Daily Digest

Image by Got Credit, Flickr Creative Commons

Daily Digest 4/26 - Expect Much Tighter Oil Markets, More Than Half Of Americans At Risk Of Retiring Broke

Thursday, April 26, 2018, 11:35 AM

Economy

Hackers built a 'master key' for millions of hotel rooms (tmn)

Any key card will do. Even old and expired, or discarded keys retain enough residual data to be used in the attack. Using a handheld device running custom software, the researchers can steal data off of a key card -- either using wireless radio-frequency identification (RFID) or the magnetic stripe. That device then manipulates the stolen key data, which identifies the hotel, to produce an access token with the highest level of privileges, effectively serving as a master key to every room in the building.

Retiring broke? More than half of Americans are at risk of it happening (Adam)

If you start early enough, even big savings goals are more achievable. For instance, say you want to have $500,000 saved by the time you turn 65. If you're earning a 7% rate of return on your investments each year, here's how much you'd have to save every month to meet that goal depending on when you start saving:

Stockman Battles Fox Business: No, the Pentagon Doesn’t Need Its Budget Raised to $700B (Herman J.)

David Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan and was President Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985. After leaving the White House, Stockman became a managing director at Salomon Brothers, and he later founded a private equity fund. David is the founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner, and he is the author of The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and Trumped! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back.

The 17 Millionth Bitcoin Is About to Be Mined: What It Means and Why It Matters (Adam)

Of note is that it can't be precisely predicted when the 17 millionth bitcoin will be mined or who will mine it, due to the many minute variances that are created in keeping a common software in sync. That said, there's a relative predictability. Each bitcoin block produces 12.5 new bitcoin, and as bitcoin blocks occur roughly every 10 minutes, about 1,800 new bitcoin are created each day.

Debt and Delusions – Part One (GE Christenson)

Official U.S. government national debt (many other countries are no better) is the debt owed “on the books.” Unfunded liabilities, such as Social Security payments, Medicare, military pensions and upcoming student loan defaults are NOT included. The reality is far worse than indicated by the official national debt.

Plot 50 years of official national debt on a log scale. The trend is unmistakable. National debt has increased exponentially 8% – 9% per year. National debt doubles every eight to nine years.

How The Globalism Con Game Leads To A 'New World Order' (thc0655)

The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith’s original premise of free market trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.

Expect Much Tighter Oil Markets (Michael S.)

The aforementioned combo of higher exports, stronger refinery runs and lower waterborne imports have colluded to leave Q1 U.S. crude inventories 110 million barrels lower than end-March last year. (Granted, this is from a high-water mark indeed - the absolute record of U.S. crude inventories at 535.54 million barrels, but hey).

This animal kills more people in a day than sharks do in a century (tmn)

So why exactly are people more afraid of sharks than mosquitoes? The late Hans Rosling would argue that humans are hardwired to fear things that cause us physical harm. This instinct is practical if you live in poverty (on level 1 or 2), where an animal attack is more likely to kill you. But if you can afford life-saving healthcare, it can distort your perception of how significant a threat really is.

Gold & Silver

Click to read the PM Daily Market Commentary: 4/25/18

Provided daily by the Peak Prosperity Gold & Silver Group

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

35 Comments

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5696
Lawyers file for Grand Jury investigation into 9/11

Well, this is an interesting development.  Lawyers working for 9/11 families have filed a petition to open a Grand Jury inquiry into 9/11.

The summary and supporting evidence are really quite strong, at least arguing very successfully that an inquiry is at least justified:

https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

Here's how this was written up in Activistpost:

The evidence that is put forward in the petition includes the following:

  • Independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries in the form of thermite or thermate.
  • Expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts on the WTC Towers, and prior to the building collapses.
  • Technical analysis of video evidence of the WTC building collapses.
  • Firefighter reports of explosions, and of seeing “molten iron like in a foundry.”
  • The petition states that the presence of molten iron would require temperatures higher than jet fuel and building contents could create when burned, but consistent with the use of the high tech explosive and incendiary thermite or thermate.
  • The presence of previously molten iron microspheres, which have been established by electron microscope analysis of WTC dust samples, by both government and independent scientists, is another phenomenon that would be scientifically impossible based on the burning of jet fuel and office contents alone.
  • Video and eyewitness testimony of the ejection during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 of heavy steel elements laterally from the buildings which would not be possible from a gravity collapse.
  • Scientific analysis, eyewitness testimony, and government reports confirming sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of the steel found in the rubble after the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC 7, a phenomenon not expected in a jet fuel fire and gravity collapse but consistent with the use of thermate and high explosives. 

After the petition was delivered, the Lawyers’ Committee delivered a press conference outside of the New York District Court, along with families of the victims.

Footage from the press conference can be seen below: None of the evidence put forward in the petition was presented or considered in the “9/11 Commission,” which was initially appointed to investigate the collapse of the towers.

In the years since the attacks, the Commission has been exposed as a fraud, with many of its own members speaking out against the official story.

According to a 2006 report from The Washington Post, most of the people who oversaw this commission believed they were being lied to, and even held a secret meeting about referring the matter to the Department of Justice.

I've not noticed any new evidence or data presented of which I was not already aware, but it's a pretty solid distillation of the most provable and puzzling aspects of 9/11 each of which contradicts the official narrative, but collectively point to something far darker afoot in the official version.

If there's nothing to hide, then why not have another investigation, even if all that happens is we put to rest some troubling details?  

This has been my stance all along; 9/11 was the largest criminal action undertaken against the US on its own soil, and also the most poorly investigated.  So why not investigate it properly?  What possible harm could result to those who believe the official narrative besides being proven correct?

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 199
So why not investigate it properly?

I think you know the answer as well as I do: nobody who at the time was associated in any official way wants to have the rocks turned over, the rocks under which they've successfully hidden themselves for 16 years.

Merely to start a new investigation implies disturbing arrangements that have been satisfactorily in place for all these years. Major and peripheral matters long quiescent will be brought back to public attention.

To my mind the most telling piece of evidence is the BBC TV report about the sad and lamentable collapse of Building 7 which went to air something like 20 minutes early — and that all three backups of the broadcast were sadly and lamentably destroyed in a series of colossal and most unusual mishaps. How did that happen? Did the reporter have the gift of prophecy? How wide would an inquiry into that one incident spread?

