Why People Believe in Conspiracies

[el midgetron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)

[flyingswan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)

How is that relevant? Even if, say, you have a team of engineers developing a novel demolition method using thermite and they are not told what it is to be used for, they are going to have a tiny bit of an inkling when people all over the Internet start claiming that thermite demolition featured in 9/11.

[Corp]

Yeah… because moving a desk is very much like a high-level covert op.

And I got called out for my comparison?

And you've completely missed the point.

The point is that the government is not nearly as effective as conspiracies make them out to be. Government departments would love to be half as efficient as conspiracy theories claim.

[el midgetron]

How is that relevant? Even if, say, you have a team of engineers developing a novel demolition method using thermite and they are not told what it is to be used for, they are going to have a tiny bit of an inkling when people all over the Internet start claiming that thermite demolition featured in 9/11.

A "tiny bit of an inkling"? So, all it would take in your mind to expose a conspiracy would be for someone to have a "tiny bit of an inkling"???

Not to mention if someone was developing something for the government, something kept from the public, they're work would be classified. If they went public and said "I have a tiny bit of an inkling" that 911 was an inside job because.....", they would likely be hung out to dry for exposing national secrets. And what would their "tiny inkling" actually prove? Nada.

Who is gonna listen to a tinfoil hat wearing traitor anyway?

There are people all over with "tiny inklings"......

Compartmentalization is relevant because of the naive argument that "1,000s" of people would be in the know and in a position to expose the truth. Its silly to believe any power structure or chain of command works like that.

[Rafterman]

A "tiny bit of an inkling"? So, all it would take in your mind to expose a conspiracy would be for someone to have a "tiny bit of an inkling"???

Not to mention if someone was developing something for the government, something kept from the public, they're work would be classified. If they went public and said "I have a tiny bit of an inkling" that 911 was an inside job because.....", they would likely be hung out to dry for exposing national secrets. And what would their "tiny inkling" actually prove? Nada.

Who is gonna listen to a tinfoil hat wearing traitor anyway?

There are people all over with "tiny inklings"......

Compartmentalization is relevant because of the naive argument that "1,000s" of people would be in the know and in a position to expose the truth. Its silly to believe any power structure or chain of command works like that.

If they could in fact prove that what they were doing was somehow connected to 9/11 and prove that national leaders conspired to carry out 9/11, they would be untouchable and an instant world-wide celebrity. Absolutely nothing would happen to them.

[Space Commander Travis]

Not to mention if someone was developing something for the government, something kept from the public, they're work would be classified.

......

Compartmentalization is relevant because of the naive argument that "1,000s" of people would be in the know and in a position to expose the truth. Its silly to believe any power structure or chain of command works like that.

Before the event, perhaps, but did no one honestly wonder, after the event, that perhaps the project thyat they'd been involved in - and in which they'd been sworn to secrecy - might perhaps have been related to it in some way? Wouldn't someone who might have been involved in a project concerning, say, remote control of large aircraft, or demolition systems for large buildings, and about which there seemed to be a tremendous amount of secrecy, have been troubled by their conscience subsequently? And if anyone had come forward with even the merest inkling of a doubt, that would surely have encouraged others to do so, and would have made it very difficult for the authorities to silence them without it looking so obviously suspicious. They'd have tried to discredit them any way they could, certainly; look at Julian Assange; but could people - decent, loyal Americans, and not working for the CIA or any other form of spooks - people who may have been stationed at the military bases where these atrocities were supposedly carried out from or at, or who may have been involved with designing the remote control systems, whatever your favoured theory is - not brainwashed robots bereft of all humanity working for government organisations - really live with their conscience, with the suspicion that they may have been involved in this, even without knowing that was what it was beforehand?

[Habitat]

A deep, abiding distrust of humans would be an essential prerequisite to believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy. And that is a desperately isolated life of estrangement, not only from your fellow citizens, but also from reality.

[el midgetron]

If they could in fact prove that what they were doing was somehow connected to 9/11 and prove that national leaders conspired to carry out 9/11, they would be untouchable and an instant world-wide celebrity. Absolutely nothing would happen to them.

Thats a big IF.

The anthrax used in the attacks came from government labs. Yet, there was no flood of scientists from that lab rushing forth to state what they were doing was connected to the attacks.

How would they even know? If some guy was working on some kind of demolitions, what makes you think they would believe anything other than the official story? Planes brought down the buildings. Even if they accepted the evidence of CD, what would lead them to believe it was done with the stuff they were working on? And if they did, how would they confirm it to themself and "prove" it to the public?

What you describe is a cross between a smoking gun and a silver bullet. And just like in the anthrax attacks, just because something originated in a government lab, doesn't mean the government will take the blame for its use.

Before the event, perhaps, but did no one honestly wonder, after the event, that perhaps the project thyat they'd been involved in - and in which they'd been sworn to secrecy - might perhaps have been related to it in some way? Wouldn't someone who might have been involved in a project concerning, say, remote control of large aircraft, or demolition systems for large buildings, and about which there seemed to be a tremendous amount of secrecy, have been troubled by their conscience subsequently?

They have had the technology to remote control large airplanes for decades. Today, the development of those types of systems are pretty common place. I faintly remember it being suggested after 911 that the TSA should have the ability to remotely control all comercial aircraft. OnStar has the ability to remotely control and over-ride alot of user operations in cars (connected to the OnStar system). Not to mention the booming drone technology.

Demolitions for large buildings? I would assume there are numerous interests in the public sector involved in the demolition industry. Seems like a more obvious knowledge pool than the military one. For some kind of covert-op the techniques would probably be taken from the public sector and modified for the specific job or for specialized demolitions materials. After all, the military usually knocks down buildings the old fashion way. In keeping with the super thermite example, it wouldn't have been developed to specifically "bring down buildings", it would have several demolition applications.

I'm not sure people in the sectors you describe would even think for a second that what they were involved in was connected. However, I am sure there are people with knowledge who's conscience is very troubled. Does that mean anyone would even listen to them if they were to stick their necks out?

[Habitat]

So who were the hi-jacker guys who were reported to loved ones in phone calls by passengers on the 9/11 flights ? Remote controlled robots ? Gotcha !

[Q24]

So all the people involved, then, would have been utterly brainwashed fanatics who do not have a shred of conscience between any of them?

Well that’s not so far from the mark, 747400.

I’m not sure about “brainwashed” and would say that rather than having ‘no consceince’ they have ‘very little sympathy’ for anything outside of their own agenda… but “fanatics”, that is a perfect description.

I said that in any large group there are bound to be a few who have a conscience or some other motive to go public.

If the top-level conspirator walked down the street and randomly said, “I pick you, you, you and… you to carry out the operation, now here’s what we’re gonna do… ” then I’d quite agree. But then that’s not how agents are assigned such tasks. You obviously have no idea of the vetting, profiling and control measures in place within certain branches of these agencies. It is not just “any” large group referred to here. The 9/11 agents would truly believe in the ideology and righteousness of what they were doing.

Again, they are not like you and me.

Given the general level of hatred toward the Bush Adminstration, anyone coming out with proof that they carried out 9/11 would be set for life and would be one of more famous people in American history for decades to come.

Why is that kind of scenario so unlikely in your mind?

Anyone with the detail of information required to reveal the 9/11 operation would be implicated in the attack.

Rather than being set for life, they would be lynched!

Not only by the public but by those they betrayed.

That’s without mentioning they just stabbed interests of their own ideology in the back.

All this talk of “coming out” and “going public” being a given is nonsense - history has shown this: -

• Over 60 million people were killed as a result of WW2, a conflict launched on the back of a large-scale false flag attack titled Operation Himmler. Not one of the many individuals involved went public to the German people to warn they were being dragged to war on a false pretext.
  
• Estimates of hundreds of thousands have been killed in the Iraq War, a conflict launched on the basis of false WMD intelligence. Well someone, somewhere in the chain, knew that intelligence was fabricated and yet they haven’t dashed off to reveal, “hey yeah it was me – I lied!”
  

Can anyone explain why none of the individuals involved above came forward?

We cannot be in denial of these precedents and human nature didn’t suddenly change one day.

So who were the hi-jacker guys who were reported to loved ones in phone calls by passengers on the 9/11 flights ? Remote controlled robots ? Gotcha !

Anyone would find ‘conspiracies’ difficult to accept if the best understanding they can come up with is based in science fiction. Unfortunately, no “remote controlled robots” were necessary to implement the 9/11 operation.

It seems some of the hijackers were just that – hijackers. There were at least a couple of them who had a background and longer history suggestive of involvement in Islamic extremism.

Perhaps others of the hijackers were agents carrying out a hijacking drill/exercise. I have reasons for this suggestion which I won’t go into here, suffice to say the idea is not borrowed from science fiction but based on certain facts and examples.

[flyingswan]

If the top-level conspirator walked down the street and randomly said, “I pick you, you, you and… you to carry out the operation, now here’s what we’re gonna do… ” then I’d quite agree. But then that’s not how agents are assigned such tasks. You obviously have no idea of the vetting, profiling and control measures in place within certain branches of these agencies. It is not just “any” large group referred to here. The 9/11 agents would truly believe in the ideology and righteousness of what they were doing.

Again, they are not like you and me.

This is a big operation, so they don't have the luxury of just selecting people like that. We are not talking about "agents", we are talking about all the specialist help they would need. People like me if not like you. People who you claim would not be told why they were developing remote-control systems for airliners, etc.

Edited February 25, 2011 by flyingswan

[Space Commander Travis]

I think this is the basic problem; (I know this has become another 9/11 thread, but it is germane to conspiracy theories a sa whole, I think); it seems that it can't just be enough that something was done, but not perhaps by the ones blamed for it, or that it may have been done with the collusion of the (in this case) US Government, but there has to be a whole alternative explanation as to how the whole thing was done. It doesn't seem to be enough that (say) the CIA or Mossad or agents of the Saudi government may have actually been the ones who hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings, but the planes have to have been actually remotely controlled, and simualtaneously demolition charges set off in the buildings. Why is it necessary to bring in the whole remote control concept in the first place? Is it utterly impossible that the CIA/Mossad/whoever could have found agents fanatical enough to take on a kamikaze mission? I mean, even that needn't rule out ther possibility of simultaneous demolition, if you really want to insist on that, although, again, I've never been entirely convinced why that would have been necessary as well as flying 767s into them.

I do think that the insistence that all this was done does tend to alienate people who may have suspicions about the official version, but can't believe that remote control, etc, is any more plausible than the Al Quaeda explanation. I mean, there's much about the Official version that seems very fishy to me, both in details and the whole idea of the Global Network of Evil controlled by a Terrorist mastermind in a cave, but I do think that the insistence on the "alternative version" does put people off from being associated with the Truth movement. I'm sorry about this, but I really am trying to be constructive.

[Rafterman]

Thats a big IF.

The anthrax used in the attacks came from government labs. Yet, there was no flood of scientists from that lab rushing forth to state what they were doing was connected to the attacks.

How would they even know? If some guy was working on some kind of demolitions, what makes you think they would believe anything other than the official story? Planes brought down the buildings. Even if they accepted the evidence of CD, what would lead them to believe it was done with the stuff they were working on? And if they did, how would they confirm it to themself and "prove" it to the public?

I guess I was misunderstanding the point you were trying to make. I thought you were saying that no one would take someone seriously who came forward and I simply disagreed saying that if they had the evidence, they would be welcomed with open arms. Which I truly believe.

If someone doesn't have the evidence, then there's no point even talking about it.

What I do know, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that 9/11 was anything more than an attack by Islamic radicals. Here we are 10 years on and not a single accusation against one of the most polarizing and hated administrations in this Nation's history with literally millions of people world-wide chomping at the bit to take them down has risen above internet chatter.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Rafterman

[Q24]

This is a big operation, so they don't have the luxury of just selecting people like that. We are not talking about "agents", we are talking about all the specialist help they would need. People like me if not like you. People who you claim would not be told why they were developing remote-control systems for airliners, etc.

Prior to 9/11, remote-control systems for airliners were already developed for civilian use as were thermite based incendiaries already in use by the military – there was no great research and development need specific to the operation.

The main effort would be in acquisition of the technology with minor adaptation and then access to the targets. The first requisite would be gained by nature of intelligence and military units having first option on developments and of course they employ experts in such fields too, the second through infiltration of key positions which may have occurred over a span of years.

