You've met Webster Tarpley at a truther march, right? I'm guessing you explained your "Lone Wolf" scenario to him--- How did he respond to the theory?
Yes, I met Tarpley. You guess right, I explained to him the lone-wolf thing, he listened respectfully, but he sighed, and thought I was extremely naive.
He then explained that the organizations inside the top levels of government aren't so simple to manipulate, and that there is a good reason why he looks at a widespread conspiracy, that a decision to do something like 9/11 must be made at a relatively high level of an organization like "Project for a New American Century".
I listened to him, I also disagreed with this point. My claim was not that only one person wanted to do the event, my point is that you don't need a conspiracy INSIDE GOVERNMENT, you can use well-meaning functionaries to pull the whole event off without anyone knowing what is going on.
He again sighed, and thought this was ridiculous, that everyone would remain ignorant. I disagreed with him still, but he wasn't too interested in what I had to say, I did not make a good impression. Anyway, I respected his work, and I didn't push it. I walked off to find Cornel West, who was also there. West didn't even bother to speak to me, he hugged me and walked away. That was a bit of a shock, the hug, I was stunned into total silence. I guess it's West's method of avoiding talking to someone who admires him, but who he doesn't want to waste time with.
I suppose the lesson learned is that I do not make a good impression in person!
But, more seriously, the reason I think Tarpley is wrong is because I think he overestimates the degree to which people inside government would think the way he does. He could piece together the events of 9/11 more or less at home, he imagines that the people inside the government would be doing so as well. That would be a tiny minority inside the government, maybe 1%, and these people were the document leakers who helped expose what was gong on.
I believe the method of thinking I use, the 'lone wolf', is extremely important, because it allows you to give a quantifiable Bayesian estimate for how likely both things are, the lone-wolf idea, AND the 9/11 inside job. The Bayesian estimators are extremely high, because the drills you PREDICT are confirmed, not random drills you put together ex-post facto. Also, the anomalies you predict are confirmed. It's a slam dunk.
I believe what I wrote regarding this, but Webster Tarpley was disappointingly unmpressed.