That day was used to trigger a re-arrangement of the world's geopolitical furniture to the massive benefit of a small number of people. Too bad the the geopolitical furniture is on the geopolitical Titanic.

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1841
The Grand Jury Process

Can any of our lawyer-types here explain how the grand jury process works?  What are its goals and the procedure.  Who has to agree to have this case move forward?

Christopher Bollyn explains that none of the 9/11 victim lawsuits ever went to trial.  All of these cases were funneled to the court of two Zionist judges and every single case was quashed.  No evidence ever saw the light of day in a court room.

I wonder what back avenue pressures will be brought to bear on this lawsuit as the AngloZionist Empire defends a central myth and struggles to keep its methods secret?

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
Grand juries

The purpose of a grand jury is to indict a suspect.  It is a rigged procedure, which is why only two nations on earth, the US and Liberia, still use it.  As has famously been said, a minimally competent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich in a grand jury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

Quote:

 Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. The investigatory functions of grand juries include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence, and hearing sworn testimonies of witnesses who appear before it; the accusatory function determines whether there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offence within the venue of a district court.

Quote:

The proceedings of grand jury are, in the first instance, at the instigation of the government or other prosecutor, and ex parte and in secret deliberation. The accused has no knowledge nor right to interfere with their proceedings.

The procedure is that a suspect is brought before a jury of, usually, 23 citizens by a prosecutor who has free rein to develop a narrative consistent with his/her theory.  No defense is allowed.  Which, I assume, is much of the reason the 9/11 CTers want that forum.  Their theories might start falling apart when opposed by competent defense.  In the context of the 9/11 CT a grand jury would serve as a fishing expedition.  No defense allowed.

As noted above, the central point of a grand jury is to indict a suspect and bind him/her over for trial.  That is a huge problem for the "petition" cited above.  No suspect is identified, no one to indict.  So, there is no basis to call a grand jury.  That's why I doubt there will be one.  Previous 9/11 related grand juries indicted Khalid Shaik Mohammed and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef as conspirators with OBL and those who carried out the attacks with the four planes.  Those indictments were dismissed when it was decided to try the defendants in military courts.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/nyregion/11indict.html

Which brings me back to a central question I have asked before, why are there no suspects in the CT?  And by that, I mean real suspects, either physical people or corporations, which as we know are now people according to Citizens United.  I don't think there is any real defense to the proposition that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people and perhaps corporations would have had to be engaged in the planning, execution and/or cover up of such a conspiracy.

As I also noted in the WTC7 thread, studies have shown that in real conspiracies there is an inverse relationship between the number of people participating to the time it takes for the plot to reach the light of day.  IOW, the more people involved, the faster the plot is revealed.  As I recall the average time for normal conspiracies involving something like half a dozen people is 2-3 years.  So, how is it that a conspiracy requiring hundreds or thousands of conspirators has yet to be revealed after 16 1/2 years?  Not even one identifiable suspect.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2821
Grand standing

Be well Doug.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
wtf?
Time2help wrote:

Be well Doug.

If you're trying to say something, say it.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5696
Pretty much wrong on all levels
Doug wrote:

The procedure is that a suspect is brought before a jury of, usually, 23 citizens by a prosecutor who has free rein to develop a narrative consistent with his/her theory.  No defense is allowed.  Which, I assume, is much of the reason the 9/11 CTers want that forum.  

As noted above, the central point of a grand jury is to indict a suspect and bind him/her over for trial.  That is a huge problem for the "petition" cited above.  No suspect is identified, no one to indict.  

I very much expected you to be challenged, if not terrified, of the idea of a grand jury looking into 9/11.  

But you have the central part of the entire idea exactly wrong. The reason "no defense is allowed" is because the purpose of a grand jury is to indict, not convict.  Prosecutors do not "allow a defense" when they are preparing an indictment, in fact they often gather all of their data as quietly if not secretly as possible.  

Convictions happen in a court of law.  You've confused grand juries with courts.

The other point is that grand juries often are expected to discover indictable offenses and suspects along the way.  It's really one of their main purposes.  For example, DA's often convene grand juries to look into crime families with few suspects named at the outset and the intent of working their way of the crime family tree using the powers they've got to "persuade" lower elements to turn against higher ones.

The reason nobody has been named directly in the request for a 9/11 grand jury inquiry is because the grand jury has not yet done their job and followed the evidence.

Of course, as you know, this applies:

Having Zelikow (mis)lead the 9/11 "investigation" was the same as having John Gotti's lawyer lead the grand jury that was meant to investigate the crime family.

Doug, you are a real mystery...your inability to see beyond your own narrow belief systems is really remarkable.  And it both disappoints and upsets me because it means that even very intelligent humans are utterly unable to openly examine their entrenched belief systems, even when confronted with impeccable logic and solid data.

Which means we're probably going to, as a species, just carry on until the earth is completely ruined.

But, again, since you are so certain that nothing of consequence would be found in a grand jury investigation of 9/11, then you would support one simply to make these pesky questions that annoy you so much go away, right?  

So we can put you down as 100% in support of such an investigation?  that's just following your own self-imposed logic to a natural conclusion.

 

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
You: Quote: But you have

You:

Quote:

But you have the central part of the entire idea exactly wrong. The reason "no defense is allowed" is because the purpose of a grand jury is to indict, not convict.

Me:

Quote:

The purpose of a grand jury is to indict a suspect.

Quote:

As noted above, the central point of a grand jury is to indict a suspect and bind him/her over for trial.

How are these different?

You may be under the misimpression that a grand jury is the only way to bring an indictment.  It isn't.  Prosecutors may do so without going to a grand jury.  Nowhere in my post did I mention convictions.  Perhaps you can point out for me a grand jury that was convened without a suspect.

You:


Quote:

It's really one of their main purposes.  For example, DA's often convene grand juries to look into crime families with few suspects named at the outset and the intent of working their way of the crime family tree using the powers they've got to "persuade" lower elements to turn against higher ones.

Not no suspects.  Everything else you say here is correct but irrelevant to the conversation.  The point is that after 16 1/2 years no one has come up with a single suspect they are willing to take into a court of law.  How can you just blithely ignore that fact?

You:

Quote:

But, again, since you are so certain that nothing of consequence would be found in a grand jury investigation of 9/11, then you would support one simply to make these pesky questions that annoy you so much go away, right? 