You seem to think that 9/11 was thrown together on 9/10, that Cheney hurriedly called his secretary and told her, “quick now, we need a demolition team for tomorrow… tell ‘em we’re taking down the WTC buildings… yeah just look one up in the phonebook, any will do!”

A great deal of consideration and planning will go into any successful ‘conspiracy’ which is why we don’t get the ridiculous situation of subcontracting elements of the operation as you suppose.

Why is it necessary to bring in the whole remote control concept in the first place? Is it utterly impossible that the CIA/Mossad/whoever could have found agents fanatical enough to take on a kamikaze mission?

The suggested use of remote-controlled aircraft comes from a couple of factors: -

• The fact that the majority of hijackers did not have the expected profile or background of radical Islamist suicide attackers. They had few longstanding ties to terrorist groups and the Hamburg cell consisted of hijackers who were relatively Westernised having lived in Europe for a good portion of their lives.
  It appears that fifteen of the hijackers only became affiliated with ‘Al Qaeda’ at a time corresponding with the beginning of a CIA operation to infiltrate close to bin Laden a few years prior 9/11… pure coincidence or could they in fact have been agents as part of this operation?
  Ziad Jarrah for example maintained close ties to his wealthy family and told them he would be attending his cousin’s wedding on September 22nd, there was also earlier concern from the other hijackers that he was going to pull out of the operation altogether. Overall, similar to other hijackers, Jarrah was not a man displaying strong religious or fanatical beliefs that would indicate he was prepared to die for a cause.
  It doesn’t appear so easy to find agents of both suicidal tendencies and the stable frame of mind to reliably carry out such an operation.
  
• The possibility of human error/unpredictability would need to be considered by the conspirators. The aircraft manoeuvres necessary carried a risk of failure – a slight miscalculation of speed and trajectory could mean the attacks as we know them do not occur – if even one of the hijackers on each flight had second-thoughts the plan is in jeopardy, if sky marshals intervene then again it’s operation aborted.
  

After spending years planning, knowing the stakes of the operation succeeding and that the opportunity may not present itself again… what is the failsafe solution to the above risks?

Why it’s the same one that the U.S. Chiefs of Staff came up with as long ago as 1962 – the use of remote-controlled/drone aircraft. It does make sense when you look below the surface.

I do think that the insistence that all this was done does tend to alienate people who may have suspicions about the official version, but can't believe that remote control, etc, is any more plausible than the Al Quaeda explanation. I mean, there's much about the Official version that seems very fishy to me, both in details and the whole idea of the Global Network of Evil controlled by a Terrorist mastermind in a cave, but I do think that the insistence on the "alternative version" does put people off from being associated with the Truth movement. I'm sorry about this, but I really am trying to be constructive.

I know what you mean, it’s far easier to believe that a Saudi government official was in contact with the hijackers and intelligence units had agents inside ‘Al Qaeda’ rather than having remote-control aircraft and controlled demolition thrown at you.

But then we cannot deny the evidence or logic for such things just because the concept at first glance is met with disbelief due to being assumed ‘too big’ to accept. That is not a reasoned argument against the theory… though it does address the reverse question of this thread – why do many people not believe in conspiracies?

At the end of the day, for all those put-off, there are many thousands of others, qualified professionals and the public alike, who have taken time to research the details and found them convincing.

[Habitat]

I take the view that if the Grand Conspirators of the plots that are deemed to exist by the believers are as devilishly clever as they must be, to have so seamlessly orchestrated them, then us poor dupes are their rightful prey, so let's just get over it and move on to the next puppet show.

[Habitat]

And anyhow, how about some of the conspiracy fans coming up with something novel we haven't already seen trotted out, all too boring to rehash the same old stuff interminably.

[Stundie]

If they could in fact prove that what they were doing was somehow connected to 9/11 and prove that national leaders conspired to carry out 9/11, they would be untouchable and an instant world-wide celebrity. Absolutely nothing would happen to them.

A bit like that Bradley Manning, he allegedly reveal secrets of military personnel conspiring and carrying out attacks on civilians and he was untouchable and got instant world-wide celebrity, didn't he?

[Stundie]

I got to say I love the argument I often hear from fake-pseudo debunkers who claim that for 9/11 to be an inside job, it would require hundreds/thousands of people, yet in the same breath think that it was the mastermind of 1 man in a cave, given instruction to 19 of his men.

