Can huge conspiracies work? Or would someone talk?

[gandalf]

As an explanation model for 9/11, there exists the dogma that it was a terrorist act that was planned by Al Qaeda and carried through by 19 Arab terrorists. As many ordinary security rules on that day collapsed (after all, such an event was unforeseeable, as Ms Rice stated), and in the preceding years systemic failures in the intelligence apparatus hindered an effective war on terror, the terrorists could succeed.

Others don’t believe in the necessary amount of coincidences (which is quite high) and assume therefore that some elements within the elite circles of the US Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP). This argument is challenged routinely by the claim that such a big conspiracy cannot work. Someone would talk sooner or later, according to this line of thought. I assume those who put forward this claim suggest that the press would print the disclosure of the whistleblower, and a big scandal would result. That would put an end to every big conspiracy.

Operation Northwood, e.g., could not have worked for exactly that very reason.

What are your thoughts, do you think a big conspiracy would be possible?

[jjmalonejr]

1. No.

People talk eventually.

[gandalf]

2. To whom?

And how will the world learn of that?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

25. Ever heard of "compartmentalized"?

Say thousands of people all knew one little piece of information, for example: a person was arrested who seemed to be plotting an attack using aircraft but superiors blocked a proper investigation, or a controller was told to not contact NORAD for half an hour after a hijacking was confirmed despite SOPs.

Now say, that only a handful of people know the big picture, but every one of those people was actively involved in the plan and thus would be a eligible for the death sentence.

Now say, on top of all that, that if someone knew that these people were capable of carrying out an attack on their own people, they would be capable of assassinating anyone (and/or their family) who dared to expose them.

Then add in a compliant media already pre-disposed to denouncing "conspiracy theories", and tell me what a whistle blower would do?

Would he go to the mainstream media, thereby signing his own death warrant for nothing? Would he post items of info on the web to try an expose the plan without exposing himself?

My point is, how do we know that people haven't already talked? How do we know that all these disparate pieces of information that have been exposed over the years since Sept 11 haven't come from people who know part or all of the plan, but can't risk exposing themselves to the people behind it?

Operation Northwoods was kept secret for over 30 years, and that was never actually carried out. What would be the fear in exposing something that had no death sentences attached to it?

Why would people be MORE reluctant to expose Operation Northwoods than the plan that resulted in the deaths of nearly three thousand people?


Sorry, I don't buy the "people would talk" line for those reasons - anyone in a position to know the whole picture would be threatened from both sides (the people who carried out the plan, and the people who became its victims) and anyone not likely to be threatened to that extent wouldn't know the whole plane but may have seen something that by itself is curious but added to the whole picture is damning.

This is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing around the Sept 11 attack.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Not just that, but Sept 11 is proof huge conspiracies can work

The conspiracy was carried out by the other side...compartmentalized just as you suggested...and was successful....many many people were involved beyond the suicide bombers themselves.

If they were able to do it, why is it so infathomable to suggest people who PROFIT MUCH MORE IMMENSELY than them could do it?

[TomNickell]

43. Talk about a Circular Argument!!! n/t

[ContinentalOp]

46. Why is that a circular argument?

People who say they don't believe that 911 could be a conspiracy seem to believe in the official story which is itself a conspiracy between muslim terrorists. So really the argument is not that conspiracies are impossible but that only muslims are dastardly enough to carry them out?

[TomNickell]

56. Nobody said 'Conspiracies are impossible'

The post used the 'fact' of the 9/11 Conspiracy to prove that 9/11 conspiracies are possible. That's a circular argument.

'Conspiracy theories' don't just claim that there are conspiracies. That's an obvious fact. The Conspiracists' theories require that there are secret organizations with total control of everything; that huge bureaucracies participate in dastardly deeds not justifiable by any ideology. And they justify these assertions with invalid logic and unsupported 'facts'.

[sweetness]

63. Fact: 9/11 was a conspiracy

9/11 is in fact a conspiracy.

def: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

9/11 was in fact the result of a secret plan made by more than 1 person and 9/11 is in fact an unlawful act.

I see no circular argument here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. No that is your interpretation of what a conspiracy theory is

And for the record, I don't defend nor advocate all theories, but people like yourself who clamor desperately to discredit them with pedestrian tripe might wish to evaluate why you feel the need to do so.

And your little unsubstantiated swipes and glittering generalities do nothing to address my actual point, which is that a LARGE organization did exactly that on September 11, and had witting or unwitting assistance in doing so...rememeber...two or three of the hijackers got BACK into America in spite of being on a terrorist list due to a state department program issued poste haste by Colin Powell allowing Saudi's to obtain a Visa within two days...now DID I just claim Powell knowingly assisted them? No. Did he assist them? The answer is a most definite YES. So before you accuse ME of anything, it would be best to examine your own lacking thought process in the matter.

[davekriss]

54. Three Days of the Condor

The most chilling scenes in this movie, made in 1975, are at the end.

We find Turner (Robert Redford) and Higgins (Robert Culp) standing outside the New York Times building. Recall that Redford stumbled upon a shadow government that seemed to be planning to invade the Middle East and, as a result, several agents were killed (to make sure the plans stay secret). Redford, knowing he's next, takes extraordinary steps to save his life. I quote at length the final exchange (a strangely prescient movie)...

TURNER: Jesus -- what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth!

HIGGINS: It's simple economics, Turner ... There's no argument. Oil now, 10 or 15 years it will be food, or plutonium. Maybe sooner than that. What do you think the people will want us to do then?

TURNER: Ask them! < pointing to the New York Times building >

HIGGINS: Now? < shakes head > Huh-uh. Ask them when they're running out. When it's cold at home and the engines stop and people who aren't used to hunger ... go hungry! They won't want us to ask ... < with venom > They'll want us to get it for them!

<snip>

HIGGINS: I can't let you stay out, Turner.

< Turner slowly stops, leans back against a building, shakes his head sadly >

TURNER: Go home Higgins. They have it all.

HIGGINS: What are you talking about?

TURNER: Don't you know where we are? < Higgins looks about. The newspaper trucks are moving out >

TURNER: It's where they ship from. < Higgins head darts up and reads the legend above Turner's head. THE NEW YORK TIMES. Turner is stunned. >

HIGGINS: You dumb son of a bitch.

TURNER: It's been done. They have it.

< Camera pushes closer to Higgins. All the physical options run through his brain ... and he comes up with nothing to do >

HIGGINS: You've done more damage than you know.

TURNER: I hope so.

HIGGINS: You want to rip us to pieces. But you damn fool, you rely on us. < pause > You're about to be a very lonely man, Turner.

HIGGINS: It didn't have to turn out like this.

TURNER: Of course it did. < Turner walking away >

HIGGINS: < calling out > Turner! How do you know they'll print it? < Turner stops. Stares at Higgins. Higgins smiles >

HIGGINS: You can take a walk. But how far? If they don't print it.

TURNER: They'll print it.

HIGGINS: How do you know?

< Camera pulls back and loses them on the New York streets >

[gandalf]

83. Hi davecriss, that is the scene I thought about

in the book "Deep cover" by Michael Levine this scene is cited several times.

It is the experience Levine went through as he tried to go the media. They were not interested in his first-hand reports of how the DEA and CIA obstructed the war on drugs.

[crushbush04]

71. You are right...

I believe the real conspiracy is the conspiracy theories themselves. Have you ever noticed how quickly the persons spouting the loony theories start complicating their consiracies when challenged. It always leads from one elaborate trap door to the next.

In the middle east it usually leads to the Moussad and in the west it usually leads to the CIA.

[stickdog]

77. So I suppose every murderer confesses as well.

Right?

[immoderate]

3. Put me down on the impossible side.

I would love to believe that some of the horrible things that happen are the work of the evil ones. But common sense overrides that. How could Bush, et. al. be so supremely competent at this and nothing else.

Then I put on my skeptic hat and say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," a distillation of Occam's Razor. (I shave with Occam"s Razor.)

--IMM

[gandalf]

5. MIHOP does not assume Bush planned it

A propos proof: Did you see any evidence for the official version?

[TomNickell]

44. Huh????? Logical Fallacy Alert!!!

<<Did you see any evidence for the official version?>>

The Official Version might be wrong in the details or completely bogus. That does not prove that your particular wild-eyed conspracy theory is TRUE.

There are very large bureaucracies involved in the investigation of 9/11 and of terrorist groups. If the Official Version is completely bogus, then the thousands of people in those vast bureaucracies are all willingly and competently participating in a vast and evil Conspiracy. That's not credible.

[gandalf]

61. "your particular wild-eyed conspracy". What do you mean?

I did not put forward any theory. I merely stated that it is possible to assume MIHOP without assuming that Bush planned it.

[DenverDem]

4. Who stood down NORAD?

Answer me that.

[gandalf]

8. Among us:

I don't buy the official version. So don't feel able to answer you question.

[HFishbine]

9. Who says NORAD stood down?

Source?

[gandalf]

12. Did they follow their routine rules?

They practice how to react to hijackings routinely, several times a year. Even the 9/11 commission had difficulties to understand their non-reaction on that day. See the transcript of the hearing on 05/23/03.

[HFishbine]

41. Thanks, I took your advice and looked at the transcript

I couldn't find any evidence that anybody ordered NORAD to stand down. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true. Fighters were scrambled.

Now there's a lot if stuff that raises questions, such as was the response fast enough, was there enough inter-agency coordination, were commanders distracted by the NORAD exercise on the morning of 9/11, where incompetents in charge? However, there is NOTHING in this transcript that indicates NORAD was ordered to stand down.

---------
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here with you today. General Arnold and I worked together that day on September the 11th.

What I will walk you through here is a chronology of the attacks, and I've presented it in a matrix form. And the only thing I lay claim to is having studied all of the attacks and how they are interwoven together. This was not a linear sequence of events where one attack began and ended and then a second attack began and ended. This was a coordinated, well-planned attack. We had multiple airplanes in the air. The fog and friction of war was evidence everywhere in the country, both on the civil side as well as the military side. And this hopefully will show you how those interwoven events came about.

