Where Are the Whistleblowers?
If the 9/11/01 attack was an Inside Job, then Why Aren't There More Whistleblowers?
Thie idea that official perpetration of or complicity in the 9/11 crime implies a conspiracy that would be impossible to maintain is possibly the single biggest barrier to the serious consideration of such official guilt. Given the massive scale and coordinated nature of the assault, people naturally tend to think that it would involve large numbers of people consciously participating in pre-meditated murder, if it was an inside job. Wouldn't someone have talked and spilled the beans? (Interestingly the assumption that the attack's scale and coordination imply an unwieldy operation with too many participants is almost never applied to the official theory that it was the work of Islamic terrorists.)
A full and convincing answer to this question involves several aspects, such as a consideration of the personnel requirements and a number of observations in the Conspiracy FAQ. The most complete examination of this question that we are aware of is the essay by 9-11 Research Associate Editor Gregg Roberts, Where Are the 9-11 Whistleblowers?. Roberts' essay first builds a case for official complicity in 9/11 and then examines the key aspects of the whistleblowers question, including:
- The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
- How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
- The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
- Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media
Roberts concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms.