Help me, here...

[Texaroo]

I understand LIHOP and MIHOP and have made my judgements as to what happened on 9/11, but I have a general question:

What evidence do you have that any government unit, commission, group, agency or whatever possessed the COMPETENCE to carry out such a complex plan? What has our government EVER done to suggest it works that cleverly?

I have worked in government, and it always amazes me how people attribute it with any ability to be either clever or nimble. It's hard for me to take any conspriacy theory seriously unless it suggests a pattern and some continuity.

Where's the skepticism on the government's ability to perform?

[theobscure]

1. selective choice of the evidence to look at....

I copied this from a previous post I made in another thread. It is relevant to your question. Closing your eyes to consideration of the committal of a crime until the why and how of the potential crime are fully explained or understood is a criteria by which most all crimes would go unsolved and unpunished:


"People always want to start with wanting answers about "why our government would do this?" or "how would they have pulled this off?" My answer is always among the lines of:

Since when do you expect to have a motive and all the details of a crime before you even begin the investigation into that crime? If that was the standard for criminal investigation in this country, our prisons would be nearly empty. The motive is often the last thing we know and people are investigated and even convicted of crimes every day without really knowing their motive.

There are many elements of a crime that are not uncovered until an investigation is completed or even at trial. Often times, in fact most of the time, it becomes completely unnecessary to uncover every aspect of a crime because sufficient other aspects of the crime have been uncovered in the course of the investigation or revealed in the course of a trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed and by whom.

Nearly everyone would have to agree that this standard for dealing with criminal prosecution has served us well over the course of our nation's history. Why would it not be the sufficient standard in regard to the biggest crime in our nation's history?"


Yes, there are people who have come to conclusions (theories) about certain details of government complicity in 9/11. All this shows, and it shows it convincingly, is that there are ample grounds on which to suspect that 9/11 did not and could not have happened the way the government is telling us it did. Some of the evidence stands on it's own as compelling enough to warrant an independent investigation. I also personally believe that the cover-up and whitewash pertaining to aftermath issues (which I have discussed in other threads) and the inadequacy of the government's internal self "investigation" of the 9/11 attacks are conclusive evidence that the attacks themselves did not happen as officially stated.

[petgoat]

38. Hey Jude, you are an asset. Welcome aboard!

Hope you'll make it to the June conference in Chicago.

[file83]

2. What makes you think that 9/11 was such a "complex" project?

You're skepticism of the "government's" ability to perform is a generalization.

True, many parts of government, especially the parts that are supposed to "protect" or "help" people are very inept and screw up all the time (Katrina).

However, the generalization overlooks the ONE THING the government is good at: KILLING. The DoD had a $400+ billion a year budget in 2001, not including the unaccounted billions of dollars it acquires covertly for black ops. Our military has thousands of THE BEST trained covert military experts in the world.

If our government knows how to do ANYTHING well, especially when there is a large political/financial "reward" at the end of it, it's how to destroy things.

[hack89]

3. The killing was the easy part...

it's the government's ability to cover it up that I question. With both the CIA and NSA leaking like sieves lately, I find it hard to believe that a conspiracy of this magnitude could be covered up. When you consider things like the NORAD stand down, the NIST whitewash, drone planes, and what ever CT you believe in, we are suddenly looking at a lot of people to keep quite. You honestly think that the Bush administration threw this together in less than a year and everyone they picked to participate did so with no questions or qualms?

[CJCRANE]

4. People aren't keeping quiet

it's the MSM that's keeping a lid on it.

The main newspapers and TV stations in the english-speaking world are owned by only a handful of rich billionaires so it's easy for them to squelch any story they don't like.

[hack89]

17. But it would be on the web, would it not? nt

[dailykoff]

24. It's all over the web.

Why do you think they're going after Google's data?

[hack89]

27. OK n/t

[CJCRANE]

35. and in books..nt

[JohnyCanuck]

36. Sibel Edmonds is a prime example of what happens to whistleblowers.

Her testimony as to the amazing irregularities and breaches of security within the FBI tranlation department where she started working shortly after 9/11 were ignored by the official 911 Commission of Inquiry, and even worse, by the gutless, corporate media who would let her hang out to dry without a qualm and let the guilty parties who attacked their country go free rather than rock the boat by printing a full account of her accusastions and charges.