I will tell you the times on this chart come from our logs. The time on the chart is the time that's in the log. It may not be the exact time the event happened. It may be the time when the log-keeper was advised or became aware of the event.

The first thing that happened in the morning related to the events at 9:02, or I'm sorry 8:02 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, is when American Airlines 11 took off out of Boston. American Airlines 11 was a 767, and it was headed, I believe, to Los Angeles. Fourteen minutes later, also coming out of Boston Logan, United Airlines 175, a 757, also headed to Los Angeles, took off out of Boston, and initially took roughly the same ground track as American 11. Three minutes later, American Airlines 77 took off out of Dulles here in Washington, also headed to Los Angeles, and also a 757, and proceeded westbound toward the West Coast. So now the first three airplanes are airborne together. The first time that anything untoward, and this was gleaned from FAA response, that anything out of the ordinary happened was at 8:20, when the electronic transponder in American Airlines 11 blinked off if you will, just disappeared from the screen. Obviously the terrorists turned that transponder off, and that airplane, although it did not disappear from the radarscope, it became a much, much more difficult target to discern for the controllers who now only could look at the primary radar return off the airplane. That was at 8:20.

At 8:40 in our logs is the first occasion where the FAA is reporting a possible hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11. And the initial response to us at that time was a possible hijacking had not been confirmed. At that same moment, the F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, about 153 miles away, were placed immediately on battle stations by the Northeast Air Defense Sector commander. At 8:43, as this is going on, the fourth airplane, United 93, takes off out of Newark, New Jersey. It's a 757. It is headed for San Francisco. At 8:46, our next log event, we get the last, and, by the way, much of this radar data for these primary targets was not seen that day. It was reconstructed days later by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, and other agencies like it who are professionals at going back and looking at radar tapes and then given that they are loaded with knowledge after the fact, they can go and find things that perhaps were not visible during the event itself.

At 8:46, the last data, near the Trade Center,8:46, the first impact on the Trade Center. At that minute is when the Otis F-15s were scrambled. And, again, they were 153 miles away. And that scramble came, and General Arnold, I am sure can address this, based on a conversation between the Northeast Sector commander and himself. Those F-15s were airborne in six minutes. That is well inside the time that is allowed for them to get airborne. But because they were on battle stations, the pilots were in the cockpits ready to start engines, that scramble time was shortened by a significant amount of time.

At 8:53, that's a minute later, in the radar reconstruction, we are now picking up the primary radar contacts off of the F-15s out of Otis. At 8:57, which is seven minutes after the first impact is, according to our logs when the FAA reports the first impact. And about this time is when CNN coverage to the general public is beginning to appear on the TV, not of the impact, but of the burning towers shortly thereafter. So you can see what in the military I am sure you have heard us talk to the fog and friction of war, and as the intensity increases the lag tends to also increase for how quickly information gets passed.

9:02 -- United 175, the second airplane, which by the way never turned off its transponder before impact, crashes into the North Tower at 9:02.

The distance of those fighters which had been scrambled out of Otis, at that particular point they were still 71 miles away, about eight minutes out, and going very fast.

At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow through the system to the command and control agencies and through the command and control agencies to the pilots in the cockpit. At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio. At 9:11 FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from seven minutes from impact to report; now it's nine minutes from impact to report. You can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country. At 9:11 -- I just mentioned that -- 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. But that's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.

At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.

[gandalf]

45. You're right in this regard

there is no publicly available evidence that someone ordered a stand down.

The response is only incredibly slow, given the fact that there were many incidents and warnings in the months preceding 9/11 that should have heightened the ability to react quickly.

For example, informal notification of the possible hijacking of flight 77 was probably made before 9:24 (the following is to be found on page 78, hearing of 05/23/03):

The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events,
including information about loss of communication with aircraft,
loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and
other actions being taken by all the flights of interest,
including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges in turn
shared information about actions they were taken. NORAD logs
indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American
Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. But information about the flight was
conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal
notification.

[HFishbine]

48. Agreed

and it all comes down to credibility. As I noted, there are plenty of inconsistencies and unanswered questions. When I dispute a claim that NORAD was ordered to stand down, it's not because I believe we know the truth yet, it is because such unsubstantiated claims disrupt the quest for real answers.

[stickdog]

78. Why wasn't Flight 93 intercepted?

Just wondering ...

[DenverDem]

15. Source?!?!?!?!

The fact that none of the planes were intercepted does not make you raise that question.

They intercepted Payne Stewart's ill fated lear jet in minutes, yet an hour elapsed and nothing was done about four obviously hijacked planes.

I've got a source, it's called my own mind, which I use, contrary to the wishes of the cabal of traitors now running this country. You should try it.

[OKNancy]

24. Another myth

Stewart's plane took at least an hour to be intercepted and the aircraft were out of Eglin...all ready in the air because they were on a training mission.

Edit: misspelled Eglin and to add this:

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

[HFishbine]

26. I see

Noting inconsitencies or raising questions does not provide evidence to support the assertion that NORAD was told to stand down.

[bobthedrummer]

29. Careers were made or broken on response time over US-hell, USAF

even scrambles for UFO's within moments. I'm 54, not naive.

