Rafterman, on 23 February 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:
There's a big difference between something being a secret vs something being a conspiracy and, frankly, comparing those operations you list above to something like 9/11 is apples and oranges.
Equating the deaths of 3,000+ Americans to paramilitary operations in Italy, a false flag operation that never went beyond proposal stage, and the US-led coup in Iran that returned the Shah to power that pretty much everyone knows about doesn't make sense at all.
Not to mention all three of those examples happened decades ago when we weren't all fame grubbing glory hounds.
I didn’t equate 9/11 to those other ‘conspiracies’ – at best there are a few comparisons that could be drawn. I used the examples specifically to show that an operation can be
elaborate, involve
many people and
still be quite true.
I then moved on to ask why anyone behind the 9/11 false flag attack would reveal the role they played… and I’ve never had a sensible answer to that. Obviously they don’t plan for years, action the operation, get the results and then sit down for an interview with the media to tell everyone about it.
I pointed out that when information
has been released by individuals on the periphery of the operation, for example, the fact that Silverstein was seeking to authorise a controlled demolition of WTC7 on the day, that the hijackers appeared to be receiving protection in the United States or that foreign and domestic government agents are implicated, etc etc etc, this is mostly ignored anyway.
I then concluded from the three separate issues above that ‘conspiracy theory’ only becomes ‘conspiracy fact’ for the… I’m going to say it…
sheeple when an official source confirms it and/or, as you say, the event becomes so far removed from memory that it is no longer worth denying.
I hope that explains.
And what’s a ‘fame grubbing glory hound’ anyway?