacked, nor was under the threat of an attack? Why would they lie about the air quality at ground zero in an effort to re-open Wall Street for trading? The case for morality in the context of a such an event is a pointless debate. History is rife with examples of amoral government policies and precedents for secrecy, lies, and crimes against humanity.
   
4. The Incompetence Theory is a logical fallacy: We failed in our response to the hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war is supposedly an abysmal failure… so how could the government pull off controlled demolitions (and cover up thereof) of the twin towers? The broken logic of this argument is apparent when contrasted by the six manned lunar landings, the development & proliferation of nuclear energy and weapons programs, or nanotechnologies as applied to advanced biology and medicine. Governments recruit the brightest minds from the best schools – and there are privatized versions of every resource required to plan and execute a black op at the scale of 9/11 so to say that there’s no way the government would have the ability to do plan and execute the attacks is simpleminded. Is everyone in Washington as tongue-tied and incurious as George W. Bush was during his years as POTUS?
   

But even after exposing these flaws, for the average American, questioning the veracity of the official story is more akin to questioning articles of faith. Therefore, it appears that the decision to not investigate 9/11 is an emotional decision, and those who defend the official story do so almost anti-intellectually; believers of the official story experience a knee-jerk reaction to the truth as a product of their social programming. Evidence of this is how the so-called “debunker” will selectively argue points, dismiss or downplay the significance of evidence, or attempt to cite personal incredulity as a valid counterargument. I assert: One cannot weight the facts of 9/11 and also accept the official narrative, as even the authors of the 9/11 commission report have admitted that they were lied to and obstructed during the course of their investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

2. It is NOT a logical fallacy....

as theories that claim "9/11 was an inside job" would require far more conspirators to pull off. If you can create a coherent government plot that really only requires 19 conspirators, then please provide it.

[reinvestigate911]

3. gratuitous "hand-holding" repost for the guy with the exceptionally astute powers of observation

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html">9/11 a 7-man job?

[SDuderstadt]

5. Can you spot the multitude of inaccurate information in your link?

Let's start with this one...."Cheney was apparently in charge of the entire U.S. government’s counter-terrorism program prior to 9/11, and in charge of ALL 5 of the war games which occurred on 9/11, and Mr. Cheney also coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks".

The claim that Cheney was "in charge of ALL 5 of the war games which occurred on 9/11" is patently absurd and has been debunked repeatedly (which you'd know if you bothered to fact-check your source).

http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_charge_of_norad.html

[reinvestigate911]

4. what proof do you have that it would "require far more conspirators to pull off"?

have you ever heard of compartmentalization?
how about outsourcing?

[SDuderstadt]

6. Are you claiming those to which it was "outsourced" aren't, nonetheless,....

conspirators?

[reinvestigate911]

7. i wish DU was capable of producing challengers that can think for themselves :(

is this why they call it the dungeon?

[SDuderstadt]

8. I CAN think for myself!

Can you? If so, why do you keep resorting to repeatedly debunked CT talking points?

[reinvestigate911]

9. then how do you interpret "Our take..." as the equivalent of being "debunked"?

it's some anonymous someone's opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Are you fucking kidding?

Did you examine the arguments? Do you understand how to evaluate facts, rather than just buy whatever

[AZCat]

14. "Challengers"? Do you think this is some kind of game?

Kids these days. Sheesh...

[Realityhack]

19. Are you seriously going to challenge that point?

If so provide an argument. Otherwise admit that who (insourced / outsourced) does something does NOT determine how much they know about what they are doing.

[Realityhack]

18. My OP posed the specific question...

What do you think happened and how many people do you think knew about it?

Your dodging that question.

If you think demolition was used (for example) you could postulate that the demo crews did not know what they were doing... but how do you get them to plant explosives in a building, and then not recognize after it is destroyed what they did? It is unlikely in the extreme that they could plant demolition charges without figuring it out, so there would have to be a way of dealing with that... tending towards more conspirators.

Compartmentalization? sure. But show me how many people you think would need to be 'in the know' despite such. How many could reasonably be kept 'in the dark'.

As for outsourcing, who does the work is irrelevant to how many people know.

[hack89]

28. It is the coverup that poses the problem

NIST, the FBI, NYPD, FDNY, etc etc had to be in it to some degree or another to hide or destroy all the "evidence". The OCT at least has the simplicity of not requiring a massive cover up.