[TomNickell]

59. Have they caught a UFO?

They scramble in moments, but have they actually caught a UFO?

Didn't think so.

[OKNancy]

17. NORAD didn't stand down

They were slow and under equipped, but they did not stand down. That is one of the often repeated myths about 9-11.
Unless you think NORAD is not telling the truth.
http://www.norad.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.news_rel_09_18_01

[stickdog]

80. Why wasn't Flight 93 intercepted?

It crashed MORE THAN AN HOUR after the SECOND plane hit the WTC.

Why wasn't it ever even intercepted? It was known to be hijacked for AT LEAST 30 minutes before it crashed.

[TomNickell]

40. Nobody, and HOW and WHY?

1. It is a myth that NORAD "Stood Down". There is a competing conspiracy that they actually shot down the airliner over PA. Can't have it both ways.

2. Deviations from standard procedures would require ORDERS that could be traced and confirmed as coming from the President. If there -were- such orders, there would be a paper trail out the Wazoo and out the door.

3. What would have been the point? The hard part was not to intercept. The hard part was to get the decision made to shoot down a jetliner full of people, make positive identification, reconfirm the decision, etc. It was just impossible for that to happen before the Twin Towers were hit. Better response might have protected the Pentagon, but there was no way to prevent a tragic loss of life.

Evacuating Gov't buildings would have been the more useful response.

[Beatrix]

58. Thank you

some people don't realize that to stand down NORAD you actually need ORDERS from a VERY high ranking official. (either the president or MAYBE a handful of very high ranking military officers) Not a very long list to go through if someone actually did order it to stand down as very very few people have such authority.

Some people act like NORAD can be ordered to stand down by some kind of anonymous order that no one knows where it came from.

Further, after an order was given it would have to be given to lower ranking individuals so that they knew they were to stand down. I can NOT believe that one of those people would not have come out by now and say "We got an order to stand down". A quick phone call to Dennis Kucinich and the whistle would be blown instantly.

You are correct. The hard part was deciding rather or not to shoot down an air craft full of innocent passengers. (Believe it or not for some people this is actually a DIFFICULT CHOICE TO MAKE) Further, they had to make DAMN sure they would be shooting down the right one as well, and I'm sure any pilot would want to make DAMN sure they were authorized to do it. All of which takes time.

Believe it or not NORAD isn't accustomed to shooting down US passenger air craft. If you were a pilot prior to 9/11 would you wake up with ANY kind of thought along the lines of "Oh gee maybe I'll be shooting down a passenger air craft full of 100 people today". It's not exactly an every day thing, and such uncommon dire emergency situations usually leave people scrambling trying to decide what to do on a moments notice. Sometimes they screw up.

The above is the obvious and most likely explanations that fits in perfectly with human nature. (people are not perfect gods you know) Instead some people leave the most likely behind and go to massive conspiracy theory mode.

If I was the person making the call I MIGHT have thought that maybe the plane could be landed with out need to shoot it down and with out killing 100 innocent people. (as most normal people would, and as was the case with most hijackings in the past) The first response to hijackings in the past was NOT "shoot it down" - but rather wait for them to land, negotiate, and hope to god everything works out. Anyway - It would depend on whether or not you were fully aware it was going to crash in to something. By the time it became almost certain that it was and you had no hope of a less bloodly resolution it may have been too late.

[amjsjc]

64. If NORAD...

...always did exactly what it was supposed to do, the US and the USSR would have nuked each other in 1979. Twice. A couple of computer errors caused NORAD to believe that it was under attack from the Soviets. Instead of rushing right out to launch a counterstrike (which is what they were supposed to do) the officers at NORAD took the time to independently varify that the soviets were not attacking the US.

The point of this is that even if the officers in charge of NORAD were trained to deal with a situation like this they can still shy away from what they're supposed to do under the right circumstances. Do you really want to be the officer who's responsible for shooting down an airliner with a hundred people on board? If it turns out that the airplane was just having mechanical troubles you career is over and you might land in prision. And besides before 9/11 a highjacking meant that the passengers were going to Libya, not that the plane would be flying into the side of a building. I for one would not be champing at the bit to order an intercept, and I doubt that the officers actually there were either,even if that was what they were supposed to do.

[DenverDem]

79. Donald Rumsfeld stood down (de facto) NORAD

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1
June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy
Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and
operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or
request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction
superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the
exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18,
1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save
lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially
lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or
aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of
Defense.

Rumsfeld gave no such approval though the request was made in a timely manner.

[gristy]

6. No

"Huge" conspiracies can never "work" (i.e., remain a secret) over the long run. Seems obvious to me, anyways.

[gandalf]

18. Could you explain why?

What do you know, for example, on the very old Skulls and Bones club, a member of which is John Kerry, as well as Bush. That seems to be a very secret and elitist group, a kind of conspiracy. Did someone of them talk? Not that I know of.

[Eloriel]

7. Big conspiracies don't need that many people involved

Not at the top. And those below the top don't need to know all the details.