Whistleblower says Government is Obstructing 911 Investigation

SNIP

Edmonds was hired just after 911 to translate pre-911 intercepts. Edmonds worked with the FBI and the NSA. She discovered foul play, for example, Edmonds said action was taken pre-911 to block the transfer of intelligence translations from counter-intelligence to counter-terrorism. She went all way up the chain to FBI Director Robert Muellar.

Edmonds was told not to pursue the issue. She was offered a raise and a position as a special agent, and finally she was accused of reporting these issues to Congress. Agents came to her house and confiscated her computer to look for e-mails to Congress and did not find anything. Two weeks later she was forced to take a polygraph, which she passed. She decided it was time to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee. She briefed it and gave it documents. Two weeks later she was terminated, on March 22, 2001, by the Department of Justice.

SNIP

Edmonds made an analogy with The War on Drugs and said the government has decided not to pursue the middle man or the people on top, when it comes to The War on Terror. She said that money laundering, weapons procurement, and the narcotics trade are connected to, and may lead to, the real culprits behind 911.

Sibel Edmonds said that some of the people responsible for 911 are outsiders, who work closely with certain elements within each branch of the government. She said that we should look towards lobbying groups who are registering as agents of foreign governments, such as International Advisors Inc., the lobbying company set up by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, which is registered with the State Department as agents of Turkey.

http://suitcaseman.gnn.tv/blogs/12771/Whistleblower_says_Government_is_Obstructing_911_Investigation

From Sibel's letter to the Keane Commission:

Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11; while many agentswere working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks; the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI’s largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking
important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor’s several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI’s higher- level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General’s Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI’s Arabic language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Whydoes your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received?

Complete letter available as PDF here:
http://www.justacitizen.org/articles_documents/Letter_to_Kean.pdf

Sibel Edmonds web site www.justacitizen.org

[JohnyCanuck]

37. And here is a case where eyewitness testimony that conflicts

with the official conspiracy theory was ignored and omitted from the Keane Report.

Billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11.

Rodriguez was the last survivor pulled from the rubble of the north tower of the WTC, and was responsible for all stairwells within the tower.Rodriguez represented family members of 9/11 victims and testified to the 9/11 Commission that bombs were in the north tower but his statements were completely omitted from the official record.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm

[file83]

7. I think you and I have "discussed" this before. I know we don't agree but

the "cover up" isn't as difficult as you may think, as long as each component of the conspiracy was properly "compartmentalized". Some of the more "out there" ideas such as swapped planes with missing passengers I agree would be nearly impossible to cover up.

But placing charges in the buildings would be an easy one. You just make them think that they are "protecting" national security or saving lives or preventing more "unnecessary" deaths.

"But sir, why are we rigging these towers?"

"Because in the event that a terrorist successfully compromises the building, we can't risk having the building "fall over" laterally across 3 city blocks. Tens of thousands of people could die. We must evacuate as many people as possible, but in order to save MORE lives, we may have to sacrifice a few thousand to bring the building down, as a safety measure."

"What about WTC 7, why are we rigging that?"

"That building houses, Secret Service & CIA offices. If that building has to EVER be completely evacuated, then for reasons of National Security, we must bring the building down. We can't afford to have the enemy infiltrate those unoccupied offices."

So on and so on. The hijackers too, would have NO CLUE they were being allowed to get away with their terror plot. They would have no idea that FBI investigations into their terrorist cell were being diverted. As far as they knew, they were going to hijack some planes. Whether they flew the planes themselves or the planes were being remotely piloted by "UAV techonolgy", remains debated.

All the other aspects of this conspiracy are easily compartmentalized as well, and so, don't require MUCH of a cover up because all the participants THINK they know something the public doesn't know: that what they did was "good" for the country.

The small group at the top of this plan, the group "in the know" of the big picture are the ones that WANTED and were MOTIVATED and would BENEFIT from the conspiracy. They remain silent for obvious reasons.

[hack89]

16. You and I have such drastically different views of human nature ..

we will never agree. I just hope I never become as cynical as you are. One reason I am a democrat is I believe that people are fundamentally moral and honest. I also give them more credit for their intelligence than you do. You really believe not one person would have figured out that they were duped? If the conspiracy is so obvious that even you can spot it, why wouldn't they?

