4 ms·

The fallacy with that 9-11 rebuttal is that in its main stream form, 9-11 is as unprecedented as the conspiracy they are saying is far fetched. Why is it more i

by tmn 5y ago

The fallacy with that 9-11 rebuttal is that in its main stream form, 9-11 is as unprecedented as the conspiracy they are saying is far fetched. Why is it more infeasible to assume there was some inside help or looking the other way? Add in incentives as a result of the act, Israel’s known knowledge and surveillance of the act, seems pretty clear there’s more to it.

redis_mlc 5y ago
There have been a few factual stories in the press that aren't well-known about the 911 conspiracy: - Saudi embassies across the US were involved in organizing the operation - members of the Saudi royal family very likely financed at least part of the operation, as well as others in that community, based on previous operations - One of the non-flying organizers lived in Canada, and crossed the border into the US overland to avoid a flying watchlist. His local mosque in Canada was very likely knowledgeable about his purpose and provided logistics, and likely he wasn't the only participant in Canada. - it's very likely the US govt. knew about the operation in advance from embassy intelligence intercepts. When I use "likely" above, I mean well over 90% probability in each case because that's how things work. It wasn't 19 dudes who just happened to fly into some buildings half way across the world - it was a coordinated international operation. When you read the press reporting on this, they start off very specific about the actions months beforehand, and get suddenly vague when discussing what the US govt. knew and did about it. Also, most of the US Middle East experts were forced out of the civil service when they continued saying there was a continuing threat - ideologies don't change.
perl4ever 5y ago
Any conspiracy powerful enough to affect world events in a major way would be the source of some or all of the popular conspiracy theories. So they tell you something, but not taken at face value. People have been talking about Israeli and Saudi conspiracies since it happened, so I think it's safe to assume that is what the real conspiracy wants people to think.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fighterpilot 5y ago
It's more infeasible because it's massively more complicated. Occam's Razor. Just because they're two unprecedented scenarios doesn't mean they're equally simple explanations. Not only do you need the complicity of Bin Laden and his associates, you also need the complicity of many people within the US and you need them all to shut up about it and you need Bin Laden and his associates to lie about what really happened and you need to hide any trace of this from investigators. This is massively more complicated than the banal explanation that the small group of people who say they did it, actually did it.
- jcbrand 5y ago
  You don't necessarily need the complicity of Bin Laden, or that many people. You just need your intelligence agencies to keep track of what he is doing and allow him to continue because the attack suits your purpose (e.g. finding an excuse to attack Iraq).
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    That's a much more plausible version. It's still more complicated, though, and requires the complicity of many more people, and is therefore less likely to be true. There's also the rule of thumb that we shouldn't presume malice when incompetence fits.

by tmn 5y ago

redis_mlc 5y ago

There have been a few factual stories in the press that aren't well-known about the 911 conspiracy: - Saudi embassies across the US were involved in organizing the operation - members of the Saudi royal family very likely financed at least part of the operation, as well as others in that community, based on previous operations - One of the non-flying organizers lived in Canada, and crossed the border into the US overland to avoid a flying watchlist. His local mosque in Canada was very likely knowledgeable about his purpose and provided logistics, and likely he wasn't the only participant in Canada. - it's very likely the US govt. knew about the operation in advance from embassy intelligence intercepts. When I use "likely" above, I mean well over 90% probability in each case because that's how things work. It wasn't 19 dudes who just happened to fly into some buildings half way across the world - it was a coordinated international operation. When you read the press reporting on this, they start off very specific about the actions months beforehand, and get suddenly vague when discussing what the US govt. knew and did about it. Also, most of the US Middle East experts were forced out of the civil service when they continued saying there was a continuing threat - ideologies don't change.

perl4ever 5y ago

Any conspiracy powerful enough to affect world events in a major way would be the source of some or all of the popular conspiracy theories. So they tell you something, but not taken at face value. People have been talking about Israeli and Saudi conspiracies since it happened, so I think it's safe to assume that is what the real conspiracy wants people to think.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fighterpilot 5y ago

It's more infeasible because it's massively more complicated. Occam's Razor. Just because they're two unprecedented scenarios doesn't mean they're equally simple explanations. Not only do you need the complicity of Bin Laden and his associates, you also need the complicity of many people within the US and you need them all to shut up about it and you need Bin Laden and his associates to lie about what really happened and you need to hide any trace of this from investigators. This is massively more complicated than the banal explanation that the small group of people who say they did it, actually did it.

jcbrand 5y ago
You don't necessarily need the complicity of Bin Laden, or that many people. You just need your intelligence agencies to keep track of what he is doing and allow him to continue because the attack suits your purpose (e.g. finding an excuse to attack Iraq).
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  That's a much more plausible version. It's still more complicated, though, and requires the complicity of many more people, and is therefore less likely to be true. There's also the rule of thumb that we shouldn't presume malice when incompetence fits.