Let's look at Enron's role in the CA Energy Crisis. Did anyone talk while that was happening? Nope. Why? Many reasons. Instead of going over it all again, here's a thread I started on the subject some time ago, and a couple of other links:

Conspiracies: Self-interest, fear, inertia, values
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5535&forum=DCForumID70&archive=yes

Also see Information Architecture of Evil (read down) at http://www.zpluspartners.com/zblog/

Paranoid Shift
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

[gandalf]

10. Thanks for the links

I am convinced that conspiracies can work.

[RedSock]

14. read daniel ellsberg

his book on the pentagon papers ("Scerets") gets into whether it is possible for a large group (such as hundreds of people) of lifelong Washington/Govt types to keep silent about bad things for decades.

he says **of course** it is possible -- and is being done even now. and anyone that doesn't believe it is hopelsssly naive.

very interesting stuff from ellsberg -- who should know. i think it is about page 65 in the paperback, not sure.

[kalian]

11. Conspiracies DO work....

and those that talk are usually the ones that are not within the
"inner circle". They eventually end up pushing daisies and are never
heard from again.
The issue is that the elites are the ones that control all the
venues for a successful countering of any major conspiracy.

We're just pawns...get used to it.

[Kazak]

13. Ever kept a secret indefinitely?

It can be done. The likelyhood goes way down as more people become involved. How many would this atrocity take?

[stickdog]

76. How does the mafia do it, then?

How did Hitler do it?

How did Stalin do it?

How did Nixon do it?

[haele]

16. Major planned conspiracies never remain secret...

The "paper trail" of the planning always gets them in the end - even if there is no paper used and everyone involved just goes by word of mouth.
However, the "wink, wink, nod, nod" type of conspiracies, those "hey, just look the other way and let me do my thing" plausible deniability sort of conspiracies have the most chance of succeeding since there's no actual contact.

To put it another way, LIHOP can easily happen and be able to remain secret or unprovable in a court of law - it only takes a very few people (in the case of the various Sept. 11th LIHOP scenarios, at most three or four) actually high enough in on the decision making to act or not act accordingly and affect a wide range of resources and people. MIHOP is another story - too much actual planning and too many people and resources to control effectively would need to be activated - which means that when any sort of investigation is made, the dots can be connected - even if resources are destroyed and the lower level people "leave the picture" afterwards.

Haele

[gandalf]

22. When ANY sort of investigation is made?

Investigation like the Warren Commission?

[stickdog]

81. Illogical bullshit. (nt)

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. It will all come out in the wash.

We have already had Joe Wilson. Paul O'Neil. Richard Clarke. General Zinni. Abu Ghraib photos. The Pentagon email about Cheney ok ing the Halliburton no bid contracts. There's more...much, much more that people know and will tell. The closer we get to the election, the more that will come out. Drip...drip....drip. We DO still have heroes in our country and if someone within the WH, outside of the cabal, knows what happened....they will talk. Maybe by the time that happens, Al Gore will have his Liberal TV network. He will let the facts be known. ALL of this shit will come down on these people some day.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. Compartmentalization.

Very few people need to know everything. It's like an assembly line in a factory. You're responsible for your widget. In itself, there may be little suspicious about the widget.

Even the official story is a "huge conspiracy."

And also note: people do and have talked about a long string of high crimes since the killing of JFK. They are gagged, marginalized as "kooks", or killed.

[LiberalCat]

21. Yes, a big conspiracy can work.

The Mafia is a perfect example. The punishment for talking has to be greater than the reward.

I can think of three things that will keep insiders from talking:
1. Promises and receipt of wealth and power.
2. Treats of death of the whistleblower or his/her family, death of others as examples, and death of the whistleblower.
3. Loyalty and being part of a group.

[gandalf]

27. I would like to add:

A whistleblower alone won't do. He has to be heard, so he is dependent on the mainstream media. As long as they regard him as a "conspiracy theorist", he can blow his whistle as long as he likes, nobody will hear it.

[napi21]

23. I would depend on how many people actually had to know.

Let's assume Bush, Cheney, & Prince Bandar we're the orchestrators. Bandar contacts Bin Laden and gets some very trusted followers to put the plan to gether and the only people who really know what's going to be done are the leads on each plane. The others would simply be told they were to follow instructions and their actions would save Islam from the infidels.

You would only have 9 people who knew the real plan, and 5 of them would be dead! (Bush, Chcney, Bandar, 5 pilots). With only the 3 orchestratios remaining, I doubt anyone would ever talk.

[kentuck]

28. Notice how long Kissinger and Scowcroft kept the secret about Nixon??

being "loaded" and not able to take a call from a foreign leader and how they kept it a secret that said he was going to drop the bomb on the Capitol?? So, with the Repubs, anything is possible, IMO..

[TruthIsAll]

30. Your premise is wrong. People do talk. But it is not reported.

Or nothing is done as people just ignore the details and prefer to live in Denial. Or are too scared or poor to followup. Or they don't read. Or they are suicided just before testifying or speaking out, many examples of which I won't repeat here.

Sibel Edmonds, for example. Specific 9/11 warning documents ignored.

Catherine Austin Fitts. Govt./bankinf financial and drug war corruption

Coleen Rowley. FBI not pursuing leads on Moussaui.

Joe Wilson. His CIA wife outed by the WH. Reported and investigated. Yes. But what is the result?

