jvnk08
Senior Member.
If your imaginary scenario is correct then why doesn't it apply to the official conspiracy theory also? In other words, wouldn't it be absolutely certain that Muslim factions would have exposed 911 given that it was a "Muslim" conspiracy? Important to remember that no matter what type of theory you go with, 9/11 was a conspiracy.
I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here. Muslims the world over have provided evidence against AQ and other radical islamist groups. Likewise they've renounced the violent rhetoric espoused by those groups.
Yes, we can argue semantics. The term "conspiracy" is used very clearly in this context, that being the government conspired to orchestrate 9/11 or let it happen.
mynym said:On a side note, I would also note that taking a lack of imaginary whistle blowers too far might begin to be a case of citing imaginary evidence. And ironically, that imaginary evidence about what simply must be given your way of imagining things could be countered with actual evidence about the "illuminati".... or perhaps just noting known patterns with less entertaining and nefarious connotations, i.e. the members of secret societies that tend to consider themselves more illuminated and superior to everyone else. Imagine it this way, what's the first thing that people do on a reality show in Honey Boo Boo America when the issue is survival. On Survivor, they form secret societies based on secret oaths and so forth. You don't need to engage in the theatrical productions typical to some secret societies to do that. When people get kicked off the island and they cry and so forth do they expose their secret alliance? Usually not, not if it's not in their interests to do so. You have to wait a few episodes for that. Point being, when you consistently have members of secret societies incorporated as members of the ruling class you may not necessarily know what's going on with "absolute certainty".
Especially if they've perfected ways of taking a leak on journalists, managing public relations, creating a world in which perceptions are reality and so forth. It's curious to me how "the base" of the Left imagine things. Apparently they can generally be led by gatekeepers like Chomsky to imagine that Bush lied about WMDs, lied about this, lied about that, his administration is utterly corrupt and so forth... but when it comes to 911... apparently his administration told the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Shrug. I'll have to think about it more but I'll probably never come to a conclusion of "absolute certainty" as you seem to be able to based mainly on imaginary evidence. (I.e. imagining that there would be whistle blowers. And that's mainly because I can imagine that there wouldn't be.)
So you're saying that that the most deadly attack on American soil being orchestrated by the government itself is more likely than the existence of whistleblowers following such a thing. Meanwhile, the impartial, methodical, unbiased Internet-truther community has figured it all out. Right.
I'll say it again: there were several whistleblowers in the intelligence agencies throughout the 2000s, exposing everything from budgetary indiscretion to tortue. It's a shame that the Obama administration is prosecuting them so aggressively, but you don't seem to be grasping the implications accompanying the facts that: they came out at all, weren't silenced by "disappearance", and some of them have even successfully defended themselves. Manning blew the whistle big time for something much less. There were so many people within the government and military during the Bush presidency that wholeheartedly disagreed with Bush. There is simply no way there would not be whistleblowers of some nature.
mynym said:There isn't zero doubt in the matter given that the entire internet is being spied on and it would seem that even CIA chiefs can be sifted out of the streams of information to be targeted or blackmailed based on that. It would seem to me that if one kept the conspiracy to a minimum like Osama did according to the official story and you also had access to that information and had links to those writing the code for the "threat disposition matrix" to assassinate your operatives without trial and so forth if necessary that it could be done. You're imagining that it couldn't be done and I'm imagining that it could be. That's all this seems to amount to. Interesting debate, though.
There is zero doubt in the matter. Petraeus' "clever" technique of hiding his email correspondance was saving the emails as drafts in Gmail for his biographer to view.
The example is moot, anyways. The higher-ups in the intelligence agencies are always under intense scrutiny, for example in Petraeus' case they were concerned the writer could blackmail him.
Tor, despite being initially funded by the DoD, has been the bane of the FBI cybercrime unit's existence in recent years. But that's just Tor. There's absolutely nothing the government can do to spy on properly encrypted information. There's absolutely nothing they can do to spy on communications over uncontrolled infrastructure without a physical presence.
mynym said:Fair enough. There are theories with different degrees of explanatory power. I haven't come to an "absolutely certain" conclusion and so forth.
It's likely that most people in the military wouldn't have the same level of caring that Manning did. After all, they're being trained to be psychopaths.
Manning is a PFC in the Army. He received the same training as anyone else in the Army. Have you spoken with anyone in the military? Most people are not there to destroy and kill. If what you're saying is true, we would have simply glassed the middle east and been done with it by now. Similarly the humanitarian arm of the military would not be the largest and most capable such effort in the world, it wouldn't exist at all.