[dailykoff]

25. The U.S. has a prison population in excess of 2 million.

That dog won't hunt.

[hack89]

28. So we are to judge the 298 million not in prison by the 2 million

that are in prison? That is cynical.

[dailykoff]

30. Americans regularly commit heinous crimes.

Call it cynical if you like, but it's a fact.

[hack89]

42. Americans regularly commit great acts of kindness and courage..

call it what ever you want but it's a fact. Which standard should I judge you by?

[dailykoff]

45. The standard of reality.

I don't like it but demolition is a fact that we've got to deal with because the threat posed by the psychopaths who did it is great. The U.S. and the world are in danger.

[file83]

34. Nazi Germany - 6 million Jews were killed - by order of Government.

You KNOW it's possible. I'm not cynical, I'm aware. I have a BS in Psychology and I've studied what humans are capable of doing. I've studied how easy it is to 'trick' people. I've studied how humans 'trick' themselves.

Don't get me wrong, humans can do wonderful things, and I enjoy and study those things as well. But humans are equally capable of doing horrible things, and I simply know better than to put on rose colored glasses when it comes to exploring the possibilities/limits in these 9/11 crimes.

I mean, if you think 19 people can convince themselves that it's "okay", even "great" to try and kill 10,000 people by flying jets into buildings, what makes you think there couldn't be 19 people at the "top" of the U.S. Government that are just as murderous with the similar "righteous" goals (just based on different principles)?

Both groups are human.

[Rich Hunt]

49. you misunderstand "government", then

The Nazis were propped up by all sorts of outside money flowing into Nazi Germany.

Nazism wouldn't have been possible without the backing of international (and filthy rich) anti-Semites.

Fascism is corporate government, not government by itself.

[file83]

51. My point remains: Humans are capable of HORRIBLE atrocities.

What do you mean I "misunderstand" the term government? All I stated was the most basic of facts.

Hitler's Nazi Germany had a "government". Agree? That "government" ordered Germans to murder millions of Jews. Agree? Good.

Why you claim I have a "misunderstanding" is curious, because I agree with the details you presented. It's just that the details weren't very important to the basic tenet that Nazi Germany had a "government".

So, it seems that you are arguing with a misunderstanding you had concerning MY intentions/motivations for writing that post. The previous poster (hack89) trys to claim that human nature doesn't allow for "horrible" things to happen, especially from people in power of a "government".

So I responded with a historical reference that blasted his (hack89's) naive assertions out of the water.

[patdem]

61. I will tell you one human condition I suffer from..I feel like a peeping

tom everytime I come in this room. And I believe in LIHOP or MIHOP. I have this on my list of forums, but I feel very strange everytime I visit this room, because of what it ACTUALLY means. It is VERY frightening to believe our government was complicit in these acts. I was not there, but I saw it unfolding in real time on my TeeVee, and even then it was very traumatic. It is like watching your father kill your mother. I can understand why people with less political attention could find it UTTERLY impossible to believe in that complicity, so until the ABSOLUTE proof is available (which will NEVER happen) the majority will refuse to believe it. This is Goebbles ABSOLUTE BIG LIE of which he spoke!

[petgoat]

40. "different views of human nature"

Have you never read Shakespeare, hack?

People are fundamentally moral, I agree, but power tends to corrupt.

You really believe not one person would have figured out that they were duped?

When you can kill a President, a Presidential candidate, a civil rights leader, and a Senator
right out in the open, how can you think the dupes were not quietly killed?

[petgoat]

39. "looking at a lot of people to keep quite"

How many exactly?

Besides the al Qaeda team, I count about ten. Rummy, Cheney, Myers, and Condi to do nothing.
Frasca and Maltbie to thwart FBI investigations. Somebody to tell al Qaeda when the war games
would paralyze the air defense.

Now what's so complicated about that?

[hack89]

43. The FBI investigator, the NIST engineers, ,,

all the air force people who were stood down, all the people who wired the building, the people who prepared the remote control aircraft, all of academia who would question the NIST report, etc, etc,
It

It's not the plot but the coverup - how many thousands of people who were honestly trying to figure out what happened only to come face to face with someone telling them to ignore the truth and tell a lie.

