Support 911Blogger


The NSA & 9/11: Failure to Exploit the US-Yemen Hub & Beyond: Just one of the Legacies of 9/11

Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.

-President Bush, December 17, 2005

In the aftermath of 9/11, reams of newsprint were given over to discussing the CIA and FBI failures before the attacks; the agency had some of the hijackers under surveillance and allegedly lost them, the bureau was unable even to inform its own acting director of the Zacarias Moussaoui case. However, the USA’s largest and most powerful intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, got a free ride. There was no outcry over its failings, no embarrassing Congressional hearings for its director. Yet, as we will see, the NSA’s performance before 9/11 was shocking.

It is unclear when the NSA first intercepted a call by one of the nineteen hijackers. Reporting indicates it began listening in on telephone calls to the home of Pentagon hijacker Khalid Almihdhar’s wife some time around late 1996. However, although Almihdhar certainly did stay there later, it is unclear whether he lived there at that time. The house, in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, was a key target for the US intelligence community as it was Osama bin Laden’s communication hub, run by Almihdhar’s father-in-law Ahmed al-Hada.

The NSA kept the Yemen communications hub secret from the rest of the US intelligence community. However, Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, found out about it through an agency officer loaned to the NSA. Even after the discovery, the NSA refused to provide transcripts of the calls, meaning Alec Station could not crack the simple code the al-Qaeda operatives used. This was one reason the 1998 East African embassy bombings—assisted by al-Hada—were successful despite the bombers being known to numerous intelligence agencies.

Read the full post at Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs.

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting+the+Dots:+How+CIA+and+FBI+Officials+Helped+Enable+9/11+and+Evaded+Government+Investigations.

Thanks Kevin

Please keep going. You're sorely needed.

Interesting material, but a red herring?

Firstly, whenever I see any commentary from the mouth of President Bush, one has to consider (a) who supplied him with that information (b) is this information multiple-sourced, with a reliable and verifiable chain of custody, conforming to standards of journalistic integrity (ie not Murdochville) that should be considered genuinely "news", (c) would it stand up as evidence in any 9/11 related case that would be accepted by a judge in a real US court of law, (ie not hearsay) (d) since Bush has been proven to have lied through his teeth about pretty much every important aspect of his administration, why would we expect him, against all expectations, to have done a 180º and told the truth, especially regarding a part of the incident (9/11) which was the "required event", #1 on the pre-ordained wish list of the hardline neocon cartel which stacked the Bush 2001 administration to the proverbial rafters, and comprised the raison d'etre of that administration's pre-designated middle east foreign policy set?

There is a stack of material alleging pre-9/11 "communications, chatter, etc. etc." amongst the alleged hijackers, officials from the governments and/or intelligence agencies and militaries of various mid east nations and so on. However, when considering a high profile incident like 9/11, it would be expected that such "activity" would be either planted in advance so it could be dug up later, sequentially "on the drip" so to speak , but this material would be foggy enough not to incriminate anyone of any importance, but specific enough to cast blame on the designated parties. It would also be helpful to highlight "incompetence", therefore "justifying" further tightening up of security etc. This material could also very easily be fabricated in the aftermath to "cement the mid east connections" in the minds of the public... it would only take a small handful of well-connected people, with high level access, to sow such disinformation, either before or after the event.

The other part of this line of research which raises suspicion, is that none of it addresses aspects of 9/11 which would have been *impossible* or *terminally contradictory* on the part of any alleged *HOSTILE* hijackers.
* How did "they", or "associates" plant thermitic material in 3 highly secure buildings well in advance? Is there evidence of "al qaeda" members clandestinely having access to the buildings and bypassing security in the process?
* What is the connection between the alleged hijackers and the 20 or so war games, military drills and exercises which were taking place on the same morning, simulating the exact same scenario?
* How did "they" become aware that the otherwise historically flawless NORAD-FAA-military scramble protocol had been modified in their favor a mere three months previously? (This information was not public known until some 6 years after the event!). The previous "normal circumstances" re. scramble-intercept would have ensured that the alleged hijackers' mission would have been a certain failure, ie none of the planes would have reached their targets, especially Flights AA77 and UA93 which flew West as a far and the Kentucky and Ohio borders respectively before turning around and heading back across the most heavily monitored and policed skies on the planet. Why did the alleged hijackers make this *bizarre* set of choices, instead of taking the shortest, quickest, most direct route to their targets, to insure a slight chance of success, knowing that they were traversing airspace within very quick reach of numerous USAF and USANG bases?
* None of the alleged hijackers' lifestyles conformed to the "fundamentalist Muslim" image projected by the media... in fact, quite the opposite. For example, alleged leader Mohamed Atta's documented (most un-Islamic) behavior re. drinking, drugging, partying, animal abuse, blabber-mouthing etc. prior to 9/11 put him at risk for not only being arrested but leaking 9/11 plans in "unguarded moments" while lubricated with intoxicants.
*What was the connection between the alleged hijackers and the 5 Israeli (Mossad) men detained in New Jersey on the morning of 9/11, who had in their possession very specific information regarding the unfolding attacks, including precisely the buildings to be attacked and time/day they were going to be attacked?

In addition to the above, there is so much more material which is irreconcilable to the "19 hijackers and a few foreign organizers" scenario, which comprises the foundation of the OCT.

What I am suggesting is that the above line of research appears to be a red herring, which avoids the problematic aspects of the story and timeline of 9/11, indicating "incompetence" on the part of US officials, while not taking away from, or diluting the mandate to blame Muslims, and only Muslims.

bloggulator: "There is a stack

bloggulator: "There is a stack of material alleging pre-9/11 "communications, chatter, etc. etc." amongst the alleged hijackers, officials from the governments and/or intelligence agencies and militaries of various mid east nations and so on. However, when considering a high profile incident like 9/11, it would be expected that such "activity" would be either planted in advance so it could be dug up later, sequentially "on the drip" so to speak , but this material would be foggy enough not to incriminate anyone of any importance, but specific enough to cast blame on the designated parties. It would also be helpful to highlight "incompetence", therefore "justifying" further tightening up of security etc. This material could also very easily be fabricated in the aftermath to "cement the mid east connections" in the minds of the public... it would only take a small handful of well-connected people, with high level access, to sow such disinformation, either before or after the event."

One useful way of looking at the analysis and documentation in Kevin's article (and his book) is that even accepting the official story on its own terms and evidence, it is not a credible explanation for how and why 9/11 happened. Tthe NSA had monitored the al-Qaeda communications hub in Yemen since 1996, and this hub was involved in planning for the 1998 US embassy attacks, the 2000 USS Cole attack and 9/11 - yet the intelligence NSA gained was not used to stop these attacks, or round up anyone afterward, except perhaps after 9/11. And, the NSA has never been held accountable for any of these 'failures' - official inquires left it largely unexamined, and very little information has been made public about what NSA learned, and what it did/didn't do w/ this info, and who was responsible.

In contrast, more scrutiny has been placed on the CIA and FBI. The official reports document numerous failures, but generally pass glibly over them or relegate them to endnotes. Some examples are noted in one or two of the official reports, but not others, and some facts only came out in defense exhibits at the Moussaoui trial. While the official conclusions support the idea that overwork, misunderstandings, mistakes and possibly incompetence are the reason 9/11 wasn't prevented, as Kevin shows, these explanations can't credibly account for what happened

The more probable explanation is that certain specific people, such as Richard Blee and Tom Wilshire at the CIA and Wilshire and Dina Corsi at the FBI, among others, were intentionally shielding Almihdhar and Alhazmi, and thus the 9/11 operation as far as it involved the 19 alleged hijackers, from discovery and disruption by FBI agents who were attempting to do so. These 'failures' involved a relatively small number of Al Qaeda operatives who were known to be connected to high profile deadly attacks. The failures also involved a relatively small number of CIA and FBI officials who failed to watchlist these operatives or notify the FBI on multiple separate occasions of important details, such as the fact that they possessed US visas, had traveled to the US and/or were expected to be associated w/ the next Al Qaeda attack, which was expected to be massive and against US interests. They also provided false information to FBI investigators on numerous occasions, and prevented FBI agents from opening criminal investigations that would likely have led to the arrest of some or all of the 19 alleged hijackers. Following 9/11, they told official inquires they couldn't recall key events, and minders were present during interviews. Some of the people who obstructed the FBI may not have known that those with more authority would permit the attacks, but none of these people were subject to serious examination by official inquiries, and this failure of the government to investigate is as damning as the behavior of these people prior to and after 9/11.