I don't personally care if a grand jury is convened or not.  The "truthers" just need to find a suspect to get it before a grand jury.  You don't have to have a grand jury to investigate.  Police, FBI, ATF, ...etc. do that all the time.  They don't seem to have a suspect either, except of course those who are already dead or in Guantanamo.  

You:

Quote:

Doug, you are a real mystery...your inability to see beyond your own narrow belief systems is really remarkable.  And it both disappoints and upsets me because it means that even very intelligent humans are utterly unable to openly examine their entrenched belief systems, even when confronted with impeccable logic and solid data.

I suggest you get yourself a good mirror.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2821
*Sigh*

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
Sorry I got into this nonsense

I started out trying to explain to Sandpuppy what a grand jury does because he asked.  So, going back to the beginning, here is a good explanation of the process from arrest to conviction:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/charged-with-crime-how-29677.html

There has to be a defendant.

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 475
Where did you come up with this 'proposition'?

"  I don't think there is any real defense to the proposition that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people and perhaps corporations would have had to be engaged in the planning, execution and/or cover up of such a conspiracy."

Doug,

I am curious where you derived this data. IMHO, if that many people were in the know I doubt it would have ever come off as planned.

Coop

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5696
Yep, "No real defense..."
ckessel wrote:

"  I don't think there is any real defense to the proposition that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people and perhaps corporations would have had to be engaged in the planning, execution and/or cover up of such a conspiracy."

Doug,

I am curious where you derived this data. IMHO, if that many people were in the know I doubt it would have ever come off as planned.

Coop

...except to note that nobody has ever spoken about what happens at Area 51.  Whatever is going on there, we just don't know despite thousands of people working there over many decades.

Similarly there are thousands of black ops covert missions in the dustbin of history without anybody leaking and thousands being involved.

So, yes, there's plenty of 'defense' for the proposition that hundreds of people can keep a secret.  

In fact, I would posit a theory that people keeping secrets happens all the time and that the bigger the secret, the more damaging it is, the easier and more likely that becomes.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
Popular Mechanics
ckessel wrote:

"  I don't think there is any real defense to the proposition that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people and perhaps corporations would have had to be engaged in the planning, execution and/or cover up of such a conspiracy."

Doug,

I am curious where you derived this data. IMHO, if that many people were in the know I doubt it would have ever come off as planned.

Coop

 

Hi Coop, my authority for much of what I have written on this subject comes from the article Debunking 9/11 Myths, later turned into a book and updated in 2011, edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan.  It was published by Popular Mechanics (PM).  The editor-in-Chief there, James B. Meigs, commented in the foreward to the book:

Quote:

Popular Mechanics has close to 30 editorial staffers and dozens of freelance contributors.  Does Griffin (David Griffin, a prominent "truther") imagine that whenever we hire new editors I bring them into a secret bunker and initiate them into an ultraclandestine society for world domination?  Why wouldn't such prospective employees run screaming from our building?  In the years since we began our work on 9/11 conspiracy theories, a number of our staffers have moved on to other jobs.  What would stop them from revealing a conspiracy that if true, would be one of the biggest journalistic scoops in history?  Did we swear them all to secrecy?

So, the beginning of my numbers speculations is with a thought experiment.  Try to picture Mr. Meigs walking into a editorial staff meeting one day in 2004 and telling his 30 some editors that he thinks it would be a swell idea to commit a monumental fraud on the world that they, all experts in some phase of science, engineering and mechanics, would have become aware of in their research.  And, of course, they would have all nodded sagely and agreed that it was a swell idea.

The next step in my speculations started with an article I read quoting experts in the field of demolition and explosives.  I wish I could recall the exact location but I can't.  If I run across it again I will cite it appropriately.  Any way, the assessment was that in order to prepare for demolitions, as described by the CTers, it would require 50 experts working for weeks tearing up walls, cutting steel and placing explosives for one of the towers.  That means something like 150 people making a mess and lots of noise and confusion without any of the inhabitants of the buildings noticing.  So, with the PM staff and demolitions experts that comes up to maybe 200 people in the know before the attack.

Add to that OBL and Al Queda who proudly took responsibility for the attack and we are well into the hundreds.  Then, of course, how many more would be added by the "deep state" that would necessarily have been aware to pull it off, including hiring all those demo experts who also eagerly agreed to commit mass murder for the shadowy forces of evil and buying all those sophisticated explosives without registering notice by any regulatory agency.

You get the idea.  After the fact there were lots of people crawling all over the piles and actual investigators trying to get to the bottom of the attack.  So, at least hundreds of people who would have likely had knowledge of some phase of the conspiracy, all of whom went along to get along.

I don't buy it.  To believe all that stuff you have to be deep deep into CT buffery.

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 475
And what keeps a secret?

I suppose fear and money would be two of the most likely suspects. Having the power to project fear of losing ones life and enough money to offset the job site risks are commodities that governments seem to have in surplus.

This playbook has been around for a long long time. It would be fascinating to be a fly on a wall and know the truth about how, when and by whom the thermite came to arrive at the WTC, not to mention the command line behind it.

The day of 9/11 while watching the coverage I was appalled when the whole building collapsed. I could understand the portion above the impact zone toppling but for the whole thing to drop at the speed of gravity was a real WTF moment, esp having spent my career designing buildings to stand up!

Coop

 

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5325
open secrets

I'd say that a lot of the crash course stuff falls under the heading of "open secrets":

* how money is created

* declining net resources - including peak oil, and its implications

* "mining" topsoil to produce food

* petroleum inputs required for food production

The vast majority of the public is unaware of these "secrets" - and there are plenty of people actively trying to spread the information.

People just get stuck in belief systems, and they simply won't allow anything to change their minds - likely because of the backfire effect.

Now let's imagine a situation where there are secrets that people really don't want to know (because "I have faith in my government to act on my behalf" is a very strongly held belief), and we have another group of people whose job it is to actively ridicule any investigation into such secrets, the secret-keeping doesn't need to be 100% effective, just effective enough so that "most people" automatically reject thinking too much about it.

And if the secret does get out, (say) 60 years later, nobody gets prosecuted because all the bad actors have all died of old age by that time.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5696
Keeping secrets...
davefairtex wrote:

And if the secret does get out, (say) 60 years later, nobody gets prosecuted because all the bad actors have all died of old age by that time.