[dailykoff]

44. Like two bullets in the head?

That's not exactly an incentive to tell the truth.

[hack89]

55. And of course you can prove that this has happened?

No offense, but I see no reason to just take your word for it.

[dailykoff]

57. It happened on March 18, 2006.

But don't take my word for it:

http://wcco.com/local/local_story_080101653.html (CBS News)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=78766&mesg_id=78766

[petgoat]

52. Compartmentalization, hack.

What FBI investigator? Sibel Edmonds shows what happens to whistleblowers, and she has a sugar-daddy
husband and no kids to worry about.

What NIST engineers? By compartmentalizing the investigation and framing it dishonestly, it can be
manipulated. "Find out how fire caused the collapse" eliminates alternative hypotheses. Remember the
true mandate of the report, suggesting changes to building standards, assumes that fires and aircraft
impact caused the collapse. Look what happened to Kevin Ryan when he talked out of turn. It's too
bad professionals are such wusses, but they all get used to self-censoring.

Air Force people who were stood down: if the War Games were classified, they can't talk about them.
Look at Mercutio. He disappeared after I asked him if he was allowed to say "I can't talk about the war games".

All the people who wired the building: al Qaeda could have set the explosives. Presumably the
hijackers (if any) had support personnel who are not talking. Those who installed the explosives could
very easily be dead.

People who prepared the remote control aircraft: you haven't forgotten all those Raytheon people who
(supposedly) died on the planes?

All of academia who would question the NIST report: No engineer with a reputation would question the
NIST report publicly when he didn't have the information or the resources to mount a substantive
challenge. It takes a physics professor to challenge it on grounds of freshman physics.

[hack89]

54. OK n/t

[theobscure]

5. good points...also,

Why would we assume that their plans went off without a hitch? In fact, looking at the evidence, it certainly looks likely that all did not go according to plan. Some of it looks so obvious that it's actually turned out helpful for them in supporting a climate of disbelief.

Also, a quick look at history should allow anyone to overcome their incredulity about how a government could pull this off. How could a government keep such a thing secret? Ever heard of the Manhattan Project and Tuskegee Experiments? Why would the government ever do such a things to it's own citizens? Ever hear of Operation Northwoods or the Reichstag Fire? Why wouldn't someone in the know have had the sense or courage to stop them? Ever asked yourself the same question about Hitler or the numerous other examples of people throughout history who have hijacked government in the pursuit of evil and could have been stopped if just one brave person had acted.

You must also keep in mind that the planning and direction of these attacks requires only a very small inner circle. Everyone else is just following orders. Once the deed is done, every one involved is complicit and has proof enough that any mea culpas would instantly put yourself and your family in grave danger. There is also the legitimate belief and fear for an individual considering coming forward of, will I be believed? The fact is that if others were not to follow suit in coming forward that individual would most likely be easily discredited. Why risk the welfare of yourself and your family if the likelihood is that it will do no good anyway?

[lightbulb]

15. more good points... also

The fact is that if others were not to follow suit in coming forward that individual would most likely be easily discredited. Why risk the welfare of yourself and your family if the likelihood is that it will do no good anyway?

This is why it is so important to keep pushing questions as deep into the mainstream as possible. Only when potential whistle blowers feel that the climate is safe for them and their loved ones will they start to emerge from the shadows. There is potential for critical mass to be achieved here, with more and more people coming forward. That said, we should tip our hats to Mr. Sheen for the boost last week!

[we can do it]

6. Why Is It Easier To Think 19 Dudes with Box-cutters Could Accomplish 9/11,

....than the government? Who had more resources? Who had motive?

[hack89]

18. The 19 dudes didn't have to worry about a coverup.

the act was relatively simple - it is the coverup that is orders of magnitude harder.

[eomer]

20. They don't have to do a 100% coverup -- they can also use disinformation.

Like, for example, they could have moles on this and other forums who plant fake theories and other moles who obfuscate and confuse the true ones.

I'm just sayin'.

[hack89]

21. You are right ...

I knew I couldn't fool such a brilliant mind such as yours. :eyes:

Doesn't take much to get you out of your comfort zone does it? If all you have right out of the gate is a personal attack, then I guess we know what you have to contribute to the discussion.