[Realityhack]

17. You made a number of errors there.

Let's look at just a couple of them.

the official conspiracy theory alleges that it only took 19 radical Islamic fundamentalists with little more than box-cutters and airplane tickets.

Factually incorrect. And I even pointed out the reason in my OP. The fact is the official theory postulates there may have been 20 hijackers AND they had outside help (for example financing). It does NOT postulate they had 'little more than box-cutters and airplane tickets'. These were intelligent people with training, prep work, etc.

why would an alternative theory require any more?

Please tell me you are smart enough to figure that out. I seriously worry about anyone who can't.
SOME theories might require the same number of people or only a couple more.
For example, let us say that the hijackers were hired by Bush... that would be about the same number of people. But that isn't what some people are claiming.
Some people claim (as an example) that all of the world trade center buildings where demolished, that special effects were used to hide the fact that no planes ever existed, and that the pentagon was hit by a missile, or a bomb from inside.
Those types of theories could require a MUCH larger conspiracy. Obviously some parts could be 'compartmentalized' but others could not.
Those theories also assume that the perpetrators were close to 100% positive about a number of things working perfectly, that introduces the likelihood of even more conspirators handling any problems.

I never claimed every theory required more people. That is something you erroneously read into my statement. But some definitely do.

Now, getting back to my OP, what do you think happened and how many people do you think were needed to pull it off... including how many actually knew/or would know after the fact that they were involved.

[Realityhack]

20. From your link...

"A 2-man crew of demolition experts sets the radio-controlled explosives while everyone is out of the building;"

Two men in a matter of a few nights work set charges to demolish 2 buildings? I find that to be a highly questionable figure at best.

[Realityhack]

21. Should read 3 buildings. n/t

[reinvestigate911]

10. false dichotomy: either "hijackers and backers" or "government agents and special effects crews"?

can you please be a little more imaginative or, if it's not asking too much, a little more reality-based?

[seemslikeadream]

12. imaginative? Him?

:rofl:

[Realityhack]

16. Thank you for this substantive addition to the discussion SLAD.

I see you have not posted a response to my initial post. Maybe doing that would lead to a more interesting dialog.

[seemslikeadream]

22. Oh gee SD is THE ONLY ONE that can do that??

[SDuderstadt]

23. The only one who can do WHAT, SLAD?

As usual, your post is unclear. Do you think before you post?

[seemslikeadream]

24. Do you?

[SDuderstadt]

25. Another incoherent post from you....

why am I not surprised?

[seemslikeadream]

26. A special gift for you, I surely did not want you to miss this!

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4990491

[SDuderstadt]

27. I've never met anyone who thought incoherence is a gift....

but there's a first time for everything, as you've amply proven. As I've said many times before, you embarrass all of us liberals when you open your mouth.

[Realityhack]

29. Um...

not only does your post not make any sense at all... I reiterate that your previous post did not further the discussion (do you want to argue that it did?) and that you have not answered the questions in my OP (care to argue that you did?). Furthermore I submit that if you answered the questions in my OP it would lead to a more interesting discussion that name calling about who is creative (do you disagree?). Even if you tried to explain why you think I asked an irrelevant question in my OP it would be more meaningful than your LOL at my creativity (which IIRC constitutes a violation of forum rules... are you trying to get a pizza?).

How about if we discuss something on topic.

[Realityhack]

50. Chirp. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

13. You know, you're really not very good at Logic, either...

Realityhack has certainly not presented a false dichotomy. He has merely listed two of the possible choices, without ever stating there are only those two. Nice try. You need to go back to school or read your Logic text for comprehension. If you had, you'd realize that's not a false dichotomy. Pathetic.

[Realityhack]

15. No it isn't a false dichotomy...

because I didn't exclude other options just listed two that some people here subscribe to. Like asking... what is your opinion as to what god is like... I know some people are Atheists and some believe in a sky daddy... so what do you think god is like.

If it was a poll with only those two options it would be a false dichotomy. But it isn't.

You have chosen to dodge the question and discuss an non-existent logical error.

How about you explain what you think happened... or what bits and pieces you think you have some info on... and how big the conspiracy would need to be to make that work?

[jakeXT]

30. I was watching the Markopolos testimony on the Madoff Ponzi sheme

He told his friends in the Boston area that Madoff was fraud, and obviously big players knew that he was.
Or they had zero exposure when it mattered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/jpmorgan-pulled-out-of-ma_n_162124.html">JPMorgan Pulled Out Of Madoff Funds In Fall 2008: What Did They Know?

