ERROR: 'Inside Job Implies a Vast Conspiracy'
It is commonly believed that the 9/11/01 attack being an inside job
implies the involvement of a vast numbers of co-conspirators.
This idea is easily the single most effective impediment
to serious examination of the evidence
contradicting the official myth.
The vast conspiracy idea is standard fare for
like Alexander Cockburn.
e x c e r p t
The truly bad news is the 9/11 nuts have relocated to Stolen Election.
My inbox is awash with their ravings. People who have spent the last three
years sending me screeds establishing to their own satisfaction that George
Bush personally ordered the attacks on the towers and that Dick Cheney
vectored the planes in are now pummeling me with data on the time people
spent on line waiting to vote in Cuyahoga county, Ohio, and how the Diebold
machines are all jimmied. As usual, the conspiracy nuts think that plans of
inconceivable complexity worked at 100 per cent efficiency, that Murphy's
law was once again in suspense, and that 10,000 co-conspirators are all
going to keep their mouths shut.
The vast conspiracy idea is also promoted by operations
pretending to expose the attack as an inside job
while actually working to discredit skepticism of the official story.
Michael Elliot cleverly twists a statement
by skeptic Andreas von Buelow in an
interview in Tagesspiegel
In it, von Buelow states:
The planning of the attacks was technically and
organizationally a master achievement.
To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour,
to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers!
This is unthinkable without years-long support from secret apparatuses
of the state and industry.
e x c e r p t
Note the last line [of von Buelow's quote]
"without years-long support from secret apparatuses
of the state and industry", coming from someone who knows about this
kind of operation. It's not just some renegade section of the
American intelligence agencies that planned and executed 9/11:
it's a massive operation by what we have been referring to as the
military-industrial complex, including, but not limited to,
the intelligence agencies.
Elliot conflates the technical sophistication and long-time planning
of the attack with its requiring a vast number of insiders.
In fact, as any student of 'black-ops'
or even common military procedures knows,
these operations involve rigorous compartmentalization
in order to prevent the exposure of some operatives
from endangering the entire operation.
Even an operation of the technical sophistication of the 9/11/01 attack
could be executed with a very small number of operatives,
most of whom would not even grasp the scope of the entire operation.
To understand how this is possible,
consider two key tools at the disposal of top-ranking insiders
in the U.S. military.
- Military command structures:
Military organizations are almost universally top-down structures
in which underlings are trained to follow orders without question.
This is true of the U.S. military,
whose control ultimately rests in the hands of a few individuals.
Although authority may be delegated
to commanders at different levels in the hierarchy,
it can be re-centralized at the direction of the top,
as demonstrated by the
June 1st order
to funnel intercept authorizations through the office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Contemporary military technology affords a high degree of automation.
By definition, automation --
such as programmed or remote control of aircraft --
amplifies the power of a few individuals to execute complex operations.
Through automation, an attack involving simultaneous maneuvers
by several different aircraft could be pre-programmed by a single individual.
Technicians operating under strict orders by top officials
and on a need-to-know basis could have performed
many of the critical tasks for engineering the 9/11/01 attack.
Perhaps they were supplied false explanations for the purpose of their tasks.
Operatives who might have grasped the significance
of their work as the attack unfolded may have been killed --
perhaps in the attack itself.
It is reasonable to think that the entire 9/11/01 attack could have
been executed by
as few as a dozen insiders --
a far smaller number than the 10,000 assumed by Alexander Cockburn.
Operatives Versus Enablers
One source of confusion regarding the number of operatives
required to execute the 9/11/01 and similar attacks
is the failure to distinguish between
the operatives involved in executing the attack
and the enablers who profit from and obstruct investigation of the attack.
Whereas the first group is very small by necessity,
the second group is indeed vast, but very diffuse,
consisting mostly of individuals not consciously involved in any conspiracy.
Compartmentalizing the planning and execution of the operation
gives even the leaders ordering the deadly attacks
a plausible deniability of involvement in them.
page last modified: 2010-12-26