9/11 "alternative" theories and "conspiracies"

[Jerry442]

4. I think MIHOP is not so implausible.

Imagine that in 2000 a faction of the Saudi Royal Family gets word that there's a splinter group of al Qaeda (Atta's group) that wants to do an attack within the United States. A Saudi intermediary utterly trusted by the Bush family (Bandar?) broaches the subject of a terrorist attack with the Bush inner circle as a way of opening the door to military action in the Mideast. The Bush inner circle decides to go with it without specific plans in place.

The Saudi faction, working through Saudi Intelligence, guides Atta's group by making resources and intelligence available to him and smoothing the way for him, often in ways that don't dirty their hands.

After the 2000 (s)election, things heat up. Bush still wants to go to war, but his legitimacy is in doubt. A bigger bang will be needed. The Bush inner circle plays the same game Saudi Intelligence has been doing. Because they know what Atta is doing, they can cause obstacles in his path to magically melt away without getting their hands dirty. Atta is getting intel from the Bush administration via the the Saudi intermediary-Saudi Intelligence conduit, so he can tapdance around any attempts by American law enforcement and intelligence to recognize what he's up to and stop him. Who knows whether Atta came up the idea with flying airliners into the towers and buildings in D.C. or whether it was suggested to him. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

In the end, the instruments got a lot blunter. Intel was presented to Bush and he brushed it off. Money from Bandar ended up going to the hijackers. In the days after 9/11, the Saudis lost their nerve and a bunch of them fled this country.

I don't think there was ever more than a tiny handful of people who had the full picture. Atta may have never known that he was indirectly working for Bush. I'm almost positive the people with him had no clue.

And as for the big question, why does the conspiracy stay hidden to this day? My answer is this: it didn't. If we had the same kind of evidence against a kid accused of killing someone while robbing a liquor store as we have against Bush, the kid would have gone straight to the chair.

I call it the Big Truth. It's the mirror of the Big Lie. It's the truth that's so awful to contemplate that no one wants to believe it, no matter how much evidence appears.