What do you believe happened on 9/11 in terms of probabilities?

[HamdenRice]

The worst aspect of the debate about 9/11 is that most of us on both sides -- whether aligned with the 9/11 Truth movement, or skeptical of 9/11 questions -- tend to make our own claims and characterize the other side's claims in all or nothing terms. I was very depressed to see Bronco's flight 77 site in which he said that everyone who believes that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon also believes in pods. Well, I am not sure what hit the Pentagon, but I surely don't believe in pods. How can the skeptics make such certain claims about what they characterize as the collective beliefs of people on the other side of the debate?

That got me thinking about a different way of stating one's beliefs about the core issues of the 9/11 Truth Movement -- namely in probability terms. So let me start as an example by listing some of those claims and giving you my personal probablities:

Claim: The financier of the 9/11 attacks was Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad and he met with the leadership of the Dept of Defense, CIA, State Dept., National Security Council and congressional intelligence leadership in the days before and after 9/11. Because of multiple news reports and admissions, I rate the probability of the meetings occurring at 100%. However, it is not proved conclusively that Gen. Ahmad was indeed the financier. The context, of long term connections between the ISI and CIA, including funding of terrorism argues in favor of this claim. There was an shady intermediary, however, Saeed Sheikh, and when you trace back almost all claims that Sheikh sent the funds on behalf of Ahmad, they seem to be based on Times of India reporting that is likely to be influenced by Indian intelligence, which obviously would like to paint Pakistan in the worst light possible, as well as French news reports that seem to be based on the timing of telephone records of calls between Ahmad and Sheikh and money transfers between Sheikh and Mohammed Atta. There is also reporting by Daniel Pearl in the Wall St. Journal, but this seems to have been removed from the Lexis/Nexis database. Anyone who has the original reporting by Pearl, please post it. Also, even if Ahmad was the financer, the meetings strong, strongly suggest government complicity, but do not prove it. I would rate the probability of the financier part of the claim at 80%.

Claim: That Osama bin Laden was visited by CIA officials in the summer of 2001. This is based on reporting by French news sources; it is also claimed that this information was leaked by French intelligence in order to warn the Bush administration against using 9/11 to attack Iraq. But intelligence leaks information as well as disinformation. Because it has not been counterclaimed, I would rate this claim at 70%.

Claim: WTC 7 collapsed as a result of controlled demolition. Steel framed buildings have not collapsed as a result of fires. Although WTC 7 had an unusual structure, because it needed to span a power substation, and contained diesel fuel, it is possible that it collapsed as a result of fire, but it doesn't seem likely. Also I am not convinced that a failure of the unusual span over the power substation would cause a global collapse such as we saw. Of course, it just looks like a controlled demolition. Finally, the fact that investigators simply cannot provide an explanation of the collapse is convincing in and of itself. In the context of other factors, I would rate this claim at about 60%.

Claim: The twin towers collapsed as a result of controlled demolition. I see no reason why planes and fires could not cause the collapse of the towers, although just because they could, does not mean that they did. The eyewitness reports of secondary explosions which are not contradicted, suggests something other than collapse as a result of the crashes and fires. On the other hand, the south tower looks like it is buckling and collapsing as a result of the damage and fires. The north tower is much more anomalous, because the strongest part of the structure, the core columns, seem to collapse first. The collapse also has to be seen in the context of other anomalies, especially the collapse of WTC 7. I would rate this claim at 45%.

Claim: No plane at the Pentagon. Generally I am a skeptic of this claim. What has begun to change my mind was the NY Magazine article, which stated quite simply that if you look at the video released by the Pentagon, there simply is no plane there. To me that is the most damning evidence. It's a simple point, but if this is the government's strongest evidence that a 757 flew into the Pentagon, that is quite pathetic. The bizarre flight path of the plane, which is uncontradicted, the pilot's obvious lack of skill before this maneuver, and the failure of the Pentagon's own air defenses seem almost impossible to explain within the official theory framework. On the other hand there were eyewitness accounts, and I am a firm believer that if there is a conspiracy, it is very, very small one, unable to manufacture eyewitness accounts. I would rate this claim at 20%

My main point in giving these ratings is simply that none of the claims -- whether mainstream claims or claims about pods, holograms and alien lizard overlords -- can be proven or disproven conclusively. I think that if we talk about how likely any claim is rather than that it is obvious or obviously tin foil hattery, we are more likely to have a fruitful debate.

So what are your probabilities?

[Bryan Sacks]

1. excellent idea for a thread

I want to think about these 'probabilities' some more, but it's a very interesting (if imperfect - what isn't?) approach to sorting through differences. This is inductive, not deductive reasoning, and if you are fair-minded you must admit that probability is the name of the game.

For now I only wish to flesh out the first of your claims: remember that Mahmud Ahmad was dismissed shortly after the Times of india stories broke (even though his dismissal was done on the pretext of 'reshuffling' Musharraf's cabinet). His dismissal adds credence to the claim in my view.

Further, important elements of the claim have been confirmed by at least one Pakistani journalist of apparent high reputation
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GA27Df05.html

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Good article

I've never seen US assistance to Pakistan quantified before, but it sure sounds like a pretty penny here:
"So what is the real extent of US largess to Pakistan since September 11, 2001? US-based Indian analyst Kaushik Kapisthalam recently came out with a study being widely quoted in the Indian media. According to him, the US provided Pakistan with $600 million in emergency assistance to save Islamabad from defaulting on repayment of foreign loans. This was followed by the writing off of $1.5 billion of Pakistani debt, pressure on the International Monetary Fund to pay more than $1.5 billion for poverty reduction, pressure on Western donors for rescheduling the bulk of Pakistan's $38 billion external debt, and annual economic assistance of $500 million to $700 million."

