I was going to do this as part of the "Wackiest conspiracy theories" thread, but I thought I'd start a new one.

It seems to me that, in considering all these conspiracy theories, the question we need to ask is: which is the more likely? Which sounds the more plausible? Let's take, as an obvious example, 9/11.

The choices seem, basically, to be the "Official" version, and various theories that either George W. Bush and the U.S. Government either organsied it themselves, or allowed it to happen. The "Official" version is that it was organised and carried out entirely by a terrorist network, known as Al Qaeda, masterminded by one Osama bin Laden, who was throughout the planning and execution of it, in a cave of Afghanistan, courtesy of his friends the Taliban, and was carried out by a small group of terrorists who had received rudimentary flying training at a flying school in Florida, which gave them sufficient skills to take over control of Boeing 757s and 767s, and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and also (perhaps), the White House, if they hadn't been overpowered by the passengers. The "alternative" versions seem to range in complexity from simply that Bush and/or some in his adminstration and/or the CIA knew that an attack, by Al Qaeda, was being planned, and that they allowed it to happen, thereby providing justification for the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq which they had been planning ever since Bush decided to run for office, for reasons primarily concerned with securing control over Iraq's oil reserves, but also because of the dynastic feud between the Bush family and Saddam, to the most elaborate version, that the entire attack, from beginning to end, was planned and carried out by the Bush administration, and consequently they deliberately murdered thousands of their own citizens, to pursue the ends outlined above, and of course to give them unlimited power over the population.

In the search for which seems the most plausible, let's consider some of the pros and cons of the official and the conspiracy theories.

Official version: Bin Laden was a known, and very public, opponent of the west (i.e. the United States), and was on record as stating publicly on several occasions that he regarded the US as the enemy of Islam, and preached holy war against the west.
Al Qaeda had, indeed, previously planned attacks against targets in the US, and has subsequently carried out attacks in Bali, Madrid and London, all aimed at allies of the US.
The flying skills necessary would be just enough to take control of the aircraft, and steer them into the desired target visually; they wouldn't need to worry about navigation, takeoff or landing, etc.
Bin Laden claimed responsibility, publicly, and has always taken the "credit" ever since.

Against the official version: Bin Laden was a sick man, who, indeed, has been widely rumoured to actually be dead, on more than one occasion. He is supposed to have planned and coordinated this whole operation, with its pinpoint planning and timing, from a cave in the Tora Bora mountains, with the aid of a satellite phone and laptop.
The Twin Towers may have been tall, but that didn't mean that they were necessarily an easy target to fly in to; to deviate from the flight path, aim for those specific buildings in the heart of one of the largest cities on earth, and hit them precisely at the angle and speed necessary to destroy them, was something that arguably would have needed rather more practice than a few hours behind the wheel of a Cessna. And the Pentagon was an even more difficult target.
Discrepancies in the passenger lists of one or more of the flights.
The "very convenient" finding of the passport of one of the alleged hijackers among all the wreckage, from the actual pocket of one who was in the cockpit of one of the planes that exploded into a fireball.
Bin Laden (assuming he was still alive, and it wasn't an imposter) would have naturally claimed credit, as it would have massively increased his esteem in the eyes of the radical Islamic community.

Problems with The conspiracy theories: To, not even allow an attack on your own people to happen, but to actually do it yourself, is in a completely different league from anything that's ever been done by any other tyrant in recorded history; the most obvious parallel is with the Reichstag, but no one was actulally killed in the Reichstag. Was Bush, then, on a level of evil so far above any of the most evil men in history? There are documented cases where US presidents have planned or done things to their own people, like Operation Northwoods, say, but this is on a different plane altogether. The plans considered under Northwoods ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ) included such things as staging attacks on US ships or "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees, or "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes", but even these just considered "staged" attacks, or attacks on drones, or "harassment" of civil aircraft; a completley different league from deliberately killing thousands.

And then there's the sheer scale of the most elaborate options; switching of planes with ones the CIA had secretly prepared earlier, clandestinely disposing of the actual planes and their passengers, planting explosives in the WTC to coincide with the planes hitting; and the sheer numbers of people who must have been involved. Have any of them come forward to say that they were involved at some stage of the plot?

All this is just an endeavour to consider, which is the more likely? The official version, the most elaborate conspiracy theories, or something in between? That they knew that something was planned, but, not realising what form it would take and what would be the result, allowed it to happen and so give themselves the justification they desired for the war they wanted, but when it did happen, never imagined for a moment that this might be the form it woudl take (remember GW's face when he heard about it? And the flying around like a headless chicken afterwards?) If it had been planned so that he could lead his country into war, wouldn't he have stood up straight away and done the rousing Churchillian thing, rather than giving every impression of a leader who is panicking? Was it all an incredibly subtle act, to give the impression that he hadn't been expecting it? Is Bush, in short, the most evil man who has lived since Stalin and Hitler?


Just a few thoughts.

Honestly, it is difficult for me to even imagine how any conspiracy on such a massive level could ever have a hope for success. No matter how much secrecy, no matter how much compartmentalization, no matter how many mysterious people in black suits are making phone threats, the simple fact of the matter is that tongues wag. There are people out there who are nosy and very, very good at sniffing out clues and finding a story (I am speaking of reporters and investigators, not of conspiracy theorists). These are people with finely honed BS sensors, and an intuitive sense of which party to sneak into and which person to liberally apply alcohol to.

I just cannot see how a secret with so many participants would ever stay secret.

