911 CT, how many people?

quasar2010

I just wondered how many people it would take and what kind of scale the 911 CT would actually take. The people in the planes, the training of those people, the wiring of the explosives in both towers and WTC7. Just how many people would be involved in the entire operation from start to finish including any cover ups and under what protocol would you keep all parties involved in it quiet over the next 20 years?

diarmuid05

Probably a lot,

but still more plausible than some guy hiding in a cave thousands of miles away

Divorce Referendum

diarmuid05 wrote: »

Probably a lot,

but still more plausible than some guy hiding in a cave thousands of miles away

But of course. Everything is plausible if you ignore the facts and close your eyes.;)

gizmo

diarmuid05 wrote: »

Probably a lot,

but still more plausible than some guy hiding in a cave thousands of miles away

Yea cos it's not like a bunch of fanatics didn't try to blow it up before or anything? :rolleyes:

Penn

It depends on which theories you believe in about it. Theories like the no planes theory an controlled demolition theories means you're already probably in the thousands just to carry out the attacks, never mind the amount of people taken to plan and organise the attacks. It all depends on what elements you think actually happened or were planned by the government. As for keeping them all quiet, threat of death would be the main way of keeping them quiet I suppose. Money wouldn't make a lot of sense because how can you put a price on knowingly helping to kill thousands of people? For all these thousands of people to be involved in the conspiracy, not one of them has a guilty enough conscience to step forward with real proof after over 9 years. And how would the people who organised 9/11 be able to tell if everyone would stay quiet? You'd need even more people to research each person you'd need in the conspiracy, thereby increasing the numbers of those involved.

Whereas that 'one man hiding in a cave' had more people under him. It wasn't just him. And they don't care about money or death.

quasar2010

diarmuid05 wrote: »

Probably a lot,

but still more plausible than some guy hiding in a cave thousands of miles away

Oh I agree, definately. The most compelling evidence to myself was the video in which Mineta testified that someone was explaining to Cheney how close the plane was getting to the Pentagon in terms of miles, 50 miles,30 miles then finally 10 miles to impact he asked cheney if he wanted to carry on with the previous order to stand down to which Cheney replied 'of course the order still stands, did you hear anything else to the contrary'?
This was an act of high treason in front of the American people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTdAkhd6Dcw
This is a nice piece on the general subject I read the other day. Gives you a good prospective of the ball park:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html

PirateShampoo

diarmuid05 wrote: »

Probably a lot,

but still more plausible than some guy hiding in a cave thousands of miles away

And why would they of been hidding in a cave before 9/11 ?

PanchoVilla

gizmo wrote: »

Yea cos it's not like a bunch of fanatics didn't try to blow it up before or anything? :rolleyes:

FBI Involvement

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.

You should really read the whole article before trying to use it as an example of "terrorist" activity.

gizmo

PanchoVilla wrote: »

You should really read the whole article before trying to use it as an example of "terrorist" activity.

Except for the fact that the FBI supervisor in the case screwing up doesn't change the fact that the attack was planned and executed by said fanatics who subsequently admitted to it, showed no remorse and were, in fact, also found guilty of other such terrorist actions in the past.

My name is URL

Well the people on the planes don't count as they would be oblivious to what is about to happen. The terrorists knew what they intended to do and fulfilled their objective.. To me, the only slightly possible CT is that the only people who could have stopped it from happening is the likes of the CIA etc. How many field agents would be tasked with observing likely threats? And how many would make the executive decision to lay back on the people who were already known to be linked with terrorist cells and in the US at the same time.

How many people would such a task need to be necessitated? I don't know, but it probably isn't as many as you'd assume.

Yitzhak Rabin

My name is URL wrote: »

Well the people on the planes don't count as they would be oblivious to what is about to happen. The terrorists knew what they intended to do and fulfilled their objective.. To me, the only slightly possible CT is that the only people who could have stopped it from happening is the likes of the CIA etc. How many field agents would be tasked with observing likely threats? And how many would make the executive decision to lay back on the people who were already known to be linked with terrorist cells and in the US at the same time.