Everybody knew, but nobody wanted to throw stones in the glass hous.


WSJ Editor Does Not Recall Getting Markopolos Madoff Tip

"I don’t recall it and it would have come up to me," Paul Steiger said of whistle-blower Harry Markopolos's claim yesterday that senior editors at the paper killed a story on Madoff three years ago because they "respected and feared" him.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/02/wsj_editor_does_not_recall_get.html



He told how he figured out Madoff was a fraud ("It took me about five minutes") and how he proved it ("I did about four hours of modelling").

"There is no light and only darkness," he told the subcommittee. Wall Street, he said, has a "code of silence," and Madoff is held "under penthouse arrest."

The sleuth's choicest words were reserved for the SEC, which he assaulted with a vengeance. "I gift-wrapped and delivered the largest Ponzi scheme in history to them and they couldn't be bothered," he complained.

The SEC did a good job of making Mr Markopolos's case for him; after he left the table, he was replaced by a panel of agency lawyers who refused to say anything about the Madoff case.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sleuth-was-spoton-about-bernie-madoff/2009/02/05/1233423405119.html






All this reminded me of the warnings people got before 911. I asked myself are they part of a conspiracy if they know about it?

There are other examples where people were warned not to go to NY.


Senior Corporate Executives Warned to Leave N.Y. on 9/11: Source

...

The source, who spoke to the Journal on the condition of anonymity, worked at a European branch of the media giant Warner Bros. He served as the number two under the managing director of that office, a man with whom he had developed a close personal friendship. His boss was also friends with one of the senior executives at the head office in Los Angeles. According to the source, he had been told by his director that the executive in L.A. had formerly worked for the CIA and still kept in touch with the agency.

It is not an uncommon practice for the CIA to recruit business executives, particularly individuals who do a lot of international travelling and might be able to use their business contacts to gather information.

......

When the managing director of the overseas Warner Bros. office passed away, the individual who spoke with the Journal was contacted by the senior executive from L.A. about the plans for the memorial service. Senior executives from the company would attend, including from the Warner Bros. parent corporation, Time Warner, headquartered in New York.

When he answered that one of the potential dates for the service was September 11, he was told that would be no good because “something big is happening that day” and the top executives from the New York office would all be travelling out of the city.

When asked further about this big event, the executive replied that it was a confidential matter and disclosed no further details, except to say that it was “not corporate”.

The source told the Journal, “I had no reason to think that the ‘event’ could be anything more than perhaps a junket, an out of town think tank exercise or whatever – I remember that these possibilities ran through my mind.”

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/articles/2008/11/03/senior_executives_warned_911.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

32. You know what this whole thread reminds me of?

This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=268636&mesg_id=268636

Realityhack asks a simple question, and the stalling here is simply unbelievable. If you don't have an approximate number and a rationale in your answer, then you're just bullshitting.

Only one post has done that so far, the number being one and the reason being that Dick Cheney is a Sith Lord far beyond our comprehension.

[jakeXT]

33. I only watched 2 hours of the 4 hours Markopolos thing

He asks a simple question? Really, I thought he asked two.


My question for you is... how big do you think the conspiracy was?
What size conspiracy is needed to explain the events (in your opinion)?


I was delving partly into the first question, I remembered this thread and posted my thoughts I had yesterday.
Should I've started a new thread in your opinion?


When people talk about 911 and conspiracy, they often say too many people had to know it, therefore some argue it is impossible that it was an inside job.
And the (CT/inside job) people answer with the Manhattan project, but I was thinking about how many people knew and just got out of the way, warned friends and family members or just accepted it.
You have a system were few good guys, like the FBI agents, who were sending memos and were blocked and ignored multiple times.
This reminded me of two SEC guys in Boston who encouraged Markopolos to keep going, I think Markopolos wanted to quit years ago, because he saw that nothing happened.

I wonder how many people in this system get frustrated, give up and just accept that they can't change anything.
Are those people part of the conspiracy? What about those who think it's good or just the way things are done and just warn friends, maybe somebody with CIA connections like the guy from Warner I posted earlier?

I think a lot of people knew something, maybe a just a date and/or place. Does this make them complicit by looking away or just acting in their self interest? I don't really know.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. That video's not from the Markopolis part, but the SEC stonewalling Ackerman.

Ackerman was asking simple yes-or-no questions, and the contempt of the SEC stonewallers was pathetic.

What you should have done is answered the simple question that the OP asks. (That is the same question, phrased two different ways.)

Yes, people knowing something and looking away makes them complicit. Give a number and a rationale for the number. Simple.

[jakeXT]

35. I read it as two

My question for you is... how big do you think the conspiracy was?

The first is a number of all people involved


What size conspiracy is needed to explain the events (in your opinion)?

The second is a minimum number, how many people do you need to pull it of.

An example would be (pulled out of an orifice)

1. 125 people active + 10000 people knowing some specifics (varying degrees of knowledge)

2. 80 people active (includes people who have to look away and block investigations)

[Realityhack]

36. That is a fine reading of the question...

Do you have an answer that is not PFA for us to discuss?

I understand people differ on how large a conspiracy can be maintained and their are a LOT of factors... but let's start with what you think happened, how many people were needed, etc.

[jakeXT]

38. Sorry, I don't know....

I believe it was an inside job.
But I won't count how many people in the US or outside were actively involved or knew about it in advance.

And I don't know how many people you need to do it, if you have lots of time you can do it with less people, but it makes the operation more vulnerable.

[Realityhack]

40. That is a fair response.

You say you think it is an inside job. There are a lot of ways that can work, from the government hiring OBL or someone like him to do it basically the way they claim to pre-planted explosives, fake aircraft, and alien energy beams.

What type of conspiracy took place? That would help inform how many people might have been needed (as a minimum number) to pull it off.

[CJCRANE]

31. There are two sides to 9/11 - the trick is to connect them.

There is the LIHOP side in the US. That involves Cheney, Rumsfeld etc who pursued policies and actions that permitted 9/11 to happen.

Then of course there is the Al-Qaeda side overseas - the planners, financiers, handlers and hijackers.

To make it into MIHOP all that needs to be proven is a connection between the actors in the US and the actors overseas. I personally think there is a connection to the financiers and handlers of the hijackers.

[Realityhack]

37. So what you are saying is...

if I understand correctly...
that the events took place pretty much as described by the official story but that they were set into motion by people within our own government?
Therefore the number of conspirators would be... the hijackers, backers, etc (as in the official story) plus a handful of people in the US government.

Am I correct that that is your position?

[CJCRANE]

39. Yes nt

[Realityhack]

41. Ok.

Thanks for answering my OP BTW.
The thing about that theory is that IMO it makes no real testable predictions. I don't think we can possibly show it didn't happen (or that it did). It does however minimize the conspiracy to the point where it would be concealable.

[CJCRANE]

42. Why

do you think there is no mention of the financiers in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Why were the alleged planners kept at black sites for years and tortured to the point where their confessions are pretty much garbage?

[Realityhack]

43. I don't think that is even good circumstantial evidence.

Much less the proof needed for such a claim.

For example the black sites and torture is just how the previous administration thought terrorism should be dealt with. A frightening number of people agree. They want vengeance not justice, they think torture works, they would rather blow something up than get all the details.

I don't think you can point to anything that indicates it was an inside job that can not be equally or better explained by normal Bush admin stupidity.
In fact by definition there would not be. If the conspiracy were small (just telling OBL what to do) there would be no evidence.

If we are talking about someone in the government bankrolling the operation the conspiracy gets bigger. If we start talking about the 9-11 commission being in on a cover up (part or all of it) then it gets even bigger.

So, we come back to... what do you think happened, and how many people would be needed (minimum) to ensure it worked.

[CJCRANE]

44. Your explanation

for the black sites and torture is not entirely rational. Just like "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", superficially it sounds good but in reality it doesn't make much sense.

It is well-known in military circles that torture produces garbage confessions and inaccurate information - just ask John McCain.

So the question remains - why muddy the waters and garble the evidence by using discredited techniques?

Using Occam's Razor I would suggest that my conclusion is the simpler one:
they garbled the evidence because they wanted it to be garbled.

[Realityhack]

45. I dissagree.

While there are a lot of people who do indeed know that torture doesn't work there is a human desire to commit those acts.
The former whitehouse consistently pushed for torture in far more than that one case. They thought it worked. They wanted the vengeance.

I think you are overestimating the rationality of the government. It is not a single actor, and those who are competent are seldom the ones in power.

