9/11: Are "Let It Happen" theories debunkable?

[jaydeehess]

I disagree skephu. How does local sting-turned-entrapment equal setting up a large scale international coordinated four aircraft suicide hijacking plot?

You will also note that these are ALL incidents that are the result of 9/11/01, that is to say that they all occurred after that date.

 

[Mick West]

A new report from Human Rights Watch certainly puts things in a new perspective:
US: Terrorism Prosecutions Often an Illusion

Unfortunately, this finding somewhat increases the prior probability of 9/11 conspiracy theories as well.

Not really, as it's referring to practices put in place since 9/11.

 

[jaydeehess]

Entrapment has been around for decades. During prohibition several cases were thrown out on that basis. That does not support any notion that alcohol fueled organized crime was deliberately set up by the police. All Capone was not allowed-to-happen-on-purpose.

 

[skephu]

Not really, as it's referring to practices put in place since 9/11.

The point is that terrorist acts were encouraged/arranged by the FBI for whatever hidden agenda.
If that happened after 9/11, why couldn't it have happened before it, maybe for different reasons (different hidden agenda, e.g. to start a war).
It demonstrates that promoting terrorism is one tool in the basket of the powers that be.

So yes, I believe this finding gives more plausibility to 9/11 CTs, and I'm sure the CTers will cite it.

In a way, HRW's finding has revealed a real conspiracy, which has a few points in common with 9/11 CTs.

 

[WeedWhacker]

So yes, I believe this finding gives more plausibility to 9/11 CTs

Which ones?

 

[Mick West]

The point is that terrorist acts were encouraged/arranged by the FBI for whatever hidden agenda.
If that happened after 9/11, why couldn't it have happened before it, maybe for different reasons (different hidden agenda, e.g. to start a war).
It demonstrates that promoting terrorism is one tool in the basket of the powers that be.

So yes, I believe this finding gives more plausibility to 9/11 CTs, and I'm sure the CTers will cite it.

In a way, HRW's finding has revealed a real conspiracy, which has a few points in common with 9/11 CTs.

It's not a finding. It's been common knowledge for years, and commonly used by 9/11 truthers.

But it's something they did because of 9/11.

 

[skephu]

Which ones?

For example the one that is the subject of this topic, the "let it happen" conspiracies.

 

[skephu]

It's been common knowledge for years

Oh really? Maybe I've been uninformed.
But then why has the HRW report made headlines?

 

[skephu]

How does local sting-turned-entrapment equal setting up a large scale international coordinated four aircraft suicide hijacking plot?

Did I say "equal"?
I said one increases the plausibility of the other.

 

[WeedWhacker]

For example the one that is the subject of this topic, the "let it happen" conspiracies.

Not following the reasoning, there.

First, you implied that people were encouraged directly to conduct criminal acts, now it's the opposite...the 'laissez-faire' approach by government entities?

Broad-brush claim that the HRW gives more "plausibility" to so-called 9/11 CTs, without any specific instance to point to? Just hyperbole, sorry.

 

[skephu]

First, you implied that people were encouraged directly to conduct criminal acts, now it's the opposite...the 'laissez-faire' approach by government entities?

Encouraging something is the opposite of letting it happen?
I thought the opposite of encouraging is discouraging.
Now I'm saying I'm not following your reasoning.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Encouraging something is the opposite of letting it happen?
I thought the opposite of encouraging is discouraging.
Now I'm saying I'm not following your reasoning.

The idea is that if you "just" let it happen you take no part. As in seeing a man with a gun come up to a stranger and proceed to mug him, and you took no part and made no effort to intervene. That versus encouraging the person and giving them ideas or offering training. Like giving the guy with the gun the idea to mug the person or telling him that person has money and can be mugged. See the difference? One is active, the other is passive.

 

[Mick West]

Oh really? Maybe I've been uninformed.
But then why has the HRW report made headlines?

Because it's a new report, and there's some other media about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/fbi-terrorism-stings_n_5606468.html

A lengthy investigative report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute entitled "Illusion of Justice" takes on the controversial "sting" operations that law enforcement officials have defended as an essential element of the federal government's counterterrorism strategy.