[eomer]

22. You're right. That did come across as snarky.

I like to discuss the substance and stay away from the personal stuff. I slipped up.

[eomer]

23. But...

while stating clearly that I'm not talking about you or any other present company...

you do agree with me that disinformation is a technique they could and would use if they LIHOP or MIHOP?

[hack89]

26. Sure, but ..

it might not be in the form you expect. Have you ever considered that some of the wilder 911 theories might also be disinfo to allow all theories to be painted as moonbat? Why attack from just one direction?

[eomer]

29. Yes, some of the wilder theories and even some of the less wild ones

could be disinfo.

Also, the use of the "conspiracy theory" label has probably been a strategery. (That makes me a conspiracy theory conspiracy theorist.) I can see that here it is thrown around in good natured kidding for the most part, but out in the real world it is a real tactic that would make it pretty difficult for any kind of a controversial finding to get traction even if it were proved beyond doubt, at least if the MSM didn't want it to get traction.

[salvorhardin]

31. What prevents conspiracy theories from gaining traction

Is the style and manner in which they are argued. One of the biggest strikes against a MIHOP/LIHOP coverup in my opinion is precisely the fact that a lot of the conspiracy theories are originating from very questionable sources, such as holocaust deniers. Even assuming they were true, which I don't, why would a reporter or journalist risk their career on reporting the ranting of a holocaust denier or a cult leader? Especially when so much of what these people put out is repeatedly proven to be deceptive and/or fraudulent?

[eomer]

32. True, there is definitely an issue with how some of the arguments are made

but even when the arguments are sound and the facts are solid, the CT label is still used as a way to derail a true theory.

Just look at the election problem. There have been hundreds of true reports of serious problems with our election system. Over a period of years the MSM has used the CT label to dismiss them. Only now the truth is starting to become too much to hide.

[salvorhardin]

33. I agree

There are definite questions about how 9-11 occurred when there appeared to be ample warning ahead of time, just as there are factual reports of problems with our system of elections and all too often anomalies that fall outside of mainstream beliefs are labeled as conspiracy theories. And just for the record, I do agree that there are real conspiracies.

Suspicion of authority is good. All I'm arguing for is for people to be as rigorously skeptical of the theories being floated and the people floating them as they are of the official narrative.

[rman]

8. What, you think all the competent people are outside the government?

Let's not flatter ourselves.

There's not much basis for skepticism on the government's ability to perform, unless perhaps you think that Iraq and Katrina were accidents. It's just that their interests are not the same as ours.
Sometimes they screw up, ie Bay of Pigs, but often they succeed, ie Iran-Contra, JFK, MLK.

A big chunk of pattern and continuity is exposed in
JFK II: The Bush Connection
http://madcowpolitics.com/jfk2bb.wmv

[Rich Hunt]

48. sometimes organized crime succeeds as well...

How come you're not looking at them?

[rman]

58. What makes you think i'm not looking at organized crime?

If you'd have watched the docu that i linked, you'd know that the mafia is in fact a part of it.

An argument can be made that it is in fact just the mafia - except that it has infiltrated governments, government agencies, the business- and financial world to such an extent that it has become the government, the agencies, etc, and the people who take part in it do not come just from traditional mafia circles. In these schemes the traditional mafia serves as a pool of handy men; assassins, "plumbers" etc.

[Duer 157099]

9. The very fact that there are so many unanswered questions

and contradictory evidence is proof enough for me of their incompetence.

[HamdenRice]

10. It only takes two or three ...

My personal interpretation of LIHOP/MIHOP is that what I think happened took very few people, perhaps only three or four, namely Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, perhaps Wolfowitz and Rove as well.

National security decision making is extremely centralized. Information flows up to the president (or in the case of this administraiton, the vice president), a decision is made and commands flow down.

All that was required for LIHOP is that the information came into the office of the president and vice president and they did nothing. This is pretty much what Richard Clarke alleges, although no one can know the internal thoughts of Bush and why he did nothing -- ie incompetence or LIHOP. Even Clarke would not have known what was going on, although I am amazed he has not drawn the LIHOP conclusion from his own facts.