I'm sure there is a name for that logical fallacy??

Anyway, the reason why people believe in conspiracies, is because conspiracies do happen, therefore exist!

[Habitat]

Just paste pictures of your favourite conspirators on a dart board, you'll feel much better. May be the only time a conspiracy fanatic is on target !

[Space Commander Travis]

I got to say I love the argument I often hear from fake-pseudo debunkers who claim that for 9/11 to be an inside job, it would require hundreds/thousands of people, yet in the same breath think that it was the mastermind of 1 man in a cave, given instruction to 19 of his men.

I'm sure there is a name for that logical fallacy??

Anyway, the reason why people believe in conspiracies, is because conspiracies do happen, therefore exist!

What are fake-pseudo debunkers exactly, and why? Is it not enough to be a mere debunker, or even a pseduo-debunker, but they have to be fake-pseudo debunkers as well? Anyway, wouldn't a fake pseudo actually be a real one?

Besides, I don't really understand your argument. Why is it more likely if it would involve loads of people, than that it would involve a few?

[Stundie]

What are fake-pseudo debunkers exactly, and why?

Either fake or pseudo, doesn't matter really!

Is it not enough to be a mere debunker,

If you are a mere debunker, but most who claim to be debunkers are nothing of a sort.

or even a pseduo-debunker, but they have to be fake-pseudo debunkers as well?

Nobody has to be a fake-pseudo debunker.

Anyway, wouldn't a fake pseudo actually be a real one?

Not really!

Besides, I don't really understand your argument.

It's really quite simple.

If you believe that it took 19 people and the genius that is OBL to pull of 9/11 all working from the outside, then why does it require hundreds or thousands of people working from the inside to pull of the same job?

It's about as absurd as those who claim that it would require tons and tons of explosives to bring down the towers, yet in the same breath claim that all it took was a plane and fires. (Fires alone with WTC7)

Why is it more likely if it would involve loads of people, than that it would involve a few?

I don't think it would require loads of people, but apparently it only requires loads of people if it was an inside job.

[flyingswan]

I got to say I love the argument I often hear from fake-pseudo debunkers who claim that for 9/11 to be an inside job, it would require hundreds/thousands of people, yet in the same breath think that it was the mastermind of 1 man in a cave, given instruction to 19 of his men.

I'm sure there is a name for that logical fallacy??

No logical fallacy at all. An actual hijack and suicide attack just involves the attackers themselves, maybe a few extra helpers. An "inside job", however, would require an army of people for everything from demolition set-up to planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington.

[flyingswan]

Prior to 9/11, remote-control systems for airliners were already developed for civilian use as were thermite based incendiaries already in use by the military – there was no great research and development need specific to the operation.

Not really, one isolated test with marginal success doesn't mean that the system was ready to be covertly fitted to in-service airliners, and a thermite incendiary isn't at all the same thing as a practical column-cutter, which has still to be demonstrated.

A great deal of consideration and planning will go into any successful ‘conspiracy’ which is why we don’t get the ridiculous situation of subcontracting elements of the operation as you suppose.

Someone has to do all this planning, and I very much doubt if intelligence services normally keep technical specialists on the payroll twiddling their thumbs for years until needed. You can't argue simultaneously that only a few people would be in on the conspiracy and that all the technical specialists are also in on it.

Oh, sorry, you do argue that.

[flyingswan]

The possibility of human error/unpredictability would need to be considered by the conspirators. The aircraft manoeuvres necessary carried a risk of failure – a slight miscalculation of speed and trajectory could mean the attacks as we know them do not occur – if even one of the hijackers on each flight had second-thoughts the plan is in jeopardy, if sky marshals intervene then again it’s operation aborted.

Such a circumstance did in fact occur with Flight 93. With four aircraft attacked, the hijackers could easily afford to fail in three cases and still have their big success.

[flyingswan]

A bit like that Bradley Manning, he allegedly reveal secrets of military personnel conspiring and carrying out attacks on civilians and he was untouchable and got instant world-wide celebrity, didn't he?

Glad that you mentioned him. All those leaks and not one conspiracy theory confirmed, must have been a big disappointment to those of your opinion. No wonder you have to make up a new conspiracy theory, as revealed by your "allegedly" word.