Um, can we make it 70 years? 

Trump delays release of some JFK files until 2021, bowing to national security concerns

After President Donald Trump vowed last year to release all the long secret files related to the JFK assassination, the administration announced Thursday that some documents will be withheld until October 2021 for national security reasons.

In a White House memo, Trump said that the nation's intelligence community persuaded him to keep some documents secret because their exposure could harm "identifiable national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns."

They say "concerns" and I immediately think GHWB., or some other still living person who would be embarrassed by what's still in those unreleased documents.  

There's certainly nothing of true national security interest in there because everything has certainly been scrubbed 12x over, but there must be a few names that still hold secrets of their own.

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 475
I can see your point Doug,

I can see your point Doug, especially about the process for placing the explosives. It would seem impossible to get that done without being noticed. But failure of a structural system 'all at once' when it is many many stories below the point of impact seems equally impossible.

That said, if I were investigating, I would be looking to see if any of the underground floors had been closed off in prior years 'for repairs', such as when the car bombing took place. The other factor is that thermite is not something that you find laying around just anywhere, esp on airplanes.

And yes, I can see how hundreds of people could be involved although I still maintain that the full scope of such a plan would likely fall to a much smaller number.

Thanks for your references too!

Coop

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2382
thermite and 9/11

Thank you Coop for staying on the thermite subject.  In the 9/11 dust samples..  all of the samples tested.. there was strong evidence of unreacted thermite of a highly engineered (micro-layered) structure.  These tiny flakes, when tested using a very sensitive instrument called DSC (differential scanning calorimetry - an instrument I happen to have run in the earlier days of my engineering career) were wildly exothermic.. meaning they were explosive in nature.  Anyone can look on Youtube for themselves to see examples of regular thermite (forget advanced nanothermite) melting through steel.    

May I recommend, for anyone who may be on the fence and still capable of critical thinking, that you watch this video of a hard core scientist, Jeff Farrer, describing in detail the chronological history of how he, through scientific inquiry.. effectively red-pilled himself into questioning the official story of 9/11?  This guy oozes intelligence and sincerity.. (he starts talking about the DSC at about 19:20). 

DSC does not lie.  The particles were highly energetic and non-natural.  The question one should ask is;  Why melted steel on 9/11?  The answer is obvious to those with eyes to see.   
 
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lg28z2a9zY

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 278
Black Ops
Quote:

Similarly there are thousands of black ops covert missions in the dustbin of history without anybody leaking and thousands being involved.

If no one ever leaked, how would you know that?

Your assertion is plausible, but it's based on an assumption and should be presented accordingly.

Quote:

 So, yes, there's plenty of 'defense' for the proposition that hundreds of people can keep a secret.  

Be patient with the folks who are slow to accept unverifable assumptions as 'defense'.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
     

 

 

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5696
Because it's totally common knowledge
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

Similarly there are thousands of black ops covert missions in the dustbin of history without anybody leaking and thousands being involved.

If no one ever leaked, how would you know that?

Your assertion is plausible, but it's based on an assumption and should be presented accordingly.

Quote:

 So, yes, there's plenty of 'defense' for the proposition that hundreds of people can keep a secret.  

Be patient with the folks who are slow to accept unverifable assumptions as 'defense'.

My apologies.  I assume too much, starting with the idea that everyone has Google.

Six years ago, a deputy commanding general for U.S. Army Special Operations Command gave a conservative estimate of 116 missions being carried out at any one time by Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, and other special operations forces across the globe.

(Source - Vice)

And:

Last year (2010, the Washington Post reported that US had deployed special operations forces in 75 countries, from South America to Central Asia. Recently, however, US Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me that on any given day, America’s elite troops are working in about 70 countries, and that its country total by year’s end would be around 120. These forces are engaged in a host of missions, from Army Rangers involved in conventional combat in Afghanistan to the team of Navy SEALs who assassinated Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, to trainers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within US Special Operations Command working globally from the Dominican Republic to Yemen.

(Source)

And:

In 2016, according to data provided to TomDispatch by SOCOM, the United States deployed special operators to China (specifically Hong Kong), in addition to eleven countries surrounding it—Taiwan (which China considers a breakaway province), Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Laos, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan.

Special Operations Command does not acknowledge sending commandos into Iran, North Korea, or Russia, but it does deploy troops to many nations that ring them.

SOCOM is willing to name only 129 of the 138 countries its forces deployed to in 2016. “Almost all Special Operations Forces deployments are classified,” spokesman Ken McGraw told TomDispatch.

“If a deployment to a specific country has not been declassified, we do not release information about the deployment.”

SOCOM does not, for instance, acknowledge sending troops to the war zones of Somalia, Syria, or Yemen, despite overwhelming evidence of a US special ops presence in all three countries, as well as a White House report, issued last month, that notes “the United States is currently using military force in” Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, and specifically states that “U.S. special operations forces have deployed to Syria.”

On any given day, around 8,000 of Thomas’s commandos can be found in more than 90 countries worldwide.

(Source

In summary many thousands of DoD special ops troops are deployed all over the globe doing who knows what, operating in 138 countries, and none of that includes any CIA data or personnel, with up to 116 missions being carried out at any one time just by the Green Berets.  You won't read about any of those missions anywhere unless they are purposely uncovered and declassified for political or press purposes.  But that's a very skinny fraction.  Tiny.

All of that took me many, many seconds to find and compile.  Lots more where that came from, of course, including my own personal discussions with former black ops people who will not divulge anything, ever, about anything they did.  

They've just assured me that what we read about is the proverbial tip of the iceberg and almost never accurate.

At any rate, I just assume stuff that is completely common knowledge among the well read and easily found is fair game to present without a lot of extensive backing up.  

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 278
Quote:  US Special Operations
Quote:

 US Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me that on any given day, America’s elite troops are working in about 70 countries, and that its country total by year’s end would be around 120. 

So ... they don't give details but they acknowledge that such operations exist.

That's a step down from keeping things totally secret. 

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 533
Focusing through the wrong end of the telescope?

Nate's picture
Nate
Status: Platinum Member (Online)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 585
open secrets


davefairtex wrote:

I'd say that a lot of the crash course stuff falls under the heading of "open secrets":

* "mining" topsoil to produce food

* petroleum inputs required for food production

The vast majority of the public is unaware of these "secrets" - and there are plenty of people actively trying to spread the information.

