My First Conspiracy Theory This "Terrorist Attack" is a set up

[BobTheDonkey]

So the folks in Amsterdam who let the guy on the plane with no passport, were they in on it? Was that planned? How about the father? Is he imaginary and this guy's real parents would not know him from the photos?

There is no way the guy was acting out the part. If that were the case then why have so many things that could have kept him off the plane in the Amsterdam airport?

Sure does prove a point about how lax the security was at the Amsterdam airport, doesn't it

I.e. "They can hit us from any where, at any time. We do what we can to protect you, but sometimes it's not enough. We need to a) continue to take the fight to them or b) increase our countermeasures or c) escalate our war on terror around the entire globe, not just the middle east or d) a combination of all of the above."

Honestly, sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? Not really all that far-fetched to hear that...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So this guy is going to be in court and not give it away he was acting all along and the CIA or whomever put him up to it?

How far fetched are you planning to imagine the possibilities here? Are the doctors and nurses who took care of his burns in on it?

Well, that depends on the deal and just how "patriotic" this fella is. There are many plausible ways for this to be a conspiracy.

The CIA/FBI knew about this kid, knew he had terrorist ties. Who's to say that some CIA agent didn't put him up to it, give him a "bomb" that wasn't really going to explode. Not a full on, completely out of control, terrorist attack - it has the cover of a terrorist attack without any real harm to anyone (other than the terrorist, and he gets what he deserves). In this scenario, it's not like the (attempted) bomber is going to be able to point to the CIA. And even if he did, what evidence would he have that would be believed. And what makes you think he'd realize it was a setup in the first place? Maybe he still believes he was performing Allah's will...

The doctors and nurses needn't be in on it. The plant really was burned and the docs/nurses/emergency crews merely performed their jobs oblivious to what was really behind the "attack".

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I love truethat's description of the guy as 'uneducated'. He's from one of the richest banking families in Nigeria (his dad had already expressed concern about his radical views to the authorities). And he has a degree from University College London, one of the top universities in the world.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I love truethat's description of the guy as 'uneducated'. He's from one of the richest banking families in Nigeria (his dad had already expressed concern about his radical views to the authorities). And he has a degree from University College London, one of the top universities in the world.

Side note...first thing that came to mind when I saw that in the news was "Are we sure he's a wealthy Nigerian? Maybe he's just mad because he got taken in by that scam..."

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm not sure what you think too much risk amounts to

Take me.

Say you come to me from the CIA and say "Look we need support of the American public to continue the war and it's getting sticky right now, so we're hooking you up, you'll go on the plane sit down, you'll ignight a dude fuse that will cause a lot of smoke and chaos, the bomb won't go off."

You'll get arrested and sent to jail, Then we'll roll you out into a witness protection program. You get a million bucks and a new identity and your family is taken care of for life. Cool?

How much risk is that? If I start to talk you kill me, I know this so I shut up.

Or how about this risk, a CIA agent engages the boy and sets him up with a dud bomb. He really thinks he's doing it but the higher ups know he's going to get caught, media frenzy. Done deed.

What exactly is the risk here.

I see zero risk massive pay off.

The problem is, you get the SAME payoff by simply dredging up a narrowly-averted terror attack from the past.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when Obama was trying to get support for more troops in Afganistan? Just before his address to the nation, a big news story broke about how we ALMOST had bin Laden several years ago, but we let him off the hook because we didn't have enough resources in the area.

Old news, obviously. However, they certainly made it seem like a new revelation, and the attention-span-challenged American public is unlikely to be able to tell the difference.

(Just for the record...I think Obama's right about Afganistan.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

I love truethat's description of the guy as 'uneducated'. He's from one of the richest banking families in Nigeria (his dad had already expressed concern about his radical views to the authorities). And he has a degree from University College London, one of the top universities in the world.

How can someone crouching in a hut in the jungle buy an airline ticket? It MUST have been purchased by the CIA.

Also, I've never heard of University College London. They didn't even make it to a bowl game, as far as I know.

 

[Travis]

Good to see that arguing from personal incredulity still persists.