Leaders have been sacrificing thier own troops for centurys, have u heard the word cannon fodder. sacarfice a few to save many is a term.
its a open secret that in Northern Ireland the British used to fly in SAS an have them attack british troops killing some, to make one side look bad. it was political, it was a way of getting support from thier people against the evil terriosts in northern Ireland.
Im not saying the terriosts dident kill people so dont jump on that.

The question, then, what separates a conspiracy from tactics?

Good question, and one i cant answer.

I've seen this same excuse so many times, from people who should know better, even after it's been pointed out (also many times) that the excuse is ignoring reality, that I have to wonder sometimes at the posters' motives in always repeating it.

You earn points for writing it very colourfully, but it's still nothing more than an excuse that ignores a huge amount of facts which contradict it. It's nothing more than an emotional argument, not a logical one.

The NSA was kept a secret from the American public for FORTY YEARS, explain that.

The Manhattan Project was kept a secret for years during wartime with spies running around everywhere.

It's only been a mere six years. Nor do I believe that there is any need for a "massive level" of involvement, A very small number of people at the very top of the operation would be the only ones who need to know what was going on. The excuse of a "conspiracy of thousands" is nothing but nonsense because it would not need to be "massive" or involve "thousands" or anything even remotely so large..

But which version does that apply to? That's what I'm trying to boil it down to, if there was a conspiracy, is it more or less plausible than the official version? Are we talking about the "they let it happen" theory, or the full scale switching-of-planes-and-planting-explosives?

Here's a simple 'version'. Not every CT will 'like' it, but it is one to consider. I'll state it simply. Perhaps you could fire back your thoughts/objections/observations. Before I start, let me say, I am not necessarily advocating this in full; I am simply offering an alternative version that accounts for many of the 'facts' stipulated by the mainstream version of events yet is, nonetheless, an active inside job.

The plot was not organised by Bush & Co., but by elements within and outside of the administration. It was not a Republican nor a Democratic Party plot; the ostensible two party politics is actually a fallacy.

Bin Laden and his associates have been working alongside and on behalf of the US for decades, ever since the Afghan-Soviet War. Not everyone involved on either side is necessarily aware of the cooperation or the extent of it. Thus fanatical Islamic fundamentalists are just that: fanatical Islamic fundamentalists whose genuine desire is to see the US harmed. But they are being directed with a specific purpose, which is being coordinated, in part at least, by elements within the US and those pulling the strings within the group known as al Qaeda. But ultimately, the heads of each organisation share a common purpose even if they're pursuing different agendas.

Thus, 'al Qaeda' operatives were recruited to carry out the attacks. They were given as much latitude as possible whilst within the US to prepare without any direct involvement that would uncover the plot prematurely. The authorites had long been aware of lax airport security (the FAA's own Red Team had been complaining for years) and, rather than rectify the problem, they allowed it to persist in order to exploit the loopholes and get the men aboard the planes.

The rest of the operation is as reported. Two planes hit the twin towers; Flight 77 hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 came down in Shanksville following an attempt by passengers to overwhelm the hijackers; and WTC-7 came down late in the afternoon as the result of damage sustained during the collapse of the North Tower and the subsequent untended fires.

That's it.

And if you want a very clear example of a government attacking its own people, check out Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension. I keep hammering this home. It was a CIA and NATO-backed plot to bomb civilian targets and blame the Communists. Many civilians were killed. The campaign took place mainly in Italy and lasted a decade. One operative, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, said the campaign required him and others to...



This ain't ancient history either - the Strategy of Tension lasted between 1969 and 1980.

I don't think so... you think members of the SAS would do this?
More like a tactic used by the IRA to use as a myth-cover..so, if they killed British troops in a way that horrified even their supporters they could claim it was the mysterious 'SAS.'

We the irish knew it was happening for many years, when either side of the factions did something they made public statements admiting thier actions, it was part of thier stratgeys, and when they did not claim responsiblity, they did not do it, its as simple as that. an a few years back some ex British soliders came public about it.

I don't think I'm going to try to shoot this one down in flames. It wasn't the government, as in Bush , but it was the establishment, the intelligence services, then, by this argument? That's interesting. The CIA, NSA, whoever, are the ones who really pull the strings, and the "elected" leader is just a front, basically? Only question is, why would this be so? to pursue the 'establishment's own interests, or to keep Bin Laden on side so that he'd continue to support them in their greater campaign, whatever that may be?

It seems a more plausible 'secret government' argument that anything involving reptilians, at any rate.

Yeah, I have heard this as well.

British army spy at heart of IRA death squad unmasked

The Force Research Unit 'My unit conspired in the murder of civilians in Ireland'

Britain's "Dirty War" with the IRA

same tricks being used in Iraq -

Basra tense after jail raid drama

Iraq probe into soldier incident




Don't count on it. These special forces guys are all indoctrinated with machiavellian philosophy.

The later one would still not require very many people to even know that they were being used, considering all the wargames planned that day, there's a very high level of deniability, quite brilliant way of doing things really, and the number of people at the very top who need to know could be as little as a dozen.

But that could be applied to any governmant and indeed any military unit world wide, hey even the food giants work this way...

Yes, and organised crime, intelligence agencies, etc....

It's a high successful and very effective way of keeping secrets

This is scary , if it's true.

Oh really? Just what would you do if men in black suits came to you and said, "If you keep telling what you know, we cannot guarantee the safety of your children."

what they do is rub someones career out who tries to talk...ie rowleys fbi career...then everyone else just stays in line