Frequently Asked Questions: Conspiracy

9-11 Research provides multiple lines of analysis that thoroughly undermine the official conspiracy theory that the attack was the work of cells of Islamic extremists. We show that only insiders in the U.S. government possessed the means and opportunity to execute the attack. The following questions are frequently asked by people considering the idea that the attack was the work of insiders, including high-level officials in the US government and military. Other questions are addressed in other FAQs.

• Doesn't the government-conspiracy view of the attack necessitate the involvement of large numbers of people?
• How could even a small number of people be persuaded to participate in such a horrific plan?
• How is it that none of the conspirators have changed their minds and come forward, allowing the story to remain invisible in the mass media for more than four years?
• How is it that no one who was NOT involved -- but who happened to be close enough to see evidence and draw the right conclusions -- has come forward either?
• How could the conspirators have been confident enough to plan such a complex attack given the risk of exposure by witnesses who saw too much?
• In spite of the consolidation of ownership of the media, wouldn't there at least be some reporters and editors willing to expose the scam to make names for themselves?

• Doesn't the government-conspiracy view of the attack necessitate the involvement of large numbers of people?
  
  Not in the execution of the attack. In fact there are plausible scenarios that involve fewer conspirators than the official story. High-ranking officials in the government have at their disposal several things that Osama bin Laden did not, including advanced weapons systems operable by computer, and a hierarchical and compartmentalized military command structure that allows complex operations to be hidden from all but a small group of operatives. The speculative scenario outlined in Attack Scenario 404 explains how the attack might have been carried out by as few as twelve individuals.
  
  
• How could even a small number of people be persuaded to participate in such a horrific plan?
  
  Money is very persuasive, and given the magnitude of the economic interests riding on the success of the attack (measurable in hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars), huge sums could have bought people's cooperation. Some operatives may have been misled about the scope and cruelty of the plan. For example, operatives who set up the Pentagon attack may have been unaware of the planned World Trade Center attack and vice versa. People who installed explosives in the towers may have believed they were preparing the buildings for demolition under circumstances quite different than the 9/11/01 attack.
  
  
• How is it that none of the conspirators have changed their minds and come forward, allowing the story to remain invisible in the mass media for more than four years?
  
  Operatives would be carefully screened to assure their loyalty to the attack's planners and to each other. Given the magnitude of the crime, admission of involvement would expose a conspirator to swift silencing by co-conspirators, vigilante justice by an outraged public, or harsh judgment by a court of law. It is also possible that many of the operatives could have been killed before or during the attack.
  
  
• How is it that no one who was NOT involved -- but who happened to be close enough to see evidence and draw the right conclusions -- has come forward either?
  
  Appearances that there are no such witnesses are deceptive. For example, firefighters reported explosions in the towers, but official transcripts of their statements were purged of all such references. The objections of many people to the destruction of Ground Zero evidence was not widely reported. Coverage has also been sparse on the lawsuits by some of the victims' families.
  
  
• How could the conspirators have been confident enough to plan such a complex attack given the risk of exposure by witnesses who saw too much?
  
  The key to success was to make the attack so bold and shocking that even people who were involved in covering it up (like leaders in the media, FEMA, FBI, etc.) would fall for the fraud. The FBI agents running around seizing video around the Pentagon may have thought they were covering up a war-game-gone-bad. Architects of the massive evidence destruction operation at Ground Zero may have thought they were shielding the building's designers from charges of faulty engineering. Layers of cover stories allow people abetting the scam to think they are covering up less serious crimes.
  
  
• In spite of the consolidation of ownership of the media, wouldn't there at least be some reporters and editors willing to expose the scam to make names for themselves?
  
  To seriously investigate the 9/11/01 attack, reporters and editors have to question the basic tenets of the official story. Such questioning, while widespread on the web, continues to be heresy in newsrooms. For reporters to acknowledge the larger implications of the attack being an inside job, they would have to question much of what they have been taught since childhood about the beneficence of our leaders and the nobility of our government and economic system. Such a "Matrix"-like awakening can involve a great deal of painful disillusionment. The small group of wealthy people who own and control the media are not inclined to question the OBL myth since that myth shifts responsibility away from the real perpetrators, whom they associate with.
  
  

Many of the questions in this FAQ are answered in much greater depth in Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, an essay by Gregg Roberts.

back to FAQs