Bloggulator, your criticism barely touches on what Kevin's research involves, and it falls short. Why are you telling people to only look at certain aspects of 9/11, and telling people to ignore the aspect that Kevin researches, which destroys the official 9/11 myth?

Weighing evidence

I think that bloggulator and Erik both make valid points. There are certain areas of 9/11 research that point toward intentional negligence to allow Muslim extremists to successfully attack us (allegedly), and other areas that point to a false flag operation carried out by non-Arab perpetrators.

Which is most important? Trying to get the public to rally behind criminal negligence vs. the official "incompetence/coincidence" claim, or showing how 9/11 was a false flag operation which involved demolitions and patsies?

We have the benefit of great work by both Kevins: Ryan and Fenton. Which could be construed as a limited hangout that might not get to the bottom of what happened.......... and which body of work could not possibly be a limited hangout? This about emphasis. Both bodies of work are backed by factual research and/or scientific analysis. Do we want more accountability for "intelligence failures" or do we want ultimate justice?

Who's "30-year old conspiracy?"

I would think and hope that

I would think and hope that accountability will help to the road of justice. (Piggy-backing?)

Anthony Shaffer is "not a truther" but says we share "common ground", to which I am happy to share.

I also think that the further we get into any 9/11 justice the better - it likely creates more pressure for those involved in any crime or cover-up to do something that will likely will work in our favor.

It also brings the topic to the forefront - hopefully creating a safer atmosphere for whistleblowers and those with evidence to come forward.

To answer your question: I'll take both.

Getting accountability

is the question though. How best to do that? By pursuing an 'intelligence failures' angle or by proving inside job with science?

My guess is that the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth movement is galvanized by the latter. It is what motivates the overwhelming number of truthers to stay active, and it is what might motivate legions more to join our cause. I seriously doubt that intelligence failures being due to criminal negligence is going to go anywhere, and won't resonate with the public. As long as people believe that we were really attacked by authentic Muslim jihadists who hate our freedoms, they won't raise hell about a lack of accountability for those who could have prevented it. We're 10 years out.... Americans need bombshells to wake them up.

Question: "What kind of LIHOP scenario accounts for nanothermite?"

LIHOP plus

You could possibly read the link posted in this comment, and stop pretending it isn't there.

The notion that hijackers are mutually exclusive with nanothermite is a myth. Its origins lie with DRG acolytes who wish to prevent some core arguments proposed by DRG from being debunked by tying the MIHOP philosophy (often synonymous with no hijackers, no planes and no passengers) indissolubly to nanothermite. This nanothermite = no hijackers myth is peddled almost exclusively on the basis of the fallacy of personal incredulity.

Did I say "No hijackers?"

You could possibly stop putting words into my mouth. This was either a false flag or it wasn't. That's my point. Nanothermite indicates a false flag operation, meaning that any hijackers were patsies. And controlled demolition suggests they weren't the ultimate controllers of the planes, since successful impacts were essential for the demolitions. And a false flag operation could not leave that to chance. Furthermore, specific areas of specific targets were struck. I agree with you about the 'second hijack' scenario in which control was hijacked from the patsies. I don't deny that Arabs were on the planes or even in the cockpit.

My main point is that it is important to expose the false flag operation to the pubic if we want accountability. We can just pretend that intelligence failures or criminal negligence will get the job done. If you disagree, fine.

Question: "What got us the new JFK investigation by the House Select Committee in the 1970s ?"
The public release of the the Zapruder Film showing that we were positively lied to about the NATURE of the assassination and the fact of a conspiracy........ or information about how Oswald could have been apprehended before Nov. 22 had officials not been negligent?

RL - This is not a one or

RL -

This is not a one or the other sitatuation. Please don't try to make it so for yourself.

There will be different avenues of justice. Because of SOP calling for compartmentalization, we can expect to not find the "whole cabal" sitting in a room together discussing 'false flags".

Let's not over-simplify the situation into was or was not.