[CJCRANE]

46. We're arguing about motives

which is often the most difficult thing to prove (in a legal sense).

You give Bush-Cheney the benefit of the doubt in thinking that they were acting in good faith (although incompetently). This seems to be the accepted political consensus...however, the public perception (particularly in NYC) will probably shift closer to my viewpoint over time. So Bushco will be judged in the court of public opinion rather than in a legal venue.

[Realityhack]

47. Again I disagree.

"We're arguing about motives which is often the most difficult thing to prove (in a legal sense)."
Yes we are. Hence my statement that I doubted you could prove anything.
And it is not just in the legal sense.

"You give Bush-Cheney the benefit of the doubt in thinking that they were acting in good faith (although incompetently)."
Sort of but you are using terminology to color the debate. In the absence of contrary evidence this is not just 'the benefit of the doubt' it is the simpler explanation.

"however, the public perception (particularly in NYC) will probably shift closer to my viewpoint over time."
Do you have *any* evidence for that opinion? Personally I think that is your pipe dream. There has been plenty of time since the attacks. I see no indications of a shift toward a Bush conspiracy theory in the public opinion.

"So Bushco will be judged in the court of public opinion rather than in a legal venue."
Yes. But this isn't the issue they will be judged on. It will be on Iraq, Katrina, etc. where real concrete evidence exists.

[CJCRANE]

48. This isn't about evidence - it's about the *interpretation* of evidence.

I can not prove anything to you on a message board - that's why a court of law has a prosecution, defense, judge and jury.

The evidence is presented, each side makes their interpretation and ultimately the jury decides.

As for public opinion - it will depend to a certain extent on the MSM and as things stand they don't seem to have changed for the better so you may be right that 9/11 truth won't be a big issue. We will see.

[Realityhack]

49. Courts of law determine legal truth...

not actual truth (and if we got precise they often don't even rule on that).

You could present me with evidence that I would accept as proof of some things on a message board. For example if you wanted to show that X was not a real fossil but rather a fake you might point to a journal article about it, or point out something the proves it isn't. I could examine that evidence and determine if I thought you were correct and given something concrete 'proving' something isn't much of a problem.

Juries do not determine that type of truth. In court the tomato can be a vegetable, in truth or science it can not be, and I can link to sites explaining that it is not and provide what I think is adequate 'proof' of my position.

In other words a hundred Juries could convict the Bush of planning 9-11 (or of being innocent) but it doesn't mean he did (or didn't) do it.

The problem here is that no real evidence exists to back up your allegation that it was an inside job. You can interpret things however you like, no concrete evidence exists to prove your contention. Unlike say the contention that aircraft hit the twin towers for which loads of evidence exists.

In the absence of such proof I must go with the simpler explanation that our government was not backing the attacks.

--

As for public opinion... I find it highly unlikely the MSM is going to suddenly get the 9-11 conspiracy bug. They played with that, and debunking it, and have set it aside. Unless something incredible happens I don't see that changing. It is old news. The VAST majority of what the truth movement discusses today is the same as what it discussed 5 years ago and was debunked back then.
I expect 9-11 conspiracies will keep to the same outlets that from time to time air 'information' on alien abductions, ghosts, and bigfoot.

[CJCRANE]

51. "no concrete evidence exists to prove your contention.

Unlike say the contention that aircraft hit the twin towers for which loads of evidence exists."

You're comparing apples and oranges. Aircraft hitting the towers is physical evidence. It tells us nothing about the motives of whoever created that physical situation.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the official "incompetence" theory is incorrect and point in the direction of complicity or negligence by certain govt officials. It isn't my job to present that evidence, I'm not a lawyer, journalist, politician, researcher or activist. I'm simply here to present my point of view based on my conclusions from reading about the subject daily for about seven years.

[Realityhack]

52. That makes you a researcher of sorts.

and if you want to "present my point of view" then yes... it is your "job to present that evidence". That is how you go about presenting your point of view to intelligent people.

As for "There is plenty of evidence to show that the official "incompetence" theory is incorrect and point in the direction of complicity or negligence by certain govt officials."
I think the difference between 'incompetence' and 'negligence' is rather slim. And I will agree that mistakes were made and evidence exists to indicate that they were.

However, that is a far cry from complicity and light years from causal action.
Those you have no evidence for. If you think you do... present it.