One month ago I met with a friend to select a steer.  In addition to a small beef operation, he also farms almonds, beans, corn, oats, and alfalfa.  He had the door to his chemical shed open and I was astounded at the amount of chemicals he had.  Since we were in the middle of almond bloom, I asked how many sprays were required to control brown rot.  "Two, maybe three".  How about navel orange worm (hull split) - "Only 1 spray".  How about mites - " Three sprays due to the near mono-culture of almonds locally".  How many sprays are require to keep the orchard floor clean?  "Several".  I asked how expensive the sprays were, and he said not bad.  "The big money is in fertilizer.  Leaves are analyzed and custom fertilizers are made for each orchard.  The majors (PKN) represent the bulk of the cost, but minors (Zn, B) are also part of the package".  He looked at me and said "we are a chemical operation, not a farming operation".

Later I asked what would happen if the fertilizers were not available?  "We can't sustain the current population - we will have half of the earth's current population in 50 years".

As much as I read about and understand mining topsoil and eating hydrocarbons, this was a real wake up call. 

Stop worrying about Trump or 911.  Get your own house in order.  Time is short.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 829
Constants

Doug,

Three constants in the world:

1: The sun always rises in the east.

2: The sun always sets in the west.

3: You think Popular Mechanics is the be-all and end-all to questions relating to 9/11.

Doug wrote:

Popular Mechanics has close to 30 editorial staffers and dozens of freelance contributors.  Does Griffin (David Griffin, a prominent "truther") imagine that whenever we hire new editors I bring them into a secret bunker and initiate them into an ultraclandestine society for world domination?  Why wouldn't such prospective employees run screaming from our building?  In the years since we began our work on 9/11 conspiracy theories, a number of our staffers have moved on to other jobs.  What would stop them from revealing a conspiracy that if true, would be one of the biggest journalistic scoops in history?  Did we swear them all to secrecy?

So, the beginning of my numbers speculations is with a thought experiment.  Try to picture Mr. Meigs walking into a editorial staff meeting one day in 2004 and telling his 30 some editors that he thinks it would be a swell idea to commit a monumental fraud on the world that they, all experts in some phase of science, engineering and mechanics, would have become aware of in their research.  And, of course, they would have all nodded sagely and agreed that it was a swell idea.

Popular Mechanics is in business to sell a product. They can highlight the latest fantasy ship for luxury outer space travel or new car features ... or whatever their clientele prefers. As long as they sell their product, they're successful. That is the bottom line.

According to Doug's quote, PM has dozens of editorial staff writers and freelancers. Would it be necessary to involve any of them in a conspiracy? Absolutely not! The boss editor tells all these writers what is acceptable copy. If any of them wish to write something outside of editorial boundaries, their employment is in jeopardy. Freelancers only get paid for what is accepted by the editor. Do you really think any of these people are going to go against management's wishes? Remember that writing jobs (for pay) are scarce. How do you pay the rent or buy what is needed without a paycheck? Isn't it easier to swallow some principles in order to get the principal?

Doug wrote:

The next step in my speculations started with an article I read quoting experts in the field of demolition and explosives.  I wish I could recall the exact location but I can't.  If I run across it again I will cite it appropriately.  Any way, the assessment was that in order to prepare for demolitions, as described by the CTers, it would require 50 experts working for weeks tearing up walls, cutting steel and placing explosives for one of the towers.  That means something like 150 people making a mess and lots of noise and confusion without any of the inhabitants of the buildings noticing.  So, with the PM staff and demolitions experts that comes up to maybe 200 people in the know before the attack.

Add to that OBL and Al Queda who proudly took responsibility for the attack and we are well into the hundreds.  Then, of course, how many more would be added by the "deep state" that would necessarily have been aware to pull it off, including hiring all those demo experts who also eagerly agreed to commit mass murder for the shadowy forces of evil and buying all those sophisticated explosives without registering notice by any regulatory agency.

You get the idea.  After the fact there were lots of people crawling all over the piles and actual investigators trying to get to the bottom of the attack.  So, at least hundreds of people who would have likely had knowledge of some phase of the conspiracy, all of whom went along to get along.

I don't buy it.  To believe all that stuff you have to be deep deep into CT buffery.

Doug builds on a scenario with plausible numbers for his given condition to show how ludicrous the numbers get - without considering other possibilities. (I don't know how he went from 50 to 150 people for demolitions.) For instance, assuming the number of work hours is reasonable - 50 experts working for weeks: At 40 hours per week (in NY, they're probably union,) that amounts to 2,000 work hours per week. Let's say it takes 6 weeks to accomplish this task for a total of 12,000 work hours.

Could a dozen people do the same work in a year? (40 hrs/wk * 50 weeks * 12 people = 12,000 work hours.) Hmmmm. So there wasn't any conspiracy necessary at PM and we've reduced the number of workers to a dozen (or fewer.) Of course, there is still the question of Security. Unless the WTC security were on board, it would be impossible to accomplish this task undetected. Wouldn't it be nice if a brother and cousin of one of the chief perpetrators were directing security for the WTC? Please read this.

So, how many low to mid level government employees were needed to carry this out? I remember you (Doug) claiming that you worked for and retired from the federal government. Were you ever told to do something with less than satisfactory explanations for doing it? Have you ever been lied to by any of your supervisors over your career? I'm assuming the answer to both questions is a resounding YES! What makes you think it is any different for the low to mid level supervisors? Couldn't they just be given instructions to accomplish tasks without being involved in a conspiracy? Perhaps a few high level (Secretary level) needed to know and be involved, but nobody lower needed to have fore knowledge. Instead of thousands of government employees being involved in the conspiracy, only a handful of the most powerful need to know and be involved. There goes that leg of the argument. If you were perpetrating a conspiracy, why would you want to involve more people than necessary? Each one is a potential leak who could get you hung (literally.)

As far as OBL and al Qaeda taking credit for the attacks ... that was a true conspiracy. They conspired for over a year to accomplish this dastardly deed. We know this because some of their people were here training for over a year. Just so we're clear about what a conspiracy is, I'm including the definition from dictionary.com:

​http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

So, OBL and al Qaeda conspired to bring down the Towers (and to bring America to its knees.) Does that mean that conspiracy theories work sometimes??? Were they actually responsible for all the mayhem or just convenient scapegoats? I read somewhere, years ago (and like you, I can't find the origin to cite) that boils the conspiracy down to 4 levels. Let's start with the null hypothesis.