Prosecuting criminality

is the objective, right? I welcome any path that gets to the matter of who was behind the attacks.

Exactly

This is what you say:

"And controlled demolition suggests they weren't the ultimate controllers of the planes, since successful impacts were essential for the demolitions. And a false flag operation could not leave that to chance."

And that is exactly what I reject. "Couldn't"? Yes they could leave that to chance. All we know for a fact at this time, provided that we can trust the nanothermite paper, is that there was nanothermite inside the WTC. There is no binding, rock solid, inescapable, unavoidable, immutable logic that dictates they couldn't leave it to chance.

I've had this exact discussion before right here on this site, I know what the DRG-followers think and so I know exactly what I'm saying when I explain the nature of the false dilemma foisted on 9/11 truthers for compliance. You posit a relatively mild version, yet I've had this exact same discussion before, and I'm saying the same thing I say now as I said then.You reason backwards from the nanothermite paper to conform reality to your speculation. You cannot.

About your question: JFK researchers didn't claim Oswald didn't exist (And just in case you accuse me of a straw man, since you just said you don't further a "no hijacker" theory, I will acknowledge that, but others do) and moreover, while the Zapruder film may prove a second shooter, the WTC 2 impact footage doesn't prove remote control. (Neither does CD) The WTC 2 impact footage just raises important questions which may indicate remote control but we have no positive evidence, only falsification-speculation. Also, in the case of JFK, it probably really is a full MIHOP scenario, so absolutist interpretation of the Zapruder video does not cause the proliferation of questionable theories out of touch with reality, whereas absolutist, non-flexible no hijacker or hijacker + second hijack (remote control) theories do. (Meaning: nanothermite dictates certain facts about the planes and the pilots. I reject this)

Mihdhar and Hazmi and the NSA

While it is clear the NSA missed opportunities to pass information to the CIA and FBI early on about Mihdhar and Hazmi, later actions by the CIA and FBI HQ make this a mute point.

The CIA by itself and later with the help of FBI HQ agents and managers, deliberately withheld critical information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing. But then they shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi, when these two agencies clearly knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place and even knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this attack. Many people at the CIA including the very highest CIA managers even knew that by continuing to allow the FBI HQ agents and managers they had enlisted to shut down Bongardt’s investigation, of Mihdhar and Hazmi, that this would block perhaps the one FBI criminal investigation that could have prevented this attack.

When Tenet flew out to Crawford, Texas on August 24, 2001, he had just found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to take part in this huge al Qaeda attack. The big question that has never been answered is exactly what did he tell the President at that meeting, a meeting he lied about at the April 14, 2004 9/11 Commission public hearings, when he said he had not even talked to the President in all of August 2001.

This is the big issue and still is, and why did the 9/11 Commission not get to the bottom of the question of why the CIA and the FBI HQ shut first criminally withheld critical information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, and then why did they shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when the clearly knew this would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out an a horrific al Qaeda attack they had been warned about since April 2001, an attack they were told would kill thousands of Americans.

perjury

rschop said...."When Tenet flew out to Crawford, Texas on August 24, 2001, he had just found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to take part in this huge al Qaeda attack. The big question that has never been answered is exactly what did he tell the President at that meeting, a meeting he lied about at the April 14, 2004 9/11 Commission public hearings, when he said he had not even talked to the President in all of August 2001."

"CIA Director George J. Tenet acknowledged yesterday that he did not brief President Bush, FBI leaders or Cabinet members after he was informed in late August 2001 of the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, who would later be charged as a conspirator in the terror attacks. The briefing for Tenet was titled "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13122-2004Apr14.html

Nope he didn't tell anybody anything. How could he tell the President? He never even saw him during this time?

ooooops......using the wayback machine and looking at the White house web site we find........

"For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 25, 2001

THE PRESIDENT: The CIA briefings, I have on our porch, the end of our porch looking out over the lake. When Tenet came up, that's where we visited, out there. You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."
http://web.archive.org/web/20010913060300/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010825-2.html

But so what? It's already in the public record before 9-11 that he went down to meet the President at his ranch in August after getting this information that rschop described. So? All he has to do is lie. No one is going to call him on it. We can all see for ourselves him commit perjury, the long pause by the questioner....who knows he's lying and then we just move on.........