How many people would such a task need to be necessitated? I don't know, but it probably isn't as many as you'd assume.

Thats the thing with Int, there could have been 100s of agents 'involved' however, each one would only have been reporting back seemingly mundane bits of intel, which on their own are unremarkable, but to someone who had access to all of the int data would have formed a cohesive picture of what the details of the terrorist plot were. Then, it could just be a matter of a handful of individuals allowing it to happen.

meglome

There's a good link on this over at 911myths.com

http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html

The story...

Some criticise 9/11 conspiracy theories because they say must have involved "thousands of people", but that's missing the point. Governments work on a "need to know" basis, people may have some local knowledge of their own involvement, but only a few need to have the full picture.

Our take...

We've seen this argument used several times, and consider it misleading in the extreme. Why? Let's consider one example.

The "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" argument has to explain the debris that appeared, and damage like the broken street lights. Some suggest the answer is simple: the debris was planted, the street light damage faked. Now, if that happened, it's certainly most unlikely that those involved would also have in-depth knowledge of explosives in the WTC, but so what? That doesn't matter. If one person came forward to say "I was in a secret army team that planted fake debris at the Pentagon on 9/11", then don't you think that's going to be enough to create some considerable headlines?

And it's the same in many other areas. Planting explosives at the WTC, say. Being a member of Bush's secret service detail on 9/11 and saying you had advance knowledge of the attack, therefore knew he was in no danger. Being on the NIST or FEMA teams and explaining how you were leaned on to produce a conclusion that you don't believe makes sense. None of these people need know everything about 9/11, but they would all have enough information to completely change what we think about the event.

What's more, the "small conspiracy" argument also ignores what's supposed to be a huge coverup. Have you ever looked at the list of people involved in the FEMA and NIST WTC reports, for instance? What's the explanation for these academics, engineers and scientists producing something that others would have us believe is an incompetent tissue of lies? Why they've been "leaned on", of course, or they're scared of speaking out. In which case they're now also a part of the conspiracy, if only after the fact, and have to be included in the total.

What is the total? It's hard to say, not least because some people could have more than one conspiracy or coverup-related task. Still, here are some of the people who have very useful knowledge about 9/11 events (assuming you accept all the 9/11 conspiracy theories; cross off names here for the ones you don’t)

* CIA agent Larry Mitchell for meeting with bin Laden in the months before 9/11, and everyone else in the CIA who knows they're not actually trying to capture him after all
* GW Bush and various family members (if you're to believe the relevance of Bush family members being involved with the WTC security company Stratesec)
* Condoleezza Rice (if you believe she had enough knowledge to warn Willie Brown that he might be in danger)
* John Ashcroft (if you believe he had enough knowledge to decide not to fly commercial flights)
* Larry Silverstein (if you believe he knew 9/11 was coming and that there were explosives in WTC7)
* The 19 people who played the part of the hijackers, if you believe they were just their to play a role and were never on the planes
* Enough senior people at the FBI to block progress in the Moussaoui case, ensure the Phoenix memo was ignored, and more
* Ahmad Umar Sheikh for funding the hijackers, General Mahmoud Ahmad for ordering him to do so, and enough of the ISI to get the money and cover up that they were doing this for the US
* Everyone who found out about the attacks in advance, and chose not to go into work rather than warn anyone else, and didn't mention this after the fact (thousands of Israelis in the towers, and so on), and everyone who warned them
* Everyone responsible for the insider trading before the attacks, the CIA for supposedly monitoring these transactions but doing nothing about them, and enough of the SEC and FBI to ensure that the report was a whitewash
* The members of Bush’s secret service team on 9/11 (who presumably either knew in advance that he was safe, or haven’t spoken out about their surprise about what happened subsequently)
* The five "dancing Israelis" who filmed the attack "as it happened", and presumably many others in Israeli Intelligence, and enough people in the police or FBI to cover up the details of the case and get them shipped out
* Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the hijackers cars, bags and so on
* Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the WTC wreckage (passports etc), or removing it (WTC black boxes)
* Air Traffic Control and flight schedulers at the takeoff airports (to cope with the double flights), and to make sure they didn't follow procedure in reporting the hijackings promptly
* Whoever prepared the "special" planes swapped for the real flights, complete with "missile pod" for firing into the towers just before impact, and the ATC and Norad staff who didn't mention the swap
* Norad and senior officers working at the day (so they could lie about the war games and their lack of response)
* Fighter pilots who deliberately flew too slowly so they wouldn't reach the aircraft in time
* Whoever shot down Flight 93, and the senior officers who helped cover it up
* Everyone who researched the passengers, then all the actors who used that research to make fake mobile calls to their relatives, and either the phone company or the FBI for covering up the phone records
* Everyone involved in killing hundreds of passengers, assuming they didn't die in the crashes and were killed later
* Everyone involved in transporting their bodies to the various scenes if they did, or faking the DNA evidence if they didn't
* The people who researched the WTC to find out the best place to place explosives
* The people who planted the explosives through the WTC towers and WTC7
* Whoever detonated the WTC explosives at various different times of the day
* Enough of the New York Fire and Police Departments to shut up everyone else and make sure they didn't try to investigate why all their friends and colleagues died
* Everyone who prepared the remote control plane that really flew into the Pentagon, and whoever remote-controlled it, and the Washington Air Traffic Controllers who aren't allowed to talk about the extra radar blip they saw over the Pentagon (if Flight 77 really flew over it)
* The Sheraton hotel staff who reportedly saw the video of the plane as it flew past to the Pentagon, but have never said that it wasn't the "official" flight
* The people who ensured the Pentagon missile defence systems were disabled to the plane could hit
* The people who planted the fake Pentagon evidence, from body parts to black boxes, and those who prepared it
* The people who faked additional evidence around the Pentagon, bringing down lampposts etc in an effort to make it look like a large winged plane carried out the attack
* Rudolph Giuliani for having advance knowledge that the WTC was going to collapse, and for helping to ensure that the steel was disposed of quickly
* Enough people at American and United Airlines to keep quiet about the absence of the hijackers names from the passenger manifests
* Enough people at CNN not to question the absence of the hijackers names from the flight manifests, if you believe that's what their victims lists really are
* Enough people at FEMA and NIST to ensure any reports and analyses produced were whitewashes
* Enough senior officials at the many WTC insurance companies to ensure the doubts were ignored and claims were paid
* Everyone involved in producing the fake bin Laden "confession" video(s)
* Khalid Al-Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin Al-Sheeba for discussing how they planned 9/11 on audio tape even though this didn’t happen, and perhaps al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda for getting the interview (if we assume he knows it isn't true)
* All the other Al Qaeda members who've either implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility for 9/11, even when they know it was carried out by someone else
* The staff of the 9/11 Commission for deliberately obscuring the truth

Sounds reasonable, I think, but this is only the start. If you discuss 9/11 conspiracies online anywhere, try keeping your own list, and add to it everyone someone implies that another person or group was “in on it”. Then produce the list after a month or two and see just how realistic it looks...

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

Well the people on the planes don't count as they would be oblivious to what is about to happen. The terrorists knew what they intended to do and fulfilled their objective.. To me, the only slightly possible CT is that the only people who could have stopped it from happening is the likes of the CIA etc. How many field agents would be tasked with observing likely threats? And how many would make the executive decision to lay back on the people who were already known to be linked with terrorist cells and in the US at the same time.

How many people would such a task need to be necessitated? I don't know, but it probably isn't as many as you'd assume.

This is something I've always wondered about too. I fall on the side of ineptitude being the problem rather than conspiracy. Before homeland security came along there was a long standing history of US government agencies not sharing info with each other. My best guess is they just didn't share.

SamHarris

People who (still) believe in 911 conspiracy theories have basically broken all the "rules" by which a conspiracy theory moves from plausibility to pie in the sky madness.

All of them are listed here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wigysppDbc

squod

SamHarris wrote: »

People who (still) believe in 911 conspiracy theories have basically broken all the "rules" by which a conspiracy theory moves from plausibility to pie in the sky madness.

All of them are listed here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wigysppDbc

Maybe it was at a party, a family event, or even at work, but you have probably encountered before a person whom we would call a conspiracy theorist. Were you cornered as they became more and more animated, discussing how the shadow world government is slowly preparing for world domination using chemtrails and vaccines? Perhaps you became progressively sheepish as every logical question was met with an even more absurd bit of circular reasoning, accompanied by accusations of being naive, until physical escape was your only option.


I will start by noting that Eric is quite respectful throughout and does what few people, in my experience, do – he admits legitimate points on the other side, rather than finding some way to dismiss every single point we make, valid or not

If you'd dare to read his (Dr Steven Novella) blogs you'd see he's as big a nut-job as I could imagine. Most of his theories on conspiracy theorists fit with his description's on his videos and blogs. He is describing himself in other words. If he's the sense of reason in your life, well..........

King Mob

squod wrote: »

If you'd dare to read his (Dr Steven Novella) blogs you'd see he's as big a nut-job as I could imagine. Most of his theories on conspiracy theorists fit with his description's on his videos and blogs. He is describing himself in other words. If he's the sense of reason in your life, well..........

I do read his blogs. You're talking nonsense.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

I do read his blogs. You're talking nonsense.

I'm not sure which set of roll yes or smiley faces to choose here. I'll say only this. You're wrong.

meglome

squod wrote: »

I'm not sure which set of roll yes or smiley faces to choose here. I'll say only this. You're wrong.

Don't read the guys blogs but can't find any fault in what he says in that video. Am I missing something about the content of that video?

squod

meglome wrote: »

Don't read the guys blogs but can't find any fault in what he says in that video. Am I missing something about the content of that video?

Perspective.

King Mob

So then care to show some example of his craziness?

Or is the critical thinking what you are referring to?

meglome

squod wrote: »

Perspective.

So is that your way of telling me there's actually nothing wrong with what he's saying?

SamHarris

squod wrote: »

If you'd dare to read his (Dr Steven Novella) blogs you'd see he's as big a nut-job as I could imagine. Most of his theories on conspiracy theorists fit with his description's on his videos and blogs. He is describing himself in other words. If he's the sense of reason in your life, well..........

I disagree, but that is a complete red herring. It is irrelevant whether Dr Novella practices his advice himself, the ideas themselves are still sound. Very basic logic most of them. And you even seem to agree with them yourself, rather disliking the scource it came from.

quasar2010

personally I believe that if you wanted to commit such a crime then the people behind it would have to display the same beliefs, motivations and determination to be able to sell this to the world.
If you look at certain facts before 911 and compare those facts after 911 then logic should tell you if the motives are plausible or not.
Based on the CT that the Bush/Rockerfeller foundation are beginning to corner the world's oil and Gas supplies within the middle east and Asia you could look at several facts then try to apply logic. Here are a few.
First fact is that two oil giants based in the United States have been trying since the 1980's to build a pipeline from the Caspian sea across many Countries including Afghanistan to the Indian ocean. This is no secret and it has been estabished that the two companies have ties with the Bush/Rockerfeller fundations. This is a proven fact. It is also a proven fact that after 1995 the deal fell apart after it was apparant that the Taliban aswell as other factions was not going to let that happen.
The next fact is simple, the twin towers and the Pentagon were attacked, it was established that the Taliban were partly to blame and Afghanistan was invaded as a result.
The next fact is that Iraq was invaded on the basis that it had WMD which were a threat to the western world and the stability of the region.
The next fact is that it didn't have any WMD.
The next fact is that the trans Afghanistan pipeline is now under construction because the Taliban have been removed. This is no secret.
The next fact is that oil is being pumped from Iraq and being used by the western world, again this is no secret.
So to sum it all up in a quick sentence you could say:- Before 911 there was no pipeline in Afghanistan and no oil production for the western world coming from Iraq and after 911 we now have a gas pipeline in Afghanistan and the oil is pumping from Iraq. All facts.
Anyone suggesting to me that America is an opportunist nation and that it just happened to stumble upon the idea of stripping these Countries of their Hydrocarbons after 911 and not before must be the most naive person ever to walk the face of this planet.
Money is the biggest motivator, the biggest belief among fellow brothers and the biggest determination that any Industrial nation can possibly have behind it, it always has been and it always will be. Everyone has a price, thats how we are brought up - to want more.

GarlicBread

Some people think the planes were either holograms or were just edited into the videos and that it was high speed bombers that really hit the towers. Theres alot of footage that conclusively shows very weird things, particularly at the exact moment of both impacts.

The famous first impact video, the only one, shows somthing flying by over 400mph right after the hit, it splits into two obects and does a sharp turn out of the screen.

The second impact has multiple videos of a something like a stealth bomber flying by at very fast speed at the moment of impact.

Heres the extended clip of the first hit, pause at 00:35,00:36 and 00:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4PI8rTxd_w&NR=1
That aint no bird so plz dont even dare say it.

Heres one of the second hit videos in slow mo -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnkoM7H5s0

Theres also other videos that show orbs and other strange things floating about the towers.

I suppose you could argue that they were going to shoot down the planes but decided not to for whatever reason. That would make a little sense if only every1 actually believe the official story anyhow.

Di0genes

GarlicBread wrote: »

Some people think the planes were either holograms or were just edited into the videos and that it was high speed bombers that really hit the towers. Theres alot of footage that conclusively shows very weird things, particularly at the exact moment of both impacts.

The famous first impact video, the only one, shows somthing flying by over 400mph right after the hit, it splits into two obects and does a sharp turn out of the screen.

The second impact has multiple videos of a something like a stealth bomber flying by at very fast speed at the moment of impact.

Heres the extended clip of the first hit, pause at 00:35,00:36 and 00:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4PI8rTxd_w&NR=1
That aint no bird so plz dont even dare say it.

Heres one of the second hit videos in slow mo -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnkoM7H5s0

Theres also other videos that show orbs and other strange things floating about the towers.

I suppose you could argue that they were going to shoot down the planes but decided not to for whatever reason. That would make a little sense if only every1 actually believe the official story anyhow.

Yeah see I've worked as a news editor, and I've worked in visual effects, I see nothing untoward or strange in the footage, which I've edited with dozens of times.

Boo Radley

GarlicBread wrote: »

Some people think the planes were either holograms or were just edited into the videos and that it was high speed bombers that really hit the towers. Theres alot of footage that conclusively shows very weird things, particularly at the exact moment of both impacts.

The famous first impact video, the only one, shows somthing flying by over 400mph right after the hit, it splits into two obects and does a sharp turn out of the screen.

The second impact has multiple videos of a something like a stealth bomber flying by at very fast speed at the moment of impact.

Heres the extended clip of the first hit, pause at 00:35,00:36 and 00:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4PI8rTxd_w&NR=1
That aint no bird so plz dont even dare say it.

Heres one of the second hit videos in slow mo -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnkoM7H5s0

Theres also other videos that show orbs and other strange things floating about the towers.

I suppose you could argue that they were going to shoot down the planes but decided not to for whatever reason. That would make a little sense if only every1 actually believe the official story anyhow.

The first one looks like a bird, or more likely two. The second, based on the focus/blur, is likely to be a bug. It's very close to the camera and clearly no where near the buildings. Plus, why would a stealth bomber be flying at that angle straight towards the ground?

I have to say this is the most imaginative interpretations of the mundane I've come across in relation to 9/11.

Brown Bomber

squod wrote: »

I'm not sure which set of roll yes or smiley faces to choose here. I'll say only this. You're wrong.

Looked into him for 20 seconds. He's affiliated with quackwatch who seem to me seem to me to be a shill org for allopathic medicine.

Here is a good example.

Basically, the lawsuit complains that Bob Jones invented a device called CAVITAT which easily finds cavitations in the mouth long before an x-ray can, got it properly approved by the FDA, started selling it all over North America, only to have the quackbuster scum bad-mouth it. Aetna Insurance picked up the quackbuster's commentaries and used them to deny claims for it's use and for treatment based upon results of its findings. The quackbusters that wrote the report (Dodes and Schissell) claim to have a dental clinic in Forest Hills, New York. They are the mainstay writers for Barrett's dubious "dentalwatch.com" website. Dodes and Schissell have very questionable credentials.

Scientist Bernard Windham probably explains best why the quackbusters are so eager to kill CAVITAT for their paymasters. Windham says "Cavitations are diseased areas in bone under teeth or extracted teeth usually caused by lack of adequate blood supply to the area. Tests by special equipment (Cavitat) found cavitations in over 90% of areas under root canals or extracted wisdom teeth that have been tested, and toxins such as anerobic bacteria and other toxics which significantly inhibit body enzymatic processes in virtually all cavitations. These toxins have been found to have serious systemic health effects in many cases, and significant health problems to be related such as arthritis, MCS, and CFS. These have been found to be factors along with amalgam in serious chronic conditions such as MS, ALS, Alzheimer's, MCS, CFS, etc.. The problem occurs in extractions that are not cleaned out properly after extraction.

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/RacketeeringColorado.htm

meglome

GarlicBread wrote: »

Some people think the planes were either holograms or were just edited into the videos and that it was high speed bombers that really hit the towers. Theres alot of footage that conclusively shows very weird things, particularly at the exact moment of both impacts.

Some people think a lot of things. If you use edited, altered or highly compressed video then yes lot's of things can look odd. When those things don't appear in the uncompressed and unedited video, which they don't, there is no mystery. Course no such technology exists to fake a hologram of the plane so that all the people watching and videoing could be fooled.

GarlicBread wrote: »

The famous first impact video, the only one, shows somthing flying by over 400mph right after the hit, it splits into two obects and does a sharp turn out of the screen.

There's about an 18 second gap from the impact to that bird flying past. Not only am I saying it's a bird I'm saying it's very obviously a bird reacting to the sound of the impact. Somehow this stealth plane takes 18 seconds to fly around and reacts like a bird? And how do you think not one person saw or heard this mystery plane?
But let's imagine this plane existed for a moment what was doing there? Was it projecting the hologram using tech that also doesn't exist?

GarlicBread wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that they were going to shoot down the planes but decided not to for whatever reason. That would make a little sense if only every1 actually believe the official story anyhow.

Go look at hi-res copies of the original footage and this can be shown to be total nonsense.

To be honest I can barely comprehend this no plane stuff. Whatever about saying there was explosives in the buildings but that all the people watching were somehow tricked into seeing and videoing planes that were not there is just ridiculous.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

So then care to show some example of his craziness?

Or is the critical thinking what you are referring to?

I have. Here's more of it from his own mouth.....

if you start insulating your belief from any possibility of disconfirming it, that's when you're getting trapped inside a conspiracy theory.

Which is what he's doing. Dr nut-job is a one way street as far as his views go. Honestly, I'm surprised at you for listening to the likes of him.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Looked into him for 20 seconds. He's affiliated with quackwatch who seem to me seem to me to be a shill org for allopathic medicine.

Here is a good example.

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/RacketeeringColorado.htm

Is this supposed to be about Dr Steven Novella? as I can't find anything in the article about him.

squod wrote: »

I have. Here's more of it from his own mouth.....

if you start insulating your belief from any possibility of disconfirming it, that's when you're getting trapped inside a conspiracy theory.

Which is what he's doing. Dr nut-job is a one way street as far as his views go. Honestly, I'm surprised at you for listening to the likes of him.

Makes perfect sense to me, you'll have to explain.

Brown Bomber

quasar2010 wrote: »

I just wondered how many people it would take and what kind of scale the 911 CT would actually take. The people in the planes, the training of those people, the wiring of the explosives in both towers and WTC7. Just how many people would be involved in the entire operation from start to finish including any cover ups and under what protocol would you keep all parties involved in it quiet over the next 20 years?

If you take it as a given the details of the official conspiracy theory more or less then all you need are 19 Arab patsies working for "former" CIA asset bin Laden.

and their and their dancing Mossad handlers to film it along qith Michael Chertoff to cover for them.

All parties involved wouldn't need to be encouraged to keep quiet; the fact the they were involved in the most despicable act of treason in my life time guarantees this.