Dallas Parkland Hospital doctors. Initial findings on JFK entry wounds reported and then changed.

I could go on and on.

[gandalf]

38. Exactly!!!

That is the point I have in mind. I just wanted to explore the reactions to my post.

Naturally a whistleblower is completely irrelevant as long as he is not taken seriously by the mainstream media. Otherwise he is just a "conspiracy nut", if he is noticed at all. (Do you know the book in my sig line?)

[cheezus]

68. people do talk... but then they are silenced

intimidated, discredited, or murdered.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. Operation Northwoods was highly classified even in proposal form...

...and if it had been approved, very few people would have known exactly what the program was all about. In fact, the people that would have been selected to carry out the acts of "terrorist" sabatoge would probably have been pulled from Cubans sympathetic to Castro and made to believe that their acts were directed by the Cubans themselves. What better way to cover the true nature of the operation if an operative were to be captured? And who would have believed Castro back then had he denied knowledge of such an operation? The number of people actually giving the orders for Operation Northwoods would have been VERY small using cut-outs and other intelligence devices to mask their real identities.

IMHO, for 911 to have been successful as a LIHOP or MIHOP operation, the actual planners needed only to convince the alleged hijackers that they were carrying out their plans for a cause in which THEY believed. Remember, Osama originally denied any involvement in 911...very strange course of action for the leader of a group that WANTED all the publicity it could get from carrying out such an act. Fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi nationals...and at least five of those people had to have been officers in the Saudi military because they actually attended U. S. military schools in Montgomery, AL, Monterey, CA, and Pensacola, FL. The question boils down to who actually planned the 911 operation, and did the NeoCons know it was coming and assist that operation in some way?

[gandalf]

62. I agree

it would certainly be possible for a major intelligence agency with lots of experiences in covert ops to manipulate 19 persons in doing things which would look from the outside like the official 9/11 story.

[kaitykaity]

32. Conspiracies theories exist because we aren't told

the truth. The pat, standard explanation of 9/11 makes
no sense. There are too many unanswered questions, and
people naturally will try to answer them in absence of
reasonable, accurate information.

I want to know why Bush sat in that classroom.

I want to know why war planes didn't scramble from Andrews to
protect the Pentagon.

I want to know why standard operating procedures, i.e.,
Payne Stewart's plane, weren't followed.

And that's just for starters.

[Zorra]

33. Yes, they do. Hitler and the Nazis proved this.

(OMG, I've violated the sacred Law of the all knowing Godwin! Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law to discount this post).

[TomNickell]

57. How's that?

Hitler took power and used the gov't apparatus to do awful things. It was all pretty much out in the open.

The Nazi party 'conspired' (planned) to take power. But there was no secret of their intentions.

[Zorra]

67. Here are a few links to support my post:

conspiracy:
a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
===================
Nuremberg Trials
Opening Address for the United States
Robert Jackson

No greater mistake could be made than to think of the Nazi Party in terms of the loose organizations which we of the western world call "political parties." In discipline, structure, and method the Nazi Party was not adapted to the democratic process of persuasion. It was an instrument of conspiracy and of coercion. The Party was not organized to take over power in the German State by winning support of a majority of the German people. It was organized to seize power in defiance of the will of the people.

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJac02.htm

All the dramatic story of what went on in Germany in the early phases of the conspiracy -- the ideologies used, the techniques of terror used, the suppressions of human freedom employed in the seizure of power, and even the concentration camps and the crimes against humanity, the persecutions, tortures and murders committed -- all these things would have had little international juridical significance except for the fact that they were the preparation for the commission of aggressions against peaceful neighboring peoples. Even the aspects of the case involving "war crimes" in the strict sense are merely the inevitable, proximate result of the wars of aggression launched and waged by these conspirators, and of the kind of warfare they waged. It was total war, the natural result of the totalitarian party- dominated state that waged it; it was atrocious war, the natural result of the doctrines, designs and purposes of the Nazi conspirators.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-09-aggression-01.html

Hitler could not have achieved his aggressive designs and drag the world into an orgy of violence and destruction without molding a German consensus for his leadership through propaganda and terror. The terror was supplied in adequate dosages by Himmler, while Goebbels was orchestrating and directing the propaganda machine. The propaganda machine created the climate of enthusiasm for Hitler's achievements and a climate of indifference for his victims. With his propaganda, Goebbels made it possible for Hitler to assume a godlike position, and organize a government based on coercion and threats. Goebbels orchestrated the jubilation for the Fuhrers achievements, manipulated the German people to accept the persecution of the Jews, war readiness, and accept with stoicism the destruction brought by he war.

http://www.kimel.net/goebbels.html

Although the Nazi government officials provided the leadership in preparing Germany for war, they received also the enthusiastic and invaluable cooperation of the German industrialists.

On the invitation of Goering, approximately 25 of the leading industrialists of Germany, together with Schacht, attended a meeting in Berlin on 20 February 1933. This was shortly before the German election of 5 March 1933. At this meeting Hitler announced the conspirators' aim to seize totalitarian control over Germany, to destroy the parliamentary system, to crush all opposition by force, and to restore the power of the Wehrmacht. Among those present at that meeting were Gustav Krupp, head of the munitions firm, Alfried Krupp, A.G.; four leading officials of the I. G. Farben Works, one of the world's largest chemical concerns; Albert Vogler, head of United Steel Works of Germany; and other leading industrialists. This meeting is described in the following affidavit of George von Schnitzler:
snip-----------------
In reply to these statements Goering, who was present at that same meeting, declared:

"That the sacrifice asked for surely would be much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March 5th will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years." (D-203)

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-08-economic-mobilizat...

On the 27. February in 1933, one month after Adolf Hitler was declared Reichskanzler, the Reichstags-building in Berlin was burning

The burning of the Reichstag was very useful for the German Government. On the 28. of February, the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (similiar to Patriot Act) was set in power.

This Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogates the following constitutional protections.

Free expression of opinion
Freedom of the press
Right of assembly and association
Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications
Protection against unlawful searches and seizures
Individual property rights
Federal States' right of self-government

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Burning_the_Reichstag

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Herman Goering
-----------------------------------
There is abundant historical information available which proves, IMO, that the Nazis undeniably conspired to seize totalitarian powers and eventually go to war.

[stickdog]

82. Yes, the Holocaust was 100% in the open.

History 101 for $50, Alex.

[ContinentalOp]

34. Both!

People can talk and the conspiracies will still work. The people who talk are simply labeled as "crazies", "conspiracy nuts", "disgruntled ex-employees", or even killed. Look at how many people have come out and talked about 911 and yet what has come of it?

There are many other simple factors that make it possible to keep people silent. First of all you don't need that many people involved and most who are involved won't see the big picture or know how they relate to the rest of the scheme.

Then you would obviously choose people whose secrecy could be assured: people with prior intelligence and black ops experience, people that you hold some kind of blackmail power over (sexual photos, criminal evidence, etc.), and true believers who will keep secret because they believe in what you're doing. It seems like it would be a pretty simple matter to have "insurance" on everyone involved so if they do begin to talk you can land them in jail or something. And of course there's always the small airplane option.

[gandalf]

39. Yes, that is what I think, too

Another example of a working conspiracy is Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission. Not a democratic institution, said to be very influential, but press coverage: Zero.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

36. I would point to...

The "Anthrax Killer" scenario. The utter non-production of the investigation, along with the many deaths of microbiologists, points to something more than coincidence and face value.

[davekriss]

37. Hub and Spoke Conspiracy

Prosecutors most hate having to come up against what's called "hub and spoke" conspiracies. This variety is the most difficult to prove yet can be highly effective. It is also called the "rimless wheel".

This species of conspiracy is characterized by the fact that a powerful few (at the hub) can put into motion actions through the "spokes" in such a fashion that the actors are unaware of the objectives of the conspiracy, the net effect of the aggregate action of all spokes.

9-11 could very well be an example of a "hub and spoke" or "rimless wheel" conspiracy. Put into play a few muddled policy changes here, stand-down a few key resources there, do so long before the key date, and when the emergency hits, the well oiled efficiencies once observed can disappear in an instant of odd "incomptence".

Is that what we saw on 9-11? Chances are we will never know. Precisely because such conspiracies require so few to be in the know.

[TomNickell]

42. That's not a conspiracy.

That's leadership manipulating people.

Yes, the Neocons -might- have made a conscious decision to weaken anti-terrorist efforts. They might also have done the same thing through ideological predisposition and incompetence, as Richard Clarke et al allege.

But neither of these scenarios produce the kind of 'evidence' produced by the Conspiracy Hobbyists. This 'evidence' is generally of conscious collusion of entire bureaucracies.

[ContinentalOp]

49. Sigh...

"conscious collusion of entire bureaucracies."? Why bother with that if a simple "leadership manipulating people" will do the trick? You seem to be saying that the Neocons definitely weakened anti-terrorist efforts but you don't know if it was consciously or through ideology. So ponder this possibility. What if one "leader" consciously shaped the ideology of his followers toward a specific goal and the followers dutifully carried out the leaders plans? That would by definition be a hub and spoke conspiracy.

[davekriss]

55. You are incorrect

The "hub and spoke" is indeed an example of conspiracy if two or more people band together to achieve through it unlawful ends. It's a theory insofar as it is proferred by someone (e.g., a prosecutor) as they best theory that fits the facts.

Conspiracy:

n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) 3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose


An aside: The Official Story is itself a Conspiracy Theory. It posits that two or more Al Qaeda members conspired to perform an unlawful act, i.e. drive jets into the WTC and Pentagon. That so many accept this particular conspiracy theory despite the high numbers of improbable coincidences it requires just shows how easy people fall prey to the more outlandish of such theories.

[davekriss]

60. Example of a few decisions at the hub

This thread could perhaps example the kinds of decisions that could be made by power at the hub to muddle circumstances on 9-11 and increase the probability of a coincident "incompetent" outcome: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1694495

[neebob]

47. Sure they can

All you need is a few people who know enough, a few hundred to a few thousand to do their bidding, and millions who refuse to believe - despite scandal upon scandal upon scandal throughout history - that their leaders are capable of such evil and never think to ask the most basic questions. Plus few more thousand to keep feeding regurgitated lies and propaganda to the millions. And a vast, unwieldy system with components that continually fail to work together properly and aren't even expected to.

Oh, and you need a few good scapegoats.

I've been reading this morning about FDR's foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor and how he goaded Japan into it, and how it all has to be reproven every few years. Whether you believe this or not, you still have to ask: What was practically the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet doing sitting in this one little harbor in far-off Hawaii - which, let's not forget, was not yet a state, so it wasn't like they were protected our shores - when the rest of the world was at war and there was this raging debate about whether the U.S. should get into it? Did they really think no one would try to attack us on that side? Come on.

Unfortunately, we'll never know as long as the government continues to hang onto classified documents past the normal period of classification. Why can't we see the documents related to Pearl Harbor? Will Al Qaeda really find something to use against us in a bunch of 65-year-old papers? More basic questions.

Now I don't know enough about World War II to start a debate about whether FDR LIHOPed or MIHOPed Pearl Harbor, and that is not my intention. But what I've read this morning is very compelling on top of the duh factor - just like the facts that are available on top of the duh factor regarding 9/11 and the current bogus wars that it spawned. I may not be able to weave everything together into a coherent theory, but I don't think for a minute that a few rich old bastards aren't willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to enrich themselves and their friends and increase their power or that they aren't capable of pulling it off.

Considering what I've read this morning, I think the authors of the PNAC white paper meant a lot more than just the event itself when they wrote about a catastrophic, catalyzing event - a new Pearl Harbor - needed to implement their plan for "rebuilding America's defenses" (read: dominating the world through force).

[ContinentalOp]

50. One more thought...

If I were going to orchestrate a conspiracy I would be sure to sow the seeds of confusion both before and after the fact. I might set some people in motion down a parallel but unrelated path to serve as a confusing investigative dead end. I would arrange for the discovery of evidence that is contradictory and misleading. Then when the inevitable questions and conspiracy theories pop up they will be made convoluted and contradictory by all of the red herrings. People will then turn to the official explanation to ease their minds of these contradictions.

[Senior citizen]

51. I used to work there

Of course huge conspiracies can work. I worked at one for a short time. It was a scam (everybody there called it a gravy train) that outsiders thought was a vital military base. It has long since closed down and hasn't much been missed.

[frylock]

52. good analysis..

thanks and welcome to the board.

[gandalf]

65. Kupferberg's paper reveals such deliberate confusion

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11, by Chaim Kupferberg

Very long, but very interesting analysis of news items surrounding 9/11. Shows some aspects of 9/11 that are discussed seldom.

[Q]

53. People HAVE talked...

...but they were called 'partisan' or conspiracy nuts or traitors and dismissed out of hand.

- This is why 'conspiracies' are successful more times than not: those brave enough to tell the truth are simply dismissed as partisan during an 'election year' or the Bushies engage their 'smear machine' to paint the truth-teller as 'hysterical' or a nutcase.

- You saw what they did to Gore...and he wasn't even talking about deep, dark conspiracies...just pointing out the obvious.

[gandalf]

66. Hi Q, that is just the point:

"People have talked, but they were called 'partisan' or conspiracy nuts".

Talking is one thing, to be heard another one. The NY Times will never allow conspiracy nuts to propagate their irresponsible wild fantasies /sarcasm.

[Q]

70. And it's not just political or government operatives...

...who call them 'conpiracy nuts'. Right here on DU we have a gaggle of people who demand confessions or absolute proof before they would believe anything the media labels as conspiracy.

- So on the one hand you have pundits belittling those who simply want the plain, unvarnished truth and refuse to believe the official story from those who have a record of lying and deceiving. On the other you have ordinary citizens who can't or won't believe their government is capable of anything more 'evil' than raising taxes or getting a blowjob.

- Those who conspire against our people and government KNOW there's a very good chance they can get away with it because they've been getting away with it for decades. And now that the free press is just a memory and the loyal opposition is on a leash...there's no stopping them.

[MrSlayer]

69. Worked in the Kennedy assassination.

Also worked for a long time in Nazi Germany.

[Jim Warren]

72. Nothing works against the success of a conspiracy

Nothing works against the success of a conspiracy so much as the wish to it wholly secure and certain to succeed.

Such an attempt requires many men, much time, and very favorable conditions.

All these heighten the risk of being discovered!

Francisco Guicciardini
Recordi Politici 1528

[scisyhp]

73. Of course, they can and they do.

If such an operation as getting Bush elected President was a complete
success, nothing is impossible. Imagine the amount of organizational,
logistic and financial effort that went into that long term project:
starting with building the candidate's business credentials, through
the Rangers ownership, and Texas Governership, and Florida vote,
and Supreme Court decision. Almost anything else will be a child's
play in comparison. And whoever went through all that effort and
expense were certainly planning to enjoy the fruits of their
labour, besides the sheer fun and hilarity of their proxy's public
appearances. You bet your ass they were.

[jpgray]

75. By definition, the question is unanswerable

Because if the conspiracy worked, how would we know about it to answer your question?