"Pakistan received a total of more than $1.1 billion in military and economic assistance in 2002 alone. It also received $1.32 billion in military assistance between January 2003 and September 2004. Meanwhile, the United States pays Pakistan $100 million every month for using military bases and facilities on Pakistani territory."

[Bushwick Bill]

2. Very solid.

I am pretty much in line with you, although I would probably up the WTC 7 probability a little. It is funny how your viewpoints change. I used to be a Pentagon no plane guy, and now would put the no plane percentage likelihood at about 20. As far as the main towers, I was never a big demo advocate, but Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, the photos of 47 vertical columns, and the video of how quick and explosive the collapse was, have me around a 50/50 on that now.

I would like to add:

Likelihood that a Saudi or intelligence person made the put options: 80%.
Likelihood that the WTC black boxes were found: 75%.
Likelihood that Hani flew the Pentagon bird: 10%.
Likelihood that certain FBI agents and other moles deliberately spiked investigations to protect the hijacker legend: 75%.
Likelihood that Sibel Edmonds knows how the patsies/hijackers were funded: 95%.
Likelihood that wargames were deliberately set to coincide with real/constructed hijackings: 95%.
Likelihood that the Flight 93 crash site is real. I just can't figure out that one.

[rman]

3. re

Claim: The financier of the 9/11 attacks was Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad and he met with the leadership of the Dept of Defense, CIA, State Dept., National Security Council and congressional intelligence leadership in the days before and after 9/11.
Looks like Mahmoud is an actor in the financing of 9-11. I'm not so sure he is "the" financier. This i base mainly on what i've heard from Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh.
Likelihood of involvement in 9-11 financing: 90%.


Claim: That Osama bin Laden was visited by CIA officials in the summer of 2001.
I've heard the claim but i'm not familiar with it. Based on general CIA/OBL background, likelihood of contact between OBL and CIA not very long before 9-11: 90%.


Claim: WTC 7 collapsed as a result of controlled demolition.
Just look at it. 100%


Claim: The twin towers collapsed as a result of controlled demolition.
Not as obvious at 7, but likelihood of natural collapse: negligible. Likelihood of CD, let's say 90%.


Claim: No plane at the Pentagon.
I think the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a 767 crashing into it. Still a plane, maybe a large plane was probably involved, and most likely some kind of explosives caused much of the damage at the Pentagon. Likelihood of OCT re Pentagon being true: 10%. Likelihood of literally "no plane": 10%. If i may interpret the "no plane" theory loosely, likelihood 90%.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. I would have put either 100% or 0%

... or near as damn it for all of them, so it would be a fairly futile exercise for me, however...

No plane on the Pentagon stills: there appears to be something there, but if it's a 757, I'm a monkey's uncle. Then again, given that the video stills are crude fakes, what difference does it make?

Indian intelligence: Amir Mir (a sort of Pakistani Sy Hersh) writes:
"Omar sent a draft for $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the men who crashed an aircraft into the World Trade Center in New York. The draft, sources say, was sent in the summer of 2000 employing a pseudonym. Atta is thought to have returned $15,600 through the hawala channel just before the attack. The FBI believes that Omar met Atta during one of his visits to Kandahar and knew of the plans for the September 11 strikes. Further investigations revealed that the money transferred into Atta's account was actually provided to Omar by former ISI chief Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed. These findings apparently proved to be the proverbial last nail for Mahmood who was subsequently sent home on October 8, 2001 by General Musharraf."
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/dec/29spec1.htm
Mir is supposed to have added something to the story (I never did find out what) when it first broke. He's also written lots of other 9/11 and terrorism stories, had his car blown up by the ISI, been fired a fair few times from his job and written a book, The True Face of Jehadis, which is well worth a read if you're interested in Pakistani politics.

The Sunday Times is supposed to have confirmed the story from the US end. I can't find that article, but there are plenty of references to it on the net, for example:
"“It would appear that the ISI had its own reasons for holding Sheikh for a week before announcing to the world that he was in custody,” the report says. “One thing it would have wanted to do was to make sure its protégé did not give more away than absolutely necessary about his relationship with Pakistan’s intelligence services.”"

"This “missing week” shed new light on Indian reports last October that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, Director-General of the ISI, had been forced into retirement after FBI investigators uncovered credible links between him and Sheikh in the wake of September 11 attacks."

"According to these reports, the FBI team established that in early September, Ahmed had instructed Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, leader of the hijackers who crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11."

The ISI basically sprung OSS from jail in India, there's no way he wasn't an ISI asset (remember him demanding the US sell fighters to Pakistan?), as well as an Al Qaeda operative. Then again, there's no proof that Ahmed knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do and when.

[Kevin Fenton]

6. Transcript

This is supposed to be a transcript of a short sections of the negotiations that led to the exchange of the hijacked Indian plane for Saeed Sheikh and two others. The overheard voice/prompter is supposed to be an ISI handler:

Hijacker to Indian negotiator: Come and take charge of the aircraft.

Negotiator: Okay, we're coming.

Overheard voice (in Urdu): Don't release the aircraft before you retrieve your baggage from the cargo hold.

Hijacker to negotiator: Hum plane release nahin kar sakte (We cannot release the aircraft).

Negotiator to hijacker: It will take time to clear the cargo hold and segregate your baggage and then there will be further delay. We guarantee you we will take the designated baggage of the passengers and return yours.

Overheard voice: Nahin, woh bahut zaroori hain. (No it is very important).

Hijacker to prompter: Yeh (the Indians) nahin maan rahein hain (These Indians are not agreeing).

Overheard voice: Tell them the baggage contains explosives.

The hijackers were subsequently allowed to remove their baggage. It later transpired the baggage held diaries containing phone numbers and addresses of their intelligence contacts in Nepal.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/oct/12spec1.htm