 

[angrysoba]

Definitely "inside job" according to those in the know:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009/12/british-ambassador-and-his-loony.html

 

[truethat]

The problem is, you get the SAME payoff by simply dredging up a narrowly-averted terror attack from the past.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when Obama was trying to get support for more troops in Afganistan? Just before his address to the nation, a big news story broke about how we ALMOST had bin Laden several years ago, but we let him off the hook because we didn't have enough resources in the area.

Old news, obviously. However, they certainly made it seem like a new revelation, and the attention-span-challenged American public is unlikely to be able to tell the difference.

(Just for the record...I think Obama's right about Afganistan.)

I think that's a ridiculous assertion. You certainly do NOT get the SAME payoff by dredging up an old news story than you do by freaking out Christmas travlers in real time.

 

[truethat]

Definitely "inside job" according to those in the know:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009/12/british-ambassador-and-his-loony.html

Actually that's a very interesting point. Why would someone set fire to himself sitting in the seat on the plane. If you really wanted it to work why not just go into the bathroom to set it off and pop the door open when you are done. Since many of the Bathrooms are located by the kitchen area you could also pull it off while the airline attendants were serving food thereby blocking the aisles.

Well, that depends on the deal and just how "patriotic" this fella is. There are many plausible ways for this to be a conspiracy.

The CIA/FBI knew about this kid, knew he had terrorist ties. Who's to say that some CIA agent didn't put him up to it, give him a "bomb" that wasn't really going to explode. Not a full on, completely out of control, terrorist attack - it has the cover of a terrorist attack without any real harm to anyone (other than the terrorist, and he gets what he deserves). In this scenario, it's not like the (attempted) bomber is going to be able to point to the CIA. And even if he did, what evidence would he have that would be believed. And what makes you think he'd realize it was a setup in the first place? Maybe he still believes he was performing Allah's will...

The doctors and nurses needn't be in on it. The plant really was burned and the docs/nurses/emergency crews merely performed their jobs oblivious to what was really behind the "attack".

It's curious to me how many people seem to have a problem understanding this. It makes me wonder about the people arguing so ardently against this. How hard is it to profile a dupe and give him what he wants by setting him up to ignite a device on the plane that is a dud. Then everything procedes as expected and he's thinking he almost pulled it off not knowing he was played.

You'd have to have maybe 20 people involved to pull this off and no one outside of the CIA would need to be involved.

 

[TS-]

Because there is no evidence for it, and your theories don't make sense and contradict what evidence actually exists. Also, it is generally impolite to accuse people of treason, especially if you are letting actual criminals off the hook by proxy.

The basic problem with your reasoning is that in your mind the CIA or whatever agency you imagine may have been responsible, is essentially perfect. You have allowed yourself to make any claim with regards to any outcome, and still have the same implication.

If the bomb had gone off, it could have been the CIA.

If the bomb didn't go off, it could have been the CIA.

If the suspect were some ignorant dirt farmer, it could have been the CIA.

If the suspect is well-educated and politically motivated, it could have been the CIA.

If the suspect knew he was working with the CIA and agreed with their absurd hypothetical goal, it could have been the CIA.

If the suspect didn't know he was working for the CIA, it could have been the CIA.


etc, etc. So, you've not only completely removed the burden of proof from yourself, you're starting from your conclusion and imagining your facts to fit it, instsead of the other way around.

As part of that, you're granting the CIA godlike powers, and saying that any evidence of any wrongdoing could be destroyed. Thus, there is nothing you can't accuse the CIA of without evidence so long as there is a motive you can imagine- even if this motivation doesn't really make sense to anyone else.


More specific to your last post, you seem to be under the impression that no one will investigate this case? That if he was provided with bomb-making materials (as if I couldn't Google those, by the way) that someone would find out where from?

 

[CORed]

Ok I haven't been following the news much, I went down to the pub to grab a pint and lo and behold it turns out the country is upside down freaking out over two failed Terror attacks on airplanes. On the tail end of this I hear Joe Liberman is screetching about how we need to preemptively strike Yemen.

To me the whole thing is a set up. The guy they were showing pictures of as the "terrorist" could have been from anywhere.

