Everything you are saying is retrospective, based on you reading through loads of information and then deciding that they shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't have done that. Hindsight is 20/20 from both the intelligence, government and the terrorist perspective and you're happy to discount human failure like it's never happened before.

You also claim to know exactly what the terrorists would have thought. If you believe that the terrorists would not have made the attack unless they were certain that every aspect of their plan was going to go perfectly then I can see why you believe in a conspiracy.

Yeah, why bother hijacking that last plane? Its not like they wanted to get their virgins in the afterlife or anything.
Even if most of the planes hijacked had been shot down, wouldn't the act of hijacking them still create terror? Isn't that the whole purpose anyway?

And why mention scrambling fighters from Andrews? What evidence is there that there were any fighters on alert there to be scrambled?

As for the 330 degree maneuver, it is either do that and still maintain reasonable control over the plane, or try to do a very steep dive from altitude which the plane might not be able to do without breaking up and might have overshot the target depending on when the target was seen anyway.

We're all speaking retrospectively - you, me, Lanton, everyone.

This was never intended to be a commentary about US intelligence or air defence failure. It was meant to be a commentary about the hijacker's plan's inadequacy. The initial observation was that the alleged hijacker's plan worked because the US failed - not on its own merit. It is not a question of being certain every aspect of the plan was going to succeed, but of making every reasonable effort. They didn't. From the minute these alleged hijackers entered the country, they behaved in a manner that doesn't seem to me to be consistent with that of a group of skilled, experienced, counter-intelligence operatives. They could have been uncovered at every step of the way as a result of their lack of judgement and poor operational execution.

I feel sure that if you were to think about planning such an operation, one of the first questions you'd ask about the hijacking phase would be: what is the shortest possible time between ATC awareness of a hijacking-in-progress and fighters being airborne. You would need to know how long you had to reach your target before the possibility of interception. It's fundamental. And, when you consider that the time from scramble order to airborne is just 6 minutes, you can see that nothing the hijackers did on 9/11 suggested they had given this fundamental issue any consideration at all.

Any further progress on finding out who identified the individuals in that photo?

No, and it's not through want of trying. I have found it on other sites, but none of them is my original source.

Many sources of information that I have archived, which has been gathered over a good number of years now, have dissappeared. This, and a document perporting to show that Tim Osman was the CIA's codename for bin Laden are increasingly difficult to find.

If it was Bin Laden in that picture, why's he wearing an officer's uniform (there are no pictures, that I know of, of Bin Laden in anything other than robes or BDUs)? Secondly, the figure, on the right, if it was Bin Laden, would tower over the other bloke, because Bin Laden's a tall b****** (Bin Laden's also more guant).

I don't know

That assumes it is Brzezinski; that, if it is, then Brzezinski is short; and that the camera angle isn't deceiving us.

Since you've latched onto this, let us agree, hypothetically, that this is not bin Laden. What would you want to say?

You claimed that it was a photo of Brzezinski and Bin Laden - and you even said there was a source (presumably a credible one) to back that claim up.

You've yet to give us a source and you've yet to explain why "Bin Laden", in that picture, looks like nothing more than a Pakistani or Egyptian officer - so if you really think that that's Bin Laden on the right (when it's obviously not him) what credibility should we attribute to your 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Is there a way to post this picture again?...or where can i see it?

Yes, but I’m looking at what happened retrospectively and admitting I don’t know what anyone would be thinking. For example my comments on why the terrorists wouldn’t be concerned about a shootdown – I don’t claim that’s what the terrorists thought, but looking at the ultimate goal of terrorist acts –i.e. to cause terror - which as a worst case scenario shoot-downs is still a reasonable proposition. You wave away this example and plenty other possible explanations I and others give you with “that is not the mindset” of the terrorists. You know nothing of what their mindset was!

I've had experience of plenty of organisations that have reputation of brilliance but internally still suffer from human conflict, bureaucracy and failure. From personal experience I’ve seen many truly well planned out projects that have hit problems that on retrospective analysis are ‘obvious’ and should have never happened. Military/intelligence history shows plenty of examples of retrospectively ‘obvious’ mistakes on failed and successful operations.

I don’t care if 911 was a conspiracy or not. It really would make no difference to me either way but I want proof before I jump to that conclusion. You can look at what happened on 911 and find plenty of things that don’t seem to make sense, but the vast majority don’t even raise a suspicion with me. There are one or two things that I can't see good reason for, but nothing that makes me want to jump from ‘not understanding’ to ‘has to be conspiracy’.

This makes you sound petty and desperate.

I've had you hopping from one foot to another as you attempted to avoid the fundamental issues, including, at one point, your having to propose Moussaoui was not a co-conspirator in order to avoid having to explain the hijackers' inexplicable actions after his arrest. You've further failed to reconcile the description you gave of skilled, experienced, counter-intelligence operatives with the hopelessly naive actions of the alleged hijackers right from day one. And now you think that my reference to this photograph somehow clinches the deal for you? This is crass and not consistent with the robust, mature debate I thought we were having.

I'm sure you know why Atta (one of the pilots and lead hijackers - allegedly) and Alomari opted to take a connecting flight to Boston on the morning of the 11th. I'm sure you know why Atta carried a bag containing operational details. I'm sure you know why he planned to take his will onto the plane he intended to crash. I'm sure all these things and more are perfectly obvious to you, it's just a shame you've not been able to share them with us.

I think we've probably said what we have to say. For me, an analysis of the events suggests the hijackers' plan and execution was horribly flawed from the moment they set foot in the US, and yet it still succeeded. I get it that you don't see it that way.

The vast majority of former intelligence officers and intelligence experts, such as George Friedman, who've written about the events of that day and how Al Qaeda got away with it have said precisely what i've said in this thread - that the 9/11 planners and operators did a very professional job on the day, not simply because the US intelligence community wasn't up to the challenge, but because they were skilled at what they did and were fully aware of the capabilities (or lack thereof) of agencies such as the CIA and NSA.

Sure, there were a few f***-ups on the day for the hijackers, but did they have much of an impact on the outcome of the operation? No, they didn't.

The fact that you don't any (not even one) credible/respected former intelligence officers or intelligence experts lending any credence to various 9/11 conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

From reading the many 9/11 threads i would have to surmise; that their is enough unanswered questions to open a "real" investigation....will it ever happen?...probably not.. they got KSM ...and doubting the US govts story seems to be unfruitful....one day i believe the truth will come..

Indeed so. And yet they really should have done.

I agree. CTists have a hard time getting past the "just asking questions" phase and into actually providing answers to the questions they pose.

List them and qualify why you think they're f***-ups (i.e. actions that could've compromised the operation). Bear in mind, the CIA had no intel on the operation whatsoever and apparently had actionable intel to suggest that Al Qaeda operatives were even in the country.

how do you know the CIA had no intel on the matter?...you talk to tenet lately?...or sandy berger?

Try broadening your reference material (outside of the world of conspiracy theory websites, forums and blogs).

And your of the opinion that the CIA tells the truth?..lol...thats wild

There have been a dozen or more books, written by former intelligence officers and intelligence experts (credible and respected works), that, in part, detail the events of 9/11, Al Qaeda planning for the operation and US intelligence-gathering efforts on Al Qaeda that have a common theme in them - US intelligence had no sources, of any worth, in Al Qaeda, had no idea Al Qaeda operatives were in the US readying for an operation and obviously had no actionable intel on the operation itself.

those books are all gone over by the NSA before they even let them talk to a publisher...naivity to the system; can make you look kinda silly...you think the CIA allows any of it's secrets to be published?..thats just foolish..

Who says so? Did you just read that on some conspiracy theory website/forum/blog?

no I have personal knowledge of the inner workings of the CIA...if they knew atta was working on a job in florida.. besides flight training.. do you think they would tell the public?...I dont read conspiracy blogs or websites....I stumbled on this one is all...

If I need to explan why the following would be considered a threat to the operation, we should probably bring this to a close.

• Why did Atta and Alomari plan to take a connecting flight on the morning of 9/11?
• Why was Atta carying a bag containing both operationally sensitive details and his will?
• Was Moussaoui a co-conspirator - the so-called 20th hijacker? If so, why did the remaining 19 stick to their plan following his arrest? If he wasn't a co-conspirator, please provide proof together with verifiable sources.
• Why did the hijackers wait so long after take off (up to 42 minutes in the case of Flight 93) before hijacking the aircraft?
• Why did Hani Hanjour execute a 330 degree turn on the final approach to the Pentagon leaving him on broadly the same approach he was on before making the manoeuvre?

Then please provide proof of your assertion that the CIA knew nothing whatsoever of the operation. Again, please include sources. If this includes off-line sources, such as books I do not own, please quote from them and include their sources for verification.

Is it also your opinion that the FBI were not aware of any operation/alleged hijacker? If so, please provide proof with verifiable sources.

Please elaborate - you obviously know something (somehow) that all of these former intelligence officers and intelligence experts don't.

Sorry, but I find this extremely difficult to believe. Are you saying you work for the CIA?

no...

You don't work for them, but you "have firsthand knowledge of the inner workings of the CIA". You mind telling us how?

2 friends who are ex agents...they dont give up much they are sworn to secrecy...but I know they dont allow national secrets to be printed in books...

That's secondhand knowledge, firsthand implies you were inside, not a friend of yours.



*edit: just noticed that the quote changed, you said personal not firsthand, but IMHO they are synonymous.