Lying under oath-no big deal when it comes to 9-11.

rschop

I have an idea why you are voted down: the whole movement is bogged down under the tyranny of the MIHOP cultists, and as soon as somebody dares step out of this cult to say Al Qaeda or hijackers actually exist (and they do), they are fair game. This cultist conspiracy industry indoctrination needs to be addressed, otherwise people like you and Kevin Fenton will never get a voice.

It's also why this post is incredibly important, and why I have to post it again and again because nobody wishes to confront this issue, while it needs to be. Just like Pentagon agnosticism needs to be confronted.

MIHOP Cultists?

People simply want to bring justice to those who were responsible for 9/11. As for the movement, you are probably right that most are "MIHOP" despite a vote club to the contrary. If 10,000 people visit 911blogger each day as I've heard, I would like to know how the great majority stand. SC-

Are you saying that Controlled Demolition and Remote Control of aircraft are consistent with "Allowing" it to happen....... or would you like to change your position on nanothermite and 'second hijack?'

Logic

Truth by majority or "truth by consensus" (bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad populum) is ultimately not a valid methodology for establishing fact and truth.(Although I won't say it doesn't matter either)

I am saying that controlled demolition and/or remote control are not mutually exclusive with the presence of hijackers and/or the existence of Al Qaeda and/or the existence of an actual 'terrorist' attack plan. I cover this in the false dilemma post. It is neither logically nor factually mutually exclusive. Therefore, hijackers could be allowed to proceed and be manipulated, with or without their knowledge or awareness, and when with awareness, awareness varying in numbers from 0 to 19, while some aspects of 9/11 could also be orchestrated solely by the US government. It could be neither Al Qaeda nor the US, it could be Al Qaeda, it could be the US, and it could be both, when considering only those two variables. This is logical fact.

I do not consider a "second hijack" a must, I consider it a possibility. I have no verification, and no positive evidence for remote control.

Unlike the, shall we say, opposing camp, should I take a position of 'absolute certainty' w.r.t. the hijackers actually piloting AA 11 and UA 175 into the towers themselves, without involuntary takeover, I do not then deny the nanothermite paper because of this, and this logic goes vice versa. I have the luxury of this position because I recognize these positions aren't mutually exclusive. Others apparently reject this luxurious position.

So why do I bring this up?

So that Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, John Judge, Robert Schopmeyer (rschop) et al. can finally be accepted into the Truth Movement without this nonsensical friction furnished around DRG's questionable MIHOP memes. (no hijackers, no planes, no plane crash, no passengers, voice morphing, etc. etc.)

I'm saying DRG's books are inciting the 9/11 Truth Movement to keep the above mentioned people out and push them away. This ought to stop, and I know exactly where the friction points are. In fact, DRG's fans keep telling the rest of us by posting at for example Fenton's blog, with their limited hangout jeremiads.

Final Thoughts....

I'm not trying to do battle with you. We both want a new investigation and we both want it to be comprehensive.
Of course truth is not determined by majority opinion, but getting a new investigation that uncovers the greater truth requires (likely) critical mass. In my view we should prove both CD and Cover-Up. I am working on a compilation of Commissioner clips right now that make Cover-up crystal clear to anyone.

Next, unlike others I don't deny hijackers. That's a straw man with me. A false flag operation would likely utilize Arabs. My next point is that I'm not knocking Fenton's work at all. I've already noted that it's highly credible and a great asset to the movement. (Above comment re the 2 Kevins)

Indeed I reference History Commons and the Journal of 911 Studies frequently in my activism. Two high quality sources, wouldn't you agree? I want to promote science and news-verified material. If that is what gets a new investigation, fantastic, as long as it looks into everything. I was a huge supporter of the NYC CAN ballot initiative to investigate everything. I wish that would have panned out. I want everything examined.
My priority for getting the new investigation is the science-based evidence because I think that people will respond to this in a stronger way. But that's my opinion.