MIHOP only requires the same scenario, but that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld sent orders down concerning the air force drills that kept pilots away from the hijacked planes, and other confusions of the day. Also it would only take Bush/Cheney ordering funds to be sent from the CIA's Pakstan budget to the ISI to fund the hijackers.

Also the reason that presidents and prime ministers meet face to face is to make agreements that even their highest civil servants remain unaware of. Perhaps Pakistan's PM or ISI Chief would also have been involved.

I doubt that more than 10 people were involved whether the scenario was LIHOP or MIHOP.

[reprehensor]

11. Amalgam Virgo

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AVE_STE.html

[stickdog]

12. The Manhattan Project, anyone?

Your argument is 100% specious.

Does ANY unit, commission, group, agency or whatever have COMPETENCE to carry out such a complex plan? If so (and the fact that the towers came down proves as much), our "shadow governmenr" certainly has the means, motive, opportunity and competence to hire such a group.

[CJCRANE]

13. The govt

of the richest country in the world with a military budget bigger than the rest of the world put together could never have flown a few planes and demolished a couple of buildings.

See how ridiculous that sentence sounds?

[Duer 157099]

14. Here are the extenuating circumstances:

1) just after 9/11, the whole country, and world, was in such shock, and the perps were so quickly identified, that people just couldn't or didn't focus on the details of what really happened.

2) then, the war in Afghanistan began, followed by Iraq, which put us in the "at war" status where questioning the government became equated with sedition.

3) couple those with a media controlled by the white house, and you get our current situation

Meaning, their incompetence was covered up by the 3 elements listed above. Only now are people beginning to reexamine 9/11.

[CJCRANE]

46. Not to mention

the *nthr*x...

[Jose Diablo]

19. Don't kid yourself

The stuff about Katrina and the lack of response as proof of incompetence of the government is 'male bovine processed green plant material of a grain variety, otherwise known as BS. A conclusion of 'incompetence' is a way to excuse what was done and not done.

Governments, ours included, are quite competent in what is decided to be done.

Either LIHOP or MIHOP, both are a way to say, they done it. Regardless of if they were or were not sitting in the pilot's seat.

[rman]

41. hmm, hit n run post?

[Rich Hunt]

47. ha ha - good question

I love how the government is bureaucratic, incompetent and insensitive, but all of a sudden is quite capable of pulling off a terrorist feat with boxcutters.

And how exactly did they benefit? How does 'government' benefit by losing government employees - not just police and fire, but employees of other agencies?

How does "government" benefit by attacking one of the principle symbols of public / private partnership - the World Trade Center?

And since WHEN is "the government" a monolith?

Honestly, do any of these people work in government or know any REAL government employees?

[CJCRANE]

50. False argument.

No one said the whole government did it.

[stickdog]

56. Once again, this whole argument is specious.

Did our government put a man on the moon?

Did our goverment develop an atomic bomb?

Did our government competently fight WWII?

Did our government oversee the successful construction of the F-18 fighter?

Is everybody in every US government lab incompetent?

Is everybody in every government intelligence agency also incompetent?

You make MY point when you say "since WHEN is 'the government' a monolith."

[rman]

59. Indeed, since WHEN is "the government" a monolith?

Perhaps some parts of government are more competent then others - given that "the government" is not a monolithic? Again i mention Iran-Contra, Manhattan project, Chile/Allende.

How does "the government" benefit?
To instill fear in the population in order to drum up popular support for war. Where have you been these past 3 years?

[Hutzpa]

53. You must have worked outside.....

with doors firmly shut in your face.

[neoblues]

60. They did make mistakes...

Probably hundreds of them; the thing is, in an operation like this--especially given the size, the "excuse" of incompetence works in their favor! They were competetent enough to succeed; all other screw ups--including all the pieces of evidence that indicate a conspiracy and especially those that appear to be due to incompetence just add to the mass of confusion--keep people arguing over tidbits and make the story all but unprovable.