Level 0 Conspiracy - no conspiracy. In order for this to work, none of the 19 hijackers conspired with anyone. They just showed up at the airports and happened to have tickets on the same 4 flights. Once on the plane, they fell into their roles and perpetrated the act. I suppose Allah could have been the coordinator, but any other scenario is exceedingly farfetched.

Level 1 Conspiracy - OBL and al Qaeda conspired for more than 1 year to train and embed their members in our society so they could successfully carry out their suicide mission. None of their communications were intercepted by the government and they were able to accomplish their goals unimpeded.

Level 2 Conspiracy - Same as Level 1, except some communications were intercepted by various government agencies. Some departments knew these guys were up to no good. Another agency(s) knew something was going to happen with planes, but didn't know when or where. Another agency(s) knew something was going to happen on or about 9/11, but didn't know what. Since the agencies keep their secrets to themselves without sharing with other federal agencies, the information went no where and the hijackers were able to accomplish their goals unimpeded.

Level 3 Conspiracy - Same as Level 2, except that the information worked its way to the very top levels of government (Dick Cheney's office.) Dick saw this as an opportunity for the "New Pearl Harbor" event he had written about in the Project for a New American Century. (<--- Check out the signatories section.) Nonetheless, being a man of honor, Dick Cheney didn't want to do anything to aid al Qaeda. Of course, being an opportunist, he didn't want to do anything to stop them either.

Level 4 Conspiracy - Same as Level 3, except that the information filtering up through the agencies said these guys couldn't fly a Cessna. How would they be able to fly multi-engined aircraft at top speed into targets barely wider than the wingspan. Also, Cheney needed a catastrophe to galvanize the public so he could wage war in the Middle East. He couldn't trust the pilots, so he had the planes outfitted with remote flying capability (the precursor to modern day drones) and he had the WTC towers wired with explosives so they would collapse in their own footprint. He knew there would be chaos afterward to hide behind. Prying eyes could be kept out of the rescue operation and the Administration could claim "national security" for anything they didn't want to reveal. Best of all, they had a scapegoat who was only too happy to take credit for all of it.

So the question boils down to how many were involved in the conspiracy(ies) and how many conspiracies actually occurred. Your idea of thousands or 10s of thousands involved in any conspiracy is ludicrous. First off, there's no need to involve so many people and secondly, it would be idiotic to do so. As you know, the more people involved, the more potential leaks. Hopefully, that makes sense to you.

By building a straw man argument against any possible CT, you effectively insulate yourself from the really tough questions. Many physical aspects of the collapses get ignored by you. For instance, you effectively ignore the nearly 2.25 seconds of near free fall acceleration of WTC7. Yet, it did happen. Why doesn't that bother you?

Grover

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
Grover

Against my better judgment I am responding to your post.

Quote:

3: You think Popular Mechanics is the be-all and end-all to questions relating to 9/11.

I wouldn't call it the "be-all and end-all" but yes it is the best debunking I've come across.  Can you suggest a better one?


Quote:

Popular Mechanics is in business to sell a product. They can highlight the latest fantasy ship for luxury outer space travel or new car features ... or whatever their clientele prefers. As long as they sell their product, they're successful. That is the bottom line.

According to Doug's quote, PM has dozens of editorial staff writers and freelancers. Would it be necessary to involve any of them in a conspiracy? Absolutely not! The boss editor tells all these writers what is acceptable copy. If any of them wish to write something outside of editorial boundaries, their employment is in jeopardy. Freelancers only get paid for what is accepted by the editor. Do you really think any of these people are going to go against management's wishes? Remember that writing jobs (for pay) are scarce. How do you pay the rent or buy what is needed without a paycheck? Isn't it easier to swallow some principles in order to get the principal?

BS, they have a staff of professionals who have experience and skills in their areas of expertise.  They have job options.  They don't have to agree to cover up mass murder for a livelihood.  And yes, I do believe they and any other rational human would, as Meigs phrased it, "run screaming from the building" and then hoof it down to the nearest police station if asked to do so.


Quote:

 (I don't know how he went from 50 to 150 people for demolitions.)

Small mistake on my part.  The 50 people is a gross estimate of the editorial staff including contributing writers.  And, they would have been cover up people, not necessarily those who knew about the plot beforehand.  The 150 comes from 50 professionals per building, three buildings that were allegedly blown up.  They would have known about it beforehand.

The demo folks are also highly trained professionals in a pretty small field.  They have job options and don't need to commit mass murder to support their families.


Quote:

So, how many low to mid level government employees were needed to carry this out? I remember you (Doug) claiming that you worked for and retired from the federal government. Were you ever told to do something with less than satisfactory explanations for doing it? Have you ever been lied to by any of your supervisors over your career? I'm assuming the answer to both questions is a resounding YES!

You're living in a fantasy world.  Over the course of my gov't career I worked for many different people.  Some were a-holes, most were decent enough.  They were all professionals, as was I, and knew their jobs.  No matter how well I got along with them, we performed our jobs with due diligence.  I cannot imagine any of them agreeing to commit mass murder or cover up for same.  And don't forget, they wouldn't all have to do the right thing, just a few would have to break ranks to flush the entire plot down the toilet.

What you're imagining is truly bizarre.  Try to picture yourself or anyone you know (I'm assuming you just know fairly reasonable people) agreeing to weaken building structures and plant explosives around office spaces where you know people are working day in and day out doing their jobs as we all do.  How would your supervisor lie you into planting the explosives?  Are you smart enough to plant explosives in a competent manner, stupid enough not to know the effects of those explosives and/or callous enough not to care?  


Quote:

So, how many low to mid level government employees were needed to carry this out?

Of the 150 people needed to do all that beforehand, I would say most of them would be mid or lower level employees.  I don't think the Secretary of any gov't agency is going to be getting his/her hands dirty.


Quote:

So the question boils down to how many were involved in the conspiracy(ies) and how many conspiracies actually occurred. Your idea of thousands or 10s of thousands involved in any conspiracy is ludicrous. First off, there's no need to involve so many people and secondly, it would be idiotic to do so. As you know, the more people involved, the more potential leaks. Hopefully, that makes sense to you.