Is there any sort of rumbling in the works other than my Bass inspired Epiphany?

Well, if it's a conspiracy, I think it was perpetrated by a small cabal of voyeuristic TSA employees, whose intent is to push the acceptance of whole-body scanners, so they can get their jollies from seeing all the passengers' privates.

 

[Brainache]

...
It's curious to me how many people seem to have a problem understanding this. It makes me wonder about the people arguing so ardently against this. How hard is it to profile a dupe and give him what he wants by setting him up to ignite a device on the plane that is a dud. Then everything procedes as expected and he's thinking he almost pulled it off not knowing he was played.

You seem to be seriously underestimating the difficulty of infiltrating terrorist networks. These people don't just take bombs and training from anyone approaching them on the street.- "You wanna kill Americans? Here, take this bomb and this plane ticket. Go knock 'em dead Abdul!"

It would be easier to join the Mafia.

You'd have to have maybe 20 people involved to pull this off and no one outside of the CIA would need to be involved.

Again, why would the CIA bother to manufacture terrorists when there are thousands of them out there already?

Are the CIA so short of funds that they need to drum up business?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, if it's a conspiracy, I think it was perpetrated by a small cabal of voyeuristic TSA employees, whose intent is to push the acceptance of whole-body scanners, so they can get their jollies from seeing all the passengers' privates.

Oooh... Good call

 

[angrysoba]

Actually that's a very interesting point. Why would someone set fire to himself sitting in the seat on the plane. If you really wanted it to work why not just go into the bathroom to set it off and pop the door open when you are done. Since many of the Bathrooms are located by the kitchen area you could also pull it off while the airline attendants were serving food thereby blocking the aisles.

Whether or not it is an "interesting point" it doesn't bring you any closer being able to say it was an "inside job".

The problem is that when anything like this happens then a bunch of wild-eyed conspiracy nuts will declare, "It was an inside job! Okay let's try and make a case for it!" Because they start without any evidence whatsoever. Then they gather all these little anomalies, these little turds of data, and stack them into a big pile saying, "Behold my Tower of Truth" yet all they have is a steaming heap of ◊◊◊◊!

 

[JihadJane]

To gain control of the goats, of course!

Yemen, at the tip of the Arabian peninsula, straddles a strategic maritime crossroads at the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the access point to the Suez Canal.

 

[Brainache]

Yemen, at the tip of the Arabian peninsula, straddles a strategic maritime crossroads at the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the access point to the Suez Canal.

So if the US doesn't invade Yemen, this whole silly CT is moot, is it not?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Whether or not it is an "interesting point" it doesn't bring you any closer being able to say it was an "inside job".

The problem is that when anything like this happens then a bunch of wild-eyed conspiracy nuts will declare, "It was an inside job! Okay let's try and make a case for it!" Because they start without any evidence whatsoever. Then they gather all these little anomalies, these little turds of data, and stack them into a big pile saying, "Behold my Tower of Truth" yet all they have is a steaming heap of ◊◊◊◊!

Ahh, but we're not wild-eyed conspiracy nuts... We're simply presenting an exercise in critical/skeptical thought. The proper way to "end" the CT concerning this would be to present specific reasons/evidence for why the CT is not plausible...not simply label it CT and then dismiss it with a wave-of-the-hand (as many people in this thread have done/attempted)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So if the US doesn't invade Yemen, this whole silly CT is moot, is it not?

Only if we agree that Lieberman was somehow connected to the attack, as opposed to simply attempting to jump on the nearest bandwagon and accomplish his own goals with someone else's hard work. Not that any politician would do that...

 

[Brainache]

Ahh, but we're not wild-eyed conspiracy nuts... We're simply presenting an exercise in critical/skeptical thought. The proper way to "end" the CT concerning this would be to present specific reasons/evidence for why the CT is not plausible...not simply label it CT and then dismiss it with a wave-of-the-hand (as many people in this thread have done/attempted)

Many people have presented specific reasons for why this CT is as implausible as any other CT, but you guys playing CTists have used all of the wild eyed CT nut tactics to dismiss them.

As usual, it boils down to the burden of proof.

Got any evidence?