Alas, when they have the power to confiscate and destroy evidence and sideline any serious investigation while also being able to control what gets reported in the mass media; they can do anything. They can even stand there and say up is down and down is up and deny the obvious and there's nothing anyone can say or do or prove. I would go so far as to say that if we had audio/video of a meeting of the main players (Bush, Cheney... etc) all having a meeting and clearly saying they planned to facilitate the upcoming hijack attempt and to line the pockets of one of their wealthy compadres they would arrange for thermite charges to be planted in the three WTC buildings, add explosives to the aircraft (at least the plane that hit the pentagon--to make the official story truly implausible which would have the effect of weakening the position of and causing contention between the conspiracy researchers--who would be right that the Pentagon appeared to be hit by a missile for lack of collateral damage and high-explosive type flash/smoke, but have many witnesses to the actual airliner to refute them (wheels within wheels within wheels)), and ensure massive and comprehensive recovery of all the evidence--after all, they'd be investigating a national catastrophe; except that their purpose would be to hide/destroy the evidence, as well as admitting to the planning of investing on futures just prior to the attack (hey, one can't forego such a plum opportunity to grab millions) and so on... AND it would seem that either nobody would believe the video (it would have HAD to be faked) or nobody would do anything about it or it would disappear and we'd never hear of it again or the whole thing would never reach the public (despite copies being sent to every major media outlet) or the powers that be would say 'whatever you think we were saying, you're mistaken' and for national security reasons, the tape has been classified (so anyone who sees it, shares it with anyone or broadcasts or transmits it has committed a felony and/or treason and will be locked up (disappeared). In the end, it would be lucky to have either the distribution (limited) or the effect (at least measurable) that the Downing Street Memos had.

Despite what it says about our reality--that we cling to the very thin illusion of freedom, I don't think there's anything anyone could (or would) do. I doubt that even if we could convince the vast majority of citizens that the BA did all of these things--including murdering thousands of U.S. citizens on 9/11--that we could even manage to organize much more than a few feeble demonstrations (which would be ignored both by the government AND the media). I'm afraid the American people no longer have the will, have the courage and strength of character to stand up and demand our government clean up it's house (impeach, impeach, impeach**)--even in the face of such criminal malfeasance. I do hope I'm wrong.

I do hope I'm wrong, but there does seem to be something wrong with us. We seem to be suffering from some sort of lethargy and prone to fear. Our government dumps on us again and again and at best a few people mumble quietly that that isn't right. Even when there are millions who are so deeply angry it's making them physically ill; they can't seem to organize to even make their message heard--and actually applying any real pressure on the government (such as through public political demonstration) seems almost out of the question (and when it does occur, it's only in reference to fairly modest concerns--sort of 'safe' issues; of the sort one really doesn't expect the government to take seriously)(when it takes something 'seriously', nowadays, one would expect large numbers of arrests and for the military to step in to put down the demonstration). Are we afraid? Perhaps. Do we simply lack "real" leadership--that can actually reach the people with their message and lead us in responding to the government? Yes, and that's probably the main reason we're unable to truly organize a national response--well, that and the fact that one reason we don't have such leadership is that no one can actually "reach the people" thanks to the political bias/control over the public mass media. While we still have the use of the internet (and remember, if push comes to shove, the government can shut down the internet to our use overnight (or quicker)), we might want to do some serious organizing (and perhaps even make alternative plans--shared phone lists or some such; so that we can reach each other if the internet ever does shut down)(of course, every name that gets onto such lists would no doubt be added to a special project at the FBI and every phone call thereafter would be listened to by the NSA...). Maybe we should be fearful and/or paranoid. By the way, paranoia based on real causes, isn't paranoia--it's rational cautious thinking.

Anyway, the sheer magnitude of 9/11 makes it hard to believe (The BIG Lie). Even so, the apparent incompetence helps rather than hinders them--allowing for the excuses that the failures were due to incompetence and even that surely no conspiracy occurred because they're too incomptent to pull it off. Neither of which reflect reality. Actually, one of the Republican goals is to make government appear incompetent--so, while it's certainly not why they want us to think the government was incompetent, it's a secondary benefit to them.

Facinating to hear that this all happened the day after Rumsfeld announced/admitted that the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars... Oops. I suppose that would be the ultimate in terms of distracting the public off of a real government scandal.


**impeach--on such a scale, impeachment would be extraordinarily difficult--it would be a Constitutional Crisis; there's no precedent--how do you remove a whole branch of the government? Immediate presidential elections? What about the thousands of Federal Department heads that were appointed or otherwise put in place, who were (are?) loyal to the current panty-waist in chief?