Separately, Al Jazeera aired an in-depth documentary on Sunday called "Informants," which included interviews with some of the informants with shady backgrounds that have worked sting cases for the FBI. And HBO's "The Newburgh Sting," airing Monday night, closely scrutinizes a high-profile terrorism case in which four upstate New York men were accused in 2009 of plotting to bomb Bronx synagogues and destroy airplanes.

Here's a story on it from 2011
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots

But in its commonly understood usage, FBI entrapment is a widespread tactic. Within days of the 9/11 terror attacks, FBI director Robert Mueller issued a memo on a new policy of "forward leaning – preventative – prosecutions".

Central to that is a growing informant network. The FBI is not choosy about the people it uses. Some have criminal records, including attempted murder or drug dealing or fraud. They are often paid six-figure sums, which critics say creates a motivation to entrap targets. Some are motivated by the promise of debts forgiven or immigration violations wiped clean. There has also been a relaxing of rules on what criteria the FBI needs to launch an investigation.

Often they just seem to be "fishing expeditions". In the Newburgh case, the men involved met FBI informant Shahed Hussain simply because he happened to infiltrate their mosque. In southern California, FBI informant Craig Monteilh trawled mosques posing as a Muslim and tried to act as a magnet for potential radicals.

Alex Jones has been spinning this for a while - characterizing the sting operations as the FBI creating actual terror attacks.

 

[skephu]

The idea is that if you "just" let it happen you take no part. As in seeing a man with a gun come up to a stranger and proceed to mug him, and you took no part and made no effort to intervene. That versus encouraging the person and giving them ideas or offering training. Like giving the guy with the gun the idea to mug the person or telling him that person has money and can be mugged. See the difference? One is active, the other is passive.

But it's not the opposite.
Besides, if you are a policeman and you see someone mug someone, and you do nothing, that's not passive. You actively refused to do your duty and acted against your oath. You knowingly helped make the crime happen.

 

[skephu]

Because it's a new report, and there's some other media about it

The older story you quoted only talks about informants.
The HRW report seems to reveal much more shocking facts, e.g.:

In the case of the "Newburgh Four," for example, who were accused of planning to blow up synagogues and attack a US military base, a judge said the government "came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles," and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man "whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope."

and

The FBI often targeted particularly vulnerable people, including those with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent. The government, often acting through informants, then actively developed the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the targets to participate, and provided the resources to carry it out.

Has this also been known for years?

 

[jaydeehess]

The point is that terrorist acts were encouraged/arranged by the FBI for whatever hidden agenda.
If that happened after 9/11, why couldn't it have happened before it, maybe for different reasons (different hidden agenda, e.g. to start a war).
It demonstrates that promoting terrorism is one tool in the basket of the powers that be.

No, that was not the impetus for doing what the police did in any of these cases. They were not promoting terrorism. They were overzealously trying to pin terrorism charges on Muslims notably for acts which never took place. That's a far cry from planning an actual terrorist action.

So yes, I believe this finding gives more plausibility to 9/11 CTs, and I'm sure the CTers will cite it.

They will, and have, and that is what is commonly referred to as wrong. This relates to a supposed plot by govt to create the attacks, not allow a separate third party to carry out that party's in house plan.

In a way, HRW's finding has revealed a real conspiracy, which has a few points in common with 9/11 CTs.

No, making stuff up is never a substitute for facts.

 

[jaydeehess]

But it's not the opposite.
Besides, if you are a policeman and you see someone mug someone, and you do nothing, that's not passive. You actively refused to do your duty and acted against your oath. You knowingly helped make the crime happen.

Let it happen on purpose does not imply an active role in the planning of an operation.
Make it happen is what these misguided stings were trying to do, albeit with no intention of ever allowing the plan to come to fruition.

The policeman in your analogy had no hand in the events or circumstances that led to the illegal act of a mugging

 

[skephu]

They were overzealously trying to pin terrorism charges on Muslims notably for acts which never took place. That's a far cry from planning an actual terrorist action.

OK. If none of these terrorist acts actually happened (all were prevented in the last minute) then I agree with you.
This was not clear from the HRW article.

 

[jaydeehess]

OK. If none of these terrorist acts actually happened (all were prevented in the last minute) then I agree with you.
This was not clear from the HRW article.

Had the FBI actually allowed murder and mayhem to proceed they'd have been charged with those crimes themselves.
In at least one case I read of they went as far as supplying a "bomb" that was actually inert and could not explode.

 

[Mick West]

The older story you quoted only talks about informants.
The HRW report seems to reveal much more shocking facts, e.g.:

and


Has this also been known for years?

Yes, the Judge at the time even commented on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Bronx_terrorism_plot#Trial_and_sentencing

On June 29, 2011, Cromitie, Onta Williams and David Williams were each sentenced to 25 years in prison for their parts in the attempted attack by Manhattan Federal JudgeColleen McMahon, who criticized both the defendants, as well as what she viewed as the government's overzealous handling of the investigation. Referring to Cromitie, she said, "The essence of what occurred here is that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens from terrorism, came upon a man both bigoted and suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own. It created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true." She added "the government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was no nefarious plot to foil." She said the defendants were "not political or religious martyrs," but "thugs for hire, pure and simple."

 

[skephu]

Had the FBI actually allowed murder and mayhem to proceed they'd have been charged with those crimes themselves.
In at least one case I read of they went as far as supplying a "bomb" that was actually inert and could not explode.

I agree it's a crucial difference that these acts were not actually committed while 9/11 was.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I now accept that those acts don't make 9/11 CTs more plausible after all.

 

[LouV]

I think that when discussing this report, it is important to be sure that the person knows what are "sting operations" and "entrapment" exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
At least in a few countries, these things are far less legal than in USA, so people don't even think about this explanation.
Even fellow french debunkers misunderstood the situation at first, because they can't imagine this can be legal.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I do not see how "sting ops" or "entrapment ops" are relevant to the topic.

Clarifying: To "catch a criminal" sometimes there are scenarios put into place (by law enforcement) that can be considered as "entrapment" or "stings".....this is not a new concept.

But still, I cannot see how those operations apply, here. We are talking about the sort of "intelligence gathering" for a major activity (not an armed bank robbery, for example) and the "intelligence community" failed....simply, they did NOT communicate effectively, on an inter-agency basis.

(ETA) I hope that any misunderstanding in this discussion can be cleared up...IF I caused it.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I do not see how "sting ops" or "entrapment ops" are relevant to the topic.

Clarifying: To "catch a criminal" sometimes there are scenarios put into place (by law enforcement) that can be considered as "entrapment" or "stings".....this is not a new concept.

But still, I cannot see how those operations apply, here. We are talking about the sort of "intelligence gathering" for a major activity (not an armed bank robbery, for example) and the "intelligence community" failed....simply, they did NOT communicate effectively, on an inter-agency basis.

(ETA) I hope that any misunderstanding in this discussion can be cleared up...IF I caused it.

The inability of the national security state effectively and legally prevent terrorism was revealed by 9/11. Short of turning the world into a very repressive fascist police state... the freedoms that we have will enable such acts to be successful... and difficult to impossible to prevent.

This of course puts a lie to the notion that our NSS makes us safe. It does not and it cannot... and we spend enormous sums for little security... Do you feel safer with nuclear subs and carrier groups sailing the oceans? With ICBMs in silos around the nation? Taking your shoes off when boarding a plane?

 

[Jason]

This of course puts a lie to the notion that our NSS makes us safe. It does not and it cannot... and we spend enormous sums for little security... Do you feel safer with nuclear subs and carrier groups sailing the oceans? With ICBMs in silos around the nation? Taking your shoes off when boarding a plane?

To the contrary, I feel very safe in the US. The events that unfolded on 9/11 took the nation by surprise and those who worked in our nations security and defense. Sure we failed, and failed miserably, but how many attempts on our nation have been stopped or detered. I'm betting no one knows the answer to that, and we can't believe 9/11 or the WTC bombings were the only attempts on our nation from outside terrorist groups. We also see terrorism occur in much higher accomplished acts world wide in areas where government doesn't offer good security, not including Israel.

I feel very safe in our country, much safer than if I lived in any other nation (except for some secluded island in the tropics). I don't ever worry about nuclear war, or a counry lobbing missiles into the US. The fact that our country spends more in defense than the next top 10 countries combined allows us to live our lives without the fear of war being brought to our shores. Our ICBMs, silos, nuclear subs, and carrier groups is a deterrent, and not only is it a deterrent that protects our shores, it also protect countless other nations in the world.
http://reliefweb.int/report/world/2012-global-terrorism-index-capturing-impact-terrorism-2002-2011

The US and North America are regarded as the safest places to live in the world with respect to terrorism and conflict.

While more terrorist attacks are being recorded, the number of fatalities has declined by 25% from its peak in 2007

• Since the start of the Iraq invasion the number of global terrorist incidents has increased fourfold;
  
  
• Only 31 of the 158 countries ranked have not experienced a terrorist attack since 2001;
  
  
• North America is the least likely region to suffer from terrorism;
  
  
• Western Europeans are nineteen times more likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than North Americans;
  
  
• Since 2002, only 6% of all fatalities have been terrorists, highlighting the effectiveness of terrorism;
  
  
• In 2011, Iraq was the country most impacted from terrorism, followed by Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Terrorism exist everywhere regardless of how the government runs its country. It exist in Russia, Philippines, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Afghanastan. And we can surely all agree that all of these nations run their government differently from one another. So being a National security state seems to be the safer route when compared to how other governments operate in their countries...

 

[Soulfly]

I'm betting no one knows the answer to that, and we can't believe 9/11 or the WTC bombings were the only attempts on our nation from outside terrorist groups.

There have been at least 60 that are publicly known . They count the Boston Bombing as 59.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ontinued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

Abstract
The Heritage Foundation has tracked post-9/11 terrorist plots against the United States in an effort to study the evolving nature of the threat and to garner lessons learned. The best way to protect the United States from terrorism is to ensure a strong and capable domestic counterterrorism enterprise—and to understand the continuing nature of the terror threat. The Boston Marathon bombing was the 59th publicly known terror plot against the United States since 9/11. In a political environment of sequestration on the one hand, and privacy concerns on the other, there are those on both sides of the aisle who want to cut counterterrorism spending and restrict the scope of U.S. intelligence agencies. But the long war on terrorism is far from over. Most disturbingly, an increasing number of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks are originating within America's borders. The rise of homegrown extremism is the next front in the fight against terrorism, and Congress and the Administration must take it seriously. This Special Report features up-to-date information on all 60 plots, and the authors describe a plan for a comprehensive homeland security strategy.

While four plots were successful, and three foiled merely by luck or the swift action of private citizens, the rest were thwarted in their early stages by U.S., and sometimes international, law enforcement

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

To the contrary, I feel very safe in the US. The events that unfolded on 9/11 took the nation by surprise and those who worked in our nations security and defense. Sure we failed, and failed miserably, but how many attempts on our nation have been stopped or detered. I'm betting no one knows the answer to that, and we can't believe 9/11 or the WTC bombings were the only attempts on our nation from outside terrorist groups. We also see terrorism occur in much higher accomplished acts world wide in areas where government doesn't offer good security, not including Israel.

I feel very safe in our country, much safer than if I lived in any other nation (except for some secluded island in the tropics). I don't ever worry about nuclear war, or a counry lobbing missiles into the US. The fact that our country spends more in defense than the next top 10 countries combined allows us to live our lives without the fear of war being brought to our shores. Our ICBMs, silos, nuclear subs, and carrier groups is a deterrent, and not only is it a deterrent that protects our shores, it also protect countless other nations in the world.
http://reliefweb.int/report/world/2012-global-terrorism-index-capturing-impact-terrorism-2002-2011

The US and North America are regarded as the safest places to live in the world with respect to terrorism and conflict.

While more terrorist attacks are being recorded, the number of fatalities has declined by 25% from its peak in 2007

• Since the start of the Iraq invasion the number of global terrorist incidents has increased fourfold;
  
  
• Only 31 of the 158 countries ranked have not experienced a terrorist attack since 2001;
  
  
• North America is the least likely region to suffer from terrorism;
  
  
• Western Europeans are nineteen times more likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than North Americans;
  
  
• Since 2002, only 6% of all fatalities have been terrorists, highlighting the effectiveness of terrorism;
  
  
• In 2011, Iraq was the country most impacted from terrorism, followed by Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Terrorism exist everywhere regardless of how the government runs its country. It exist in Russia, Philippines, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Afghanastan. And we can surely all agree that all of these nations run their government differently from one another. So being a National security state seems to be the safer route when compared to how other governments operate in their countries...

There are many reasons why the USA is relatively safe... and if you recall your history and geogrpaphy you will know we are separated from the rest of the world by 2 huge oceans and have only 2 nations on our borders which are relatively peaceful.. Canada being very much so... Mexico less so because of narco trafficking.

Most other countries are jammed together and many of their problems are from hostility that comes through their borders...

Our national security state is complete ineffective... at least what we know about it... in defeating the sort of attacks which are mounted from abroad. These would require planes or ships or infiltrating into the country and carrying out the terrorist attack. In which case this is really an FBI matter... not national DOD /defense one. Our huge DOD is useless as far as preventing terrorist attacks. One might think that they could intercept and shoot down hijacked planes. And this would be possible... but there will never be a policy to shoot down commercial airliners with civilians on board by the air force.

We're left with stings and use of drones to do "illegal" assassination on foreign soil.

I am certain that if the USA had foiled attacks they would make a big deal of it... for multiple reasons... not keep silent.... You may recall all the stupid fake terrorism and stings after 9/11 to make the public feel that something was being done. Public got pissed off and so this too has stopped.

We hear talk about porous border both here and in the EU where it is believed that they allow terrorist easy entry into to do mischief and with so much freedom of movement they can rather easily get away with it. So we see pressure to close borders and entry and loss of personal freedom... mostly accomplishing nothing.

 

[Jason]

Our huge DOD is useless as far as preventing terrorist attacks.

Can you prove this or show examples of this claim?

One might think that they could intercept and shoot down hijacked planes. And this would be possible... but there will never be a policy to shoot down commercial airliners with civilians on board by the air force.

The US does have a policy in place to shoot down commercial jets if it threatens our nation's security. Prior to 9/11 on the US President had the authorization to give such an order, but post 9/11 I believe there are a different set of protocals for such an action, given what happened on 9/11. NOAA just intercepted a flight a few days ago and escorted the commercial liner back to Canada because of a hostile passenger, but believe you me if that person took over the plane and had intentions of running it into a bldg or government bldg it would've been shot out of the sky.

I am certain that if the USA had foiled attacks they would make a big deal of it... for multiple reasons... not keep silent.... You may recall all the stupid fake terrorism and stings after 9/11 to make the public feel that something was being done. Public got pissed off and so this too has stopped.

@Soulfly mentioned 60 foiled attacks above, but do you honestly think our government discloses every single threat made against our nation, or how they determined the threat and how they stopped the threat. In doing so it would give terrorist and other nations wishing to do us harm an inside look into how our intelligence apparatus works. There's only one person who knows all of this and that's the President. Otherwise its a need to know, and civilians don't need to know. It doesn't help our society and would only make our nation more of a police state.

 

[jaydeehess]

I do not see how "sting ops" or "entrapment ops" are relevant to the topic.

Clarifying: To "catch a criminal" sometimes there are scenarios put into place (by law enforcement) that can be considered as "entrapment" or "stings".....this is not a new concept.

But still, I cannot see how those operations apply, here. We are talking about the sort of "intelligence gathering" for a major activity (not an armed bank robbery, for example) and the "intelligence community" failed....simply, they did NOT communicate effectively, on an inter-agency basis.

(ETA) I hope that any misunderstanding in this discussion can be cleared up...IF I caused it.

The relevance is pretty limited. Some law agencies can and do conduct contrived operations in order to encourage criminal behavior.

From that to "9/11 was allowed to happen" is quite a stretch.

There is the related "9/11 was encouraged by and set in motion by clandestine agencies, and allowed to happen"