First, I never said 10s of thousands.  I'll be willing to settle for hundreds which is pretty much undeniable.  And of those hundreds, most would have to be trained pros and smart enough not to be sucked into such lunacy.  I can only assume you think all gov't employees are idiots.  They are not.  In fact, in my extensive experience intellectually they tend to be at least a cut above average.  In fact, I would say the same about professionals in any field, private or public sector.

Then, of course, you apparently think most of your fellow citizens are so morally depraved they would willingly take part in such activities.  I think more of them than that.  And remember, it only takes a few to do the right thing and your fantasies are up in smoke.

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 278
Oaths


Quote:

So, how many low to mid level government employees were needed to carry this out?

Grover, you're leaving out something significant.

All those hypothetical government employees taking hypothetical instructions about hypothetical demolition tasks would all have taken an oath when they started their jobs, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States".

 


Quote:

support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

 

The constitution itself says:

 


Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Swearing to defend the constitution means, among other things, swearing to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". That oath comes with the job if you're a government employee.

 

I have no trouble imagining that people could be given tasks whose consequences they didn't understand at the time. It's vastly more difficult to imagine that not one of them would utter a peep of protest once they saw how they had been bamboozled into betraying their sacred oath.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2821
Emote much Dave?
Quote:

First, I never said 10s of thousands.  I'll be willing to settle for hundreds which is pretty much undeniable.  And of those hundreds, most would have to be trained pros and smart enough not to be sucked into such lunacy.  I can only assume you think all gov't employees are idiots.  They are not.  In fact, in my extensive experience intellectually they tend to be at least a cut above average.  In fact, I would say the same about professionals in any field, private or public sector.

Then, of course, you apparently think most of your fellow citizens are so morally depraved they would willingly take part in such activities.  I think more of them than that.  And remember, it only takes a few to do the right thing and your fantasies are up in smoke.

Perhaps a belief system defense is kicking in hard?

Matt Holbert's picture
Matt Holbert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 3 2008
Posts: 110
Perhaps the most important aspect of Grand Jury Proceedings...
  • Grand jury proceedings are not open to the public. (source: uscourts.gov)

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 829
Levels
Doug wrote:

Against my better judgment I am responding to your post.

Quote:

3: You think Popular Mechanics is the be-all and end-all to questions relating to 9/11.

I wouldn't call it the "be-all and end-all" but yes it is the best debunking I've come across.  Can you suggest a better one?

I'm glad you asked! https://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=78340211195210&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8jh981qqmg_e

Doug wrote:


Quote:

Popular Mechanics is in business to sell a product. They can highlight the latest fantasy ship for luxury outer space travel or new car features ... or whatever their clientele prefers. As long as they sell their product, they're successful. That is the bottom line.

According to Doug's quote, PM has dozens of editorial staff writers and freelancers. Would it be necessary to involve any of them in a conspiracy? Absolutely not! The boss editor tells all these writers what is acceptable copy. If any of them wish to write something outside of editorial boundaries, their employment is in jeopardy. Freelancers only get paid for what is accepted by the editor. Do you really think any of these people are going to go against management's wishes? Remember that writing jobs (for pay) are scarce. How do you pay the rent or buy what is needed without a paycheck? Isn't it easier to swallow some principles in order to get the principal?

BS, they have a staff of professionals who have experience and skills in their areas of expertise.  They have job options.  They don't have to agree to cover up mass murder for a livelihood.  And yes, I do believe they and any other rational human would, as Meigs phrased it, "run screaming from the building" and then hoof it down to the nearest police station if asked to do so.

​Doug, I'm not saying there was any conspiracy to get those writers to write what they wrote. You're the conspiracy theorist here. I agree with Meigs that rational people would behave just like he described. There is no need to "get them in a conspiracy." I believe we can agree that there was a mass murder on 9/11. Thousands of people died when the towers fell. The real question is "who did the murdering?" The list of possible suspect groups is really quite short. It was either OBL and al Qaeda or it was spearheaded by high ranking members of our then current government? (I'm open to hearing about other well organized groups who could have pulled this off.)

​The official story tries to wrap it all up in a neat and tidy package. The investigation was a sham! When questions arose, those questions were ignored or glossed over. I wrote a post on the space shuttle disaster investigation to show what a real government investigation looks like when there isn't a preconceived conclusion. I didn't find that post, but I found this one directed at you (that you never responded to.) You still have many of the same questions. Perhaps you should review this post. https://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/199693#comment-199693

​The bottom line for me is, if the real murderers of all those people on 9/11 are pointing the finger at an all too compliant scapegoat, aren't the people of Popular Mechanics unknowingly complicit in covering up and protecting the real murderers? All I'm asking for is a real, independent investigation. Why does that continue to ruffle your feathers?


Doug wrote:


Quote:

 (I don't know how he went from 50 to 150 people for demolitions.)

Small mistake on my part.  The 50 people is a gross estimate of the editorial staff including contributing writers.  And, they would have been cover up people, not necessarily those who knew about the plot beforehand.  The 150 comes from 50 professionals per building, three buildings that were allegedly blown up.  They would have known about it beforehand.

The demo folks are also highly trained professionals in a pretty small field.  They have job options and don't need to commit mass murder to support their families.

​Thanks for clarifying the point that there were 3 buildings needing to be wired. I agree that these people needed to be in the conspiracy. You ignored my notion that work hours is the key consideration. I frankly don't know how many work hours would be needed, but fewer people would be needed if more time were available. Either way, security would need to be involved as well. Do you know who directed the security at WTC?

​I don't claim to know what sort of mindset these people have. I do know that there are people who will kill others for a pittance. There are others who are so wedded to their ideology (political, religious, etc.) that they are willing to kill others to further their personal goals. (Isn't that essentially what happened in the official story? A bunch of Muslims did this to further their own cause(s).)

Doug wrote:


Quote:

So, how many low to mid level government employees were needed to carry this out? I remember you (Doug) claiming that you worked for and retired from the federal government. Were you ever told to do something with less than satisfactory explanations for doing it? Have you ever been lied to by any of your supervisors over your career? I'm assuming the answer to both questions is a resounding YES!

You're living in a fantasy world.  Over the course of my gov't career I worked for many different people.  Some were a-holes, most were decent enough.  They were all professionals, as was I, and knew their jobs.  No matter how well I got along with them, we performed our jobs with due diligence.  I cannot imagine any of them agreeing to commit mass murder or cover up for same.  And don't forget, they wouldn't all have to do the right thing, just a few would have to break ranks to flush the entire plot down the toilet.