Which leaves us with terminology in the meantime: The news media will describe 9/11 as what?
1. false flag
2. Al-Qaeda attack

It will describe the towers as
1. collapses
2. demolitions

It will describe the 19 accused as
1. hijackers
2. patsies

It will describe the War on terror as
1. a lie
2. justified

It will describe ringleader Atta as
1. Muslim extremist
2. Intelligence asset

It will describe the anthrax attacks as
1. inside job
2. lone nut (after first calling it Arab terrorism)

It will describe Paul Craig Roberts as
1. patriot
2. idiot whacko

My terminology is admittedly different from the MSM. And maybe from yours.

hijackings and demolitions....

The above argument boils down to a state of cognitive dissonance:

What is the all important CONNECTION between a rash of multiple airliner *hijackings*, followed by the destruction of three of New York City's largest buildings, via pre-planted *explosives*? Two of the buildings that were hit by the *hijacked* planes were provably destroyed by *explosives* soon afterwards, and one of the buildings that was *not* hit by a *hijacked* plane was also provably destroyed by *explosives*.

What are some people here suggesting? That the hijackings and the demolitions are unconnected? Surely not... that is so beyond the realms of the absurd as to be not even worth considering. The most likely scenario is that those who hijacked the planes, and those who rigged the buildings were either members of the same group, or two separate (perhaps compartmentalized) groups, "contracted" by those who organized and hatched the entire plot. The organizers must have been either (a) al Qaeda, or (b) other another party or (c) al Qaeda and another party working together.

If it was "al Qaeda" that organized/carried out the hijackings, as has been suggested here, then it follows logically that it was most likely other "al Qaeda" (connected) personnel who organized the explosive charge rigging.

I think we would all concur that it would have been extremely difficult for al Qaeda members to have procured large quantities of "state of the science" explosives.. i.e. nano-particulate thermitic materials, developed in ultra-secure government laboratories, and then spending considerable time and effort rigging three separate buildings, under the noses of the complex's security organization.

By extension, it follows that, in the overwhelmingly likely state of "connectedness" between the hijackings and the demolitions, and the great unlikelihood of 'al Qaeda" members having access to rig and wire the buildings, then either:

(a) it was not al Qaeda that carried out the hijackings ....
(b) al Qaeda is a different entity than what has been sold to us by the government and the media or
(c) al Qaeda related demolition experts were skilled enough to have both purchased a very uncommon brand of explosives, and gained special access to the buildings prior to 9/11 to rig those explosives and timers, and successfully pulled the buildings after the planes hit.

"LIHOP +"

Cognitive dissonance surely. I would like to consider Snowcrash's "LIHOP +" position to see what that would mean.....

2 Conspiracies to Attack America on 9/11.

An authentic Al-Qaeda attack with planes. And a separate Insider attack with explosives.

Both succeeded. Together they killed almost 3,000 people: About 800 were killed by the plane crashes and 2,200 were murdered in the demolitions of the World Trade Center.

The Al-Qaeda attacks could not have succeeded without the help of Insiders who conspired to let it happen. Nevertheless, the Muslim pilots were extremely lucky to have hit their targets. Their success was in turn a VERY lucky break for the Insiders because it allowed them to execute their second conspiracy to demolish the towers. Otherwise the pre-placed explosives would be for naught.

Both Arabs and Insiders together are responsible for the 1st conspiracy - killing 800.
Insiders alone are responsible for the 2nd conspiracy - killing 2,200.

And Insiders alone are responsible for the subsequent deaths of 1,000 responders who died as a direct result of the demolitions.

Al-Qaeda exists wholly separate from US intelligence and no patsies were involved.

logical fallacy

bloggulator: "If it was "al Qaeda" that organized/carried out the hijackings, as has been suggested here, then it follows logically that it was most likely other "al Qaeda" (connected) personnel who organized the explosive charge rigging."

How do you rule out the possibility/probability that Islamic radicals mounted a plot against the US that was hijacked/used as cover by others?

There is evidence the Al Qaeda plot was provided financial and logistical assistance by Saudi and ISI agents, was monitored by Mossad, that CIA officers interfered w/ FBI investigations, and the NSA withheld intelligence.

bloggulator, are you opposed to holding accountable those in the CIA and FBI who protected the alleged hijackers from being discovered and arrested by FBI investigators? Are you opposed to full disclosure concerning this aspect of 9/11?