LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
After thinking about it, there is one other point I want to offer for Marcus to consider, although I don't expect to change his mind.
In his meticulously detailed diary, Norwegian bomber/gunman Anders Behring Breivik describes at great length how he spent almost a year obtaining the materials needed for his carbombs -- a few chemicals here, a few electronics there -- in order to avoid attracting attention to himself by making a large purchase at one time. And also in the diary, Breivik calculates that if he had worked with four co-conspirators, he could have made the bombs in six months, and if he'd had nine co-conspirators, he could have done it in less than two months.
But, instead, ABB decided that it was better to act totally alone -- and his reasoning was that each additional co-conspirator would represent another potential "leak". A co-conspirator might have a loss of nerves and betray the conspiracy to the authorities; or he might say something careless to his wife, and she gets worried and calls the police; or perhaps he simply gets arrested for drunk driving, and in the standard background-check, the police find that he has a past connection with white-supremacist groups, which in turn leads the cops to accidentally discover his link to the conspiracy.
I think the truth of what Breivik wrote is obvious, and that any "CIA black-ops / false-flag" conspiracy theory about 9/11 must recognize the importance of minimizing the number of conspirators. But in my opinion, most of these "alternative 9/11 theories" tend to fail Breivik's "too many cooks spoil the broth" test.
For example, the theory that there were explosives inside the WTC buildings overlooks the fact that it generally takes a LARGE TEAM of demolition experts (= more co-conspirators) to place the explosives for the controlled demolition of a tall building. In principle, it could be done by fewer people, but then it requires much more time, increasing the risk that the explosives would be accidentally discovered by employees in the building.
So in my opinion, the "official American government version" has the advantage of limiting the number of conspirators -- there may have been fewer than two-dozen operating within the US, with an unknown number of middlemen engaged in money-laundering outside the US, plus a few "top bosses."
If Marcus wants an "alternative version," however, I'd suggest a somewhat simpler one: the "official version" is MOSTLY true (there were 19 hijackers on four airplanes; there were no explosives in the buildings; the towers fell because the burning jet fuel caused heat-failure of the steel, etc.), EXCEPT that the hijackers were actually fanatical American CIA agents, and not fanatical foreign Islamists.
Or, one could argue that there were, in a sense, TWO conspiracies: the "kamikaze" attacks on 9/11 planned and executed by a group of Middle Eastern fanatics of unknown identity; and a second conspiracy by Bush and the CIA after 9/11, to link the attacks specifically with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and thus create an excuse for the Afghanistan war. Indeed, there are probably millions of Americans who believe some version of this: that the 11 September terror attacks truly were carried out by Islamic terrorists, but that Bush lied and lied and lied about the the connection to "Al Qaeda" in order to justify a hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Whether you agree with this or not, it's a better "alternative interpretation" of the known facts than what Marcus has offered.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Throbert McGee 