What you're imagining is truly bizarre.  Try to picture yourself or anyone you know (I'm assuming you just know fairly reasonable people) agreeing to weaken building structures and plant explosives around office spaces where you know people are working day in and day out doing their jobs as we all do.  How would your supervisor lie you into planting the explosives?  Are you smart enough to plant explosives in a competent manner, stupid enough not to know the effects of those explosives and/or callous enough not to care?

Doug, again, you can't escape the idea in your mind that I think these people had to be in on the conspiracy. I'm saying that they weren't included. If there were tasks seemingly unrelated but handed down the chain to be accomplished, nobody would be the wiser. For instance, Rumsfeld changed some critical policies related to DOD intercepting errant aircraft. The bureaucracy took those policy directives and made changes to their procedures. There wasn't any reason not to do so. Those government employees were just doing their jobs and implementing changes. Little did they know that on 9/11, those changes would have a dramatic impact on our military response to the emergency. Again, no conspiracy necessary here to accomplish the goals.

Just to make it perfectly clear, I am not blaming rank and file government employees. (Over my career, I've worked with extremely intelligent and dedicated government employees. Like you, I've also worked with a-holes.) They were just doing their jobs. Nobody would ask them to plant explosives. The explosives team would be a small group whose loyalty to the Administration is beyond reproach. They would walk through fire (or drag you through that same fire) if asked. Why would you want to include more people in the conspiracy than absolutely necessary? (That question goes for either of the suspects.)

Doug wrote:


Quote:

So, how many low to mid level government employees were needed to carry this out?

Of the 150 people needed to do all that beforehand, I would say most of them would be mid or lower level employees.  I don't think the Secretary of any gov't agency is going to be getting his/her hands dirty.

I agree that the big wigs won't get their hands dirty. I would also say it wouldn't be very smart to have any lower level government employees involved. Use loyal contractors. (Remember that Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before becoming the real president behind the scenes. Could some Halliburton explosives teams be recruited for the dirty job?)

Doug wrote:


Quote:

So the question boils down to how many were involved in the conspiracy(ies) and how many conspiracies actually occurred. Your idea of thousands or 10s of thousands involved in any conspiracy is ludicrous. First off, there's no need to involve so many people and secondly, it would be idiotic to do so. As you know, the more people involved, the more potential leaks. Hopefully, that makes sense to you.

First, I never said 10s of thousands.  I'll be willing to settle for hundreds which is pretty much undeniable.  And of those hundreds, most would have to be trained pros and smart enough not to be sucked into such lunacy.  I can only assume you think all gov't employees are idiots.  They are not.  In fact, in my extensive experience intellectually they tend to be at least a cut above average.  In fact, I would say the same about professionals in any field, private or public sector.

Then, of course, you apparently think most of your fellow citizens are so morally depraved they would willingly take part in such activities.  I think more of them than that.  And remember, it only takes a few to do the right thing and your fantasies are up in smoke.

I seem to remember you thinking there were thousands that needed to be involved. (My memory plays tricks on me sometimes.) I disagree with the need for hundreds to be involved. I'm thinking that the numbers would be a few dozen at most. (1) Unquestioning loyalty to Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush and (2) a need to know would be the factors determining who would be welcomed into the conspiracy. Those people know that if they spill any beans, they and everyone they love will pay the price. It will be made to look like an accident or botched robbery - similar to what happened to Seth Rich. A suddenly guilty conscience wouldn't be tolerated.

Although I believe Cheney was the head of the organization, I don't believe he is the embodiment of pure evil. Cheney was (and is) a very pragmatic man. As CEO of Halliburton, he was in a position to understand the unsustainability of the world's energy situation. If there were a long hiccup in oil availability, potentially millions of Americans could be adversely affected from the chaos and mayhem. I believe he would trade a few thousand lives for many millions of lives down the road. That's just pragmatic math.

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 829
Clarification

Yoxa,

Read the post #30 that I directed to Doug. I don't think the government employees (other than at the highest levels - who think they're above the law) were involved in any conspiracy. They were just doing their jobs without knowing the underlying reasons for being asked to perform certain tasks. As a result, the rank and file never betrayed their oath.

Grover

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 278
Oaths, again
Quote:

 As a result, the rank and file never betrayed their oath.

We'll have to disagree on that one. If the rank and file did things that led to such harm they did indeed betray their oaths. Even if they were duped.

Quote:

other than at the highest levels - who think they're above the law

Your belief system about that is very different from mine.

Read up on the logical fallacy of the "sweeping generalization".

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 843
Anyone who believes that

Anyone who believes that there are not multitudes that betray their oath to the constitution every day is naive.

 

All I need to do is watch a video of building 7 going down or hear a firefighter speak of molten metal. Really...that is all I need.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2821
Betrayal
MarkM wrote:

All I need to do is watch a video of building 7 going down or hear a firefighter speak of molten metal. Really...that is all I need.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3145
cmartenson wrote: ckessel
cmartenson wrote:
ckessel wrote:

"  I don't think there is any real defense to the proposition that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people and perhaps corporations would have had to be engaged in the planning, execution and/or cover up of such a conspiracy."

Doug,

I am curious where you derived this data. IMHO, if that many people were in the know I doubt it would have ever come off as planned.

Coop

...except to note that nobody has ever spoken about what happens at Area 51.  Whatever is going on there, we just don't know despite thousands of people working there over many decades.

Similarly there are thousands of black ops covert missions in the dustbin of history without anybody leaking and thousands being involved.

So, yes, there's plenty of 'defense' for the proposition that hundreds of people can keep a secret.  

In fact, I would posit a theory that people keeping secrets happens all the time and that the bigger the secret, the more damaging it is, the easier and more likely that becomes.

Actually, that's not quite true.  I refer you to Iran-Contra where some people went to jail and others should have.

https://www.history.com/topics/iran-contra-affair

In fact, POTUS recently leaked one:

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/25/16025136/trump-syria-cia-twitter-pro...

Quote:

President Trump just broke a major taboo: In a late-night tweet attacking the Washington Post on Monday, he confirmed the existence of a covert CIA program to arm and train Syrian rebels to remove Bashar al-Assad from power.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments