Posted on 12/12/2001 6:22:03 AM PST by m1911
Well, yes. If highjackings happened everyday, airline security would be all over it, because it would cost them money. Why wouldn't you choose an area considered "safe", which would mean very poor security?
If one is trying to construct a scientific theory, Occam's razor is a useful principle to apply.
Here, however, one is attempting to choose between two conflicting accounts of an unique historical event where (to quote MarkWar) it is a "simple (and frustrating) reality that there's just NO WAY for us "average" citizens to know one way or the other" In such a case, Occam's razor is useless. You can say that Occam's razor would come down on the side of the most probable of the two scenarios. But "most probable" means nothing in the case of a single event.
And if anyone anywhere had suspended normal procedures, some heartsick airman would be talking about it. First he claims that the air should have been thick with fighters, that we had ample assets, then says that all those assets were ordered down AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS COME FORWARD! Have there been a rash of "accidents" on air bases recently? Anything remotely approaching "circumstantial" evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
I would say it was the best reason to suspect it wasn't the government. :)
I would accept a dictatorship if I could be the dictator; but with anyone else.
Given what the government presented in court as supposed "proof" that McVeigh was the primary perpetrator, and the mass of contrary evidence that they successfully kept out, a whole range of alternative scenarios seems possible to me. From his having been a major participant, his having been a relatively minor participant, to his having been totally uninvolved.
I haven't saved links for this stuff and this isn't high on my personal list of tin foil stuff, so I can't even point to specific articles. But I think the stuff that has appeared often here on FR is well known. I'll try to recount the stuff off the top of my head.
1) After the first WTC bombing, people arrested in Indonesia had documents describing multiple hijacks. So the Feds knew that bin Laden's group had such stuff on the drawing boards.
2) There have been many posts here about the US working behind the scenes to topple the Taliban. A few months before 911, Bush specifically promoted a White House aide who had written on the need to remove the Taliban. Freeper Black Jade has posted tons of stuff on this business. So the Feds knew bin Laden would be getting desperate.
Those people talked to each other somehow.
4) In Minnesota, officials _caught_ some clown at a flight school who wanted to know how to fly & turn a plane, but "didn't need to know" take offs and landings. If the behavior caught the MN officials' eyes, why NOT the Feds?
5) The President of Egypt warned the Feds that something was up. Do warnings come from HEADS of STATE every day?
6) Israel warned the Feds that something was up. Do warning come from the Mossad every day?
7) We knew the WTC was a target because it had been targeted once. We know these people have a long memory. They're still angry about stuff that happened 700 years ago!
8) September has been a month _singled out_ in the past for Arab-related terrorism. Black September, etc.
9) The Gov Bush of FLA issued an EO activating elements of the National Guard just before the 911 attack (and though I've informally reviewed past EOs, I couldn't find anything similar at that time of year)
10) So many military/political/media moves occurred RIGHT AFTER the 911 attack, that it _appears_ contingencies had been put in place and just activated by the event.
None of this, of course, proves that the Feds had direct knowledge of the 911 WTC attacks.
However, looking at this kind of list (and I'm sure a really good conspiracy type could make a much more persuasive one), it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to suggest that prior knowledge may have existed.
I want to repeat the point I'm making. Nothing here proves the Feds knew about this beforehand!
But even on this short list, there are some telling specifics. We KNEW bin Laden's group was interested in multiple plane attacks. We KNEW bin Laden's group would be interested in a September statement. We KNEW bin Laden's group would be getting desperate. Those THREE things alone make a person wonder why undercover people weren't flying on all planes throughout September.
Beyond those simple points, however, given all the political power the Feds have leveraged out of the event, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to look at this list and say the items are elements that point in the direction of the Feds knowing about the 911 attack and stepping aside to let it happen.
Mark W.
Hey, all I said was, it isn't claimed that there is oil in Afghanistan.
3) We know that Echelon gathers tons of electronic intercepts. It has been doing so for years. And the 911 WTC attacks were planned for years. Those people had to talk to each other somehow.
Sorry for the screwup.
Mark W.
In regard to each of these incidents, there have subsequently arisen serious grounds for questioning whether they were indeed what they seemed at the time.
Regarding what is the "real truth" regarding such incidents, how are we to know?
"But isn't the simple (and frustrating) reality that there's just NO WAY for us "average" citizens to know one way or the other?" (From MarkWar's Post# 6 above.)
Or to quote Jacques Ellul. "We live in a psychologically subversive universe." By which he meant, we are confronted constantly with conflicting propaganda from every direction of the political landscape and are powerless to know how to sort out what is true and what is false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.