"But as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once told me (and he should know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people canât keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldnât squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So thereâs a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true."
Point well taken. And so, the last sentence should include, '...and therefore, less likely to be believed'. Hitler is said to have relied on this tendency when he said that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. Perhaps he was referring to the Reichstag fire. It's because people are judging the likelihood of a lie by its magnitude and/or complexity. By such standards, there are no big lies. So let me ask you, what is the biggest lie you are currently aware of? Use any part or all of world history you like to come up with an example of the biggest lie you can believe. Note how many people were involved in that lie...the level of organization/conspiracy...the amount of work to maintain it...and the motive(s). Then, if you can, try to explain why no one in US chain of command would lie to us about 911, to meet or exceed the biggest lie you are currently aware of. Now look what happens when someone stands up to expose lies. Look at what happened to former Congressman Jim Traficant. Look what happened to former CIA asset Susan Lindauer. Look, because its harder to look at the number of people destroyed/killed before they could speak, the number of people just following orders, the number afraid to speak...too lazy to speak, and especially the number of people bought and paid for. So besides playing off of sheeple in/credulity, the tried and true tactics of mafia/mobbery (not to mention military) take care of the rest. For example, when the Japanese buried gold in the Philippines, they would sometimes also kill and bury the people who dug the mine and loaded the gold. Between murder, intimidation and incentives/rewards, some pretty big lies/deceptions have been kept a secret for a long time. Even now, US government sits on top of square miles of top secret archives not scheduled to be revealed for years/decades to come. Keeping secrets is what governments do, with...or without the approval of the public.
But that many people would never agree to kill that many innocent people. No way, no how. Tell me. Do you feel smarter than all the sane people who don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job ? This is similar to some of the GW deniers. They also like to think they are smarter than average. One of the big attractions to believing in conspiracy theories is this desire to be smarter than everyone else. To be smarter than all those common folk. Thus some of them will actually think that all the world's climate scientists are involved in some mass conspiracy to fabricate data. The ice measuring guys, the oceanographers, the guys reading the thermometers, all of them are liberals that are ignoring their professional and personal ethics to dupe the public about the whole GW thing. Maybe you and jem should talk.
Ok, give me an example of the maximum number of people needed to kill four-thousand innocent people? Or, what is the max number of people that would ever conspire/organize to kill four thousand innocent people in a day? How many insiders, on a need to know basis, would you estimate needed to know about 911 ahead of time? The only surprising aspect of this is that it represents betrayal, and the use of collateral damage on US own soil. It would not be seen as treason to the insiders if they thought they were doing it for the greater good of the US. Subsequently, it has been OK that 6,525 American soldiers have died for a cause that was emotionally fueled by 911. Certainly, half that could be OK, if that's what it takes to gain the necessary emotional fuel needed for subsequent military expeditions. It's called 'collateral damage', which has long since been OK to these very insiders, as well as past insiders high up in US chain of command. Now, how many insiders were needed to organize sanctions against Iraq for ten years that led to the death of as many as a million innocents in collateral damage? During the hot war, perhaps another million Iraqis died...most of collateral damage. Then let's talk about WACO, on US soil, where Bradley tanks were brought in to set fire to a compound full of innocent people, women and children, when they mainly just wanted one person. Collateral damage...OK...by many insiders...high in US chain of command. And what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where insiders invented bombs unbeknownst to the general public, and were dropped unbeknownst to the general public...on mostly innocent people. Collateral damage...OK...in the interest of US interests. Likewise, the insiders who took down the three skyscrapers are probably telling themselves how many US lives they saved by sacrificing only three thousand that day. Ok, so it's clear that you are saying that anyone who thinks 911 was an inside job is insane. You are also implying that those who believe 911 was an inside job are not smarter than those who believe the official story...and if they do think they are smarter, they are actually dumber. Is that what you are saying? I'm only talking about 911, and if i have to, i'll talk about JFK. I don't have an opinion on who is responsible for global warming. So leave me out of it. You don't need to be smarter than average to understand some of the evidence involved here. One example of common sense says that if a jetliner hits a building, it has to leave evidence at least as wide as the wingspan. That was clearly not the case at the Pentagon where the size and/or shape of the hole in the building did not at all match that of a commercial jetliner...for which they found no parts...not even the engines. Since there is no video proving otherwise (because it was all confiscated) common sense should conclude - without the need to feel smarter - that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a commercial jetliner as we've been led to believe. Without an opinion about global warming, I am not bucking the opinion of many astute scientists. When it comes to 911, even with an opinion, i am also not bucking the opinion of many astute scientists...people who would know more about these buildings than i would...AND who would not have an agenda except to get to the facts. Or maybe we shouldn't. I walked out of the Catholic Church in 1996 and gave myself permission to think as freely as i wished. Free Thinker thinks that if you think too freely, your mind could go into some strange places. The term "beyond the pale" was used in Catholic circles to describe someone who went beyond the established fence/boundaries of the faith...to think beyond them...like Galileo. I am way beyond Galileo, and also beyond Free Thinker's own personal established bounds of faith. Does this make me smarter? Or, is feeling smarter my objective, irrespective of evidence and facts? I don't think so. I self-describe as a good detective. A good detective is not necessarily smarter. A good detective just needs to have a more open mind...to be detached from an agenda...to be honest...not quick to judgement...understanding of human motives. I would call this wisdom, not a number you get when you take an IQ or SAT test. The converse of wisdom is foolishness, which is also not dependent on how "smart" anyone is. Take for example a labyrinth with only one way in and no way out...except the way in. Am i smarter if i just go back the way i came in...smarter than those still looking for a way out except the way in? I wouldn't say i'm smarter...but i would say i'm wise enough to recognize human motive...what drives us to keep seeking another way out...besides the way we came in. I am wise enough to understand the nature of faith and evidence, how they inter-relate and motivate. Free Thinker, nor jem for that matter, understand the nature of faith and how it relates to evidence. So what would we talk about? I arrived at my understanding the way a good detective would arrive there. Btw, you aren't stu are you?
"Amazingly, rather than giving us a new age of enlightenment, where information efficiently flows to the masses and an informed consensus can be achieved - Google (GOG) has actually polarized our nation because - no matter how asinine your opinion/interpretation of the facts may be - you can use Google to help you find thousands of other lunatics who agree with you and reinforce your wrong-headed beliefs."