How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[caveman1917]

This is a somewhat...idiosyncratic view of Operation Ajax.
I always thought this was the name for the operation to remove Iran's democratically-elected president, and replace him with the Shah. In what way was this the CIA running Islamic extremists?

In what way was the CIA running Islamic extremists to engage in assassinations and terrorist attacks to overthrow Iran's government the CIA running Islamic extremists?

Oh, and how do you know about Operation Ajax?

Because several decades later the documents were made public.

If it was so secret, how come it's public knowledge now? Aren't all secret operations always completely secret, since this is apparently a requirement for 9/11 CTs?

Don't twist what was being said. The OP's claim is that it is a requirement for 9/11 being a covert false flag operation that federal, state, and local governments must have been informed, as well as a wide range of private sector firms and every other country's government. This claim is obviously false and beyond stupid. There is not a single false flag operation in history that required informing half the world beforehand and, indeed, if this claim were true then covert operations in general would be simply impossible.

 

[caveman1917]

So you're implying that many people didn't need to know what they were doing, just follow the orders. I have a problem with that. After the fact, they would notice what they have helped doing, and you can be sure that many of them would speak up out of guilt. Since that hasn't happened, your claim isn't convincing.

I'm implying no such thing. I'm claiming that if, say, 9/11 was a covert operation to get some Jihadi's to crash planes into buildings this does not require informing anyone except the couple of people psy-opping those Jihadi's into doing so. Who is it, exactly, that you think needs to be informed about this?

 

[caveman1917]

The point you seem to be missing is that it wasn't 19 jihadists. It was planes never taking off and not even on the flight schedule, missiles, controlled demolition, fake news reports, CGI, and the list goes on. If it were just "the CIA convinced some jihadists" then, yes, you wouldn't need Consuela to cover for you. It's when you invent all sorts of co-ordination such as the garbage that is the no-planers that you start involving scores of scores of people.

Sure, if you gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there then it's trivial to debunk because it indeed runs into major issues. None of that was specified in this thread though, it's also quite lazy skepticism going after the lowest-hanging fruit. Which then leads to the question, why not go all the way? I'm sure there's at least one person out there claiming that 9/11 was done by reptilian aliens secretly controlling the government, that's even easier to debunk.

 

[Axxman300]

So to be clear, you're sticking with the claim that the only way for, say, the CIA to covertly get some jihadi's to engage in a terrorist attack on their behalf is to inform the federal government, state and local governments on the East Coast, as well as the private sector from the firms in the WTC to several air line companies?

Nope.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

The OP addresses the many nutjob 911 CT's which involve: fake planes, remote control planes, explosive controlled demotion of three WTC complex buildings, and a variety of variations.

The OP points out that these theories would require far too many people to be carried out in secret. This is a fact.

Got it?

Tell me then, I've already referenced Operation Ajax, where the CIA covertly got Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks on their behalf. How could they possibly have done so without informing the "entire" government, private sector and media - since this is apparently a requirement for running such an operation?

Oooh...your grounds for your assertion is a CIA/MI6 operation from 1953?

That's 67 years ago.

The MI6 code name was Operation Boot.

Here's who would have known: The Eisenhower NSC, CIA senior leadership, the House/Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, the CIA Station Chief in Tehran, and the Iranian mob leaders we paid. And it's safe to assume British and US oil companies were briefed on some level too.

You want to know who knew the CIA helped topple Premier Mossadeq by 1955?

You left out the part where the KGB was playing the other side.

If anyone is really bored you can read the files here:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

Here's the problem with Operation Ajax, it wasn't a false flag operation. At no point did the US military intervene. It was a covert operation to manipulate an EXISTING SITUATION on the ground in Iran to turn the government in our favor. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just point out that you're off base in using Ajax as proof of anything. In 1996 the Clinton Administration and their NSC missed out on a similar chance to overthrow Saddam Hussein but dragged their feet until it was too late.

I shouldn't have to state the obvious to the oblivious but the Syrian Civil War wasn't something the US started but was happy to help those opposed to Assad which didn't work because the Russians continue to back their man. AT NO POINT HAS THIS BEEN A SECRET.

Prove it. Don't open the spoilers below until you've posted your answer to this challenge

Sorry,

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

you're the one who thinks or is proposing that Al Qaeda was manipulated by the CIA. Let me guess, you're going to drag out MK Ultra.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Axxman300]

Sure, if you gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there then it's trivial to debunk because it indeed runs into major issues. None of that was specified in this thread though, it's also quite lazy skepticism going after the lowest-hanging fruit. Which then leads to the question, why not go all the way? I'm sure there's at least one person out there claiming that 9/11 was done by reptilian aliens secretly controlling the government, that's even easier to debunk.

They're all nutjobs.

The intelligence failures were known to the public who bought Time Magazine's special edition the Monday after 9/11/2001. In the almost two decades since those failings have been fleshed out, and continue to be revealed. Eventually all the names of those in the CIA, FBI, and Clinton/Bush NSC's will be out there for history to judge.

That's how things work.

 

[caveman1917]

Nope.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

The OP addresses the many nutjob 911 CT's which involve: fake planes, remote control planes, explosive controlled demotion of three WTC complex buildings, and a variety of variations.

The OP said nothing of the sort

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Sorry,

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

you're the one who thinks or is proposing that Al Qaeda was manipulated by the CIA.

I neither think nor proposed anything of the sort. Apologize for making this false claim. After that, either prove your claims or admit you're making claims you can't back up.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

It's not up to others to disprove your claims.

 

[Axxman300]

I'm implying no such thing. I'm claiming that if, say, 9/11 was a covert operation to get some Jihadi's to crash planes into buildings this does not require informing anyone except the couple of people psy-opping those Jihadi's into doing so. Who is it, exactly, that you think needs to be informed about this?

The DCI and chosen advisors = 6 to 10 people.

The Bush NSC and their select staff = Between 6 to 10 people and staff.

The CIA-DO and their subordinate teams = Unknown but assume 20 officers.

Al Qaeda go-betweens = 2 or 3

By now one of these people would have leaked something to the NY Times.

 

[Axxman300]

I neither think nor proposed anything of the sort. Apologize for making this false claim. After that, either prove your claims or admit you're making claims you can't back up.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

It's not up to others to disprove your claims.

Nope.

You anticipated it because you, like every CTist ever, refuses to abide by the basic rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you have evidence to the effect that the CIA manipulated 19 Jihadists to pull off 911 the burden of proof is on you.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[caveman1917]

The DCI and chosen advisors = 6 to 10 people.

The Bush NSC and their select staff = Between 6 to 10 people and staff.

The CIA-DO and their subordinate teams = Unknown but assume 20 officers.

Al Qaeda go-betweens = 2 or 3

By now one of these people would have leaked something to the NY Times.

If the US intelligence services are so bad that they can't even get a couple dozen operatives to keep their mouths shut then one wonders how they are able to run any covert operations at all.

Of course, history shows your claim of such a terribly leaky intelligence service to be false. Just one example, the CryptoAG operation, shows that the intelligence services actually are able to keep a secret even for decades. So no, your claim that "one of these people would have leaked something to the NY times" holds no ground.

 

[caveman1917]

You anticipated it because you, like every CTist ever, refuses to abide by the basic rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I anticipated it because every pseudo-skeptic refuses to abide by the basic rule that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

If you have evidence to the effect that the CIA manipulated 19 Jihadists to pull off 911 the burden of proof is on you.

I did not make any claim that the CIA manipulated 19 jihadists to pull of 9/11. You, on the other hand, did claim that the CIA did not do this. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's that simple.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Axxman300]

The OP said nothing of the sort

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

You must be new here.

Here's the thing, all 911 CT's are delusional. Most have their roots in antisemitism, certainly the early ones did, and all rely on a daisy chain of black-ops teams pulling off not just the attack, but the illusion of the attacks across three different states. Most 911 CTists assert that the "Media is in on it" because their claims receive no credibility outside of crazy town.

The OP was in response to a pair of active threads in which one posted claims that ALL of the video footage, including the live footage, was CGI. And that cruise missiles struck the building, and that the media was co-opted, and that all of the eye witnesses are in fact government agents. The other thread alleges that the Pentagon was blown up by internal charges and that no plane crashed into the building with the proof being that a taxi cab that was hit