Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, July 07, 2006

New York Tunnel Story: Doesn't Add Up

Too many questions, and a failure of this many "super secret" people to take advantage of what was known.

This doesn't make sense because of one thing: It's made up.

Let's go down the list of problems with the story.

As you read this information, keep in mind the Lebanese International University wasn’t created until 2001 (how convenient). Yet, there’s no name of this person who, we are asked to believe in 2006 is 31years old.

Which means that in 2001, when he was “26 years old” he had to be doing something at another university. But where was he? Nobody knows.

Let’s go over the other inconsistencies.

1. Inconsistent story on his background: Is it economics, or is it a computer? [ Ref ]

2. Nobody by either name is associated with the University in Lebanon, nor publicly listed as an instructor in either field; nor are they associated with any accredited university, nor do they have any published documents which would be required to get a teaching credential.

Then the questions

3. Why is the FBI discussing an ongoing investigation? Violation of procedures.

4. If this has been going on "for a year", why disclose it now? Timing.

5. If there is a problem with the AP "disclosing" the story, why would the US comment on it further? It must be because they have an interest in doing what they say should not be done elsewhere.

6. If the "had instructions" to keep a low profile while in Beirut, why would he be in an internet chatroom discussing the very militarism he was "told" not to discuss? This is a fatal inconsistency in the backstory. If he was at work (university) doing this, how could he “have a low profile” if he was using an official worksite for “militarism”-talk; but if he was at home, why does it matter where he works; but if he was at his mother’s house, woouldn’t she notice all the chat-time he was spending? This makes no sense.

7. Why is the "alleged plotter" wearing glasses in a photograph; and why weren't the classes removed to avoid the glare? You can’t get a good image across the scanners if there is a glare. Which photographers at which police-intelligence unit would let him keep his glasses on? If he’s got glasses, then this means he has an eye doctor – surely, the eye doctor would be able to give some information on his “big scary” things . . .but we have no straight story on where he does his surfing; and his mother doesn’t agree. “Keep a low profile” but don’t let the doctor know about your militarism. Sure.

8. Putting aside the questionable link between the economics-computer expertise, what was the basis to conclude that the "plan" was actually going to get carried out? Putting aside the fact that the tunnel is below sea-level, which explosives-physist-demolitions expert were they going to contact to puchase the explosives; then actually physically transport the explosives from the WTC to the tunnel. (Oh, did I say that?)

9. If the US was going to "let this drag on" for a year, what was the concern with letting him discuss the issues with others; and why not permit him to purchase a ticket, then gather this as evidence? They didn’t do that, so how can you say that there’s anything real to this? “He was thinking about it . . .” Sure, whaveter.

10. If you knew exactly who was going to commit this act, why not let them actually approach the tunnel, and get images of them "casing" the place out; and the "other efforts" to actually carry the plan out? Uh, we thought we’d lose him. Oh, really? You know evertying about it, the websites he likes to visit, and knew he had this “plan” but you didn’t have enough people to track him? Get real. In your plan, you had Dutch intelligence; are you saying that even they weren’t real, and might have lost him?

11. If you "knew" who he was talking to, why not keep quiet, and let the other people who were discussing the issue believe that there was nothing known, and see who else they were talking about? Talking about it doesn’t square with the claim of “we can do things.”

12. Conversely, if this truly was a "big operation," why isn't there as much "outrage" at the AP for disclosing this story, as opposed to keeping quiet about what might have been an ability to "find other people" who were also connected? Oops.

13. If "the alleged plotter" did receive information from Bin Ladin, why wasn't that "communication" subsequently traced to find where Bin Ladin was? Oops.

The Ultimate Question

14. If it was known that there was a communication between Bin Ladin and this "big scary person," why not fake a message ("please return for special training, we have a super mission for you,") and ask the plotter to "return to bind Ladin" (which nobody else seems to know where he is), and use the "plotter" as the conduit to find where Bin Ladin was hiding?


* * *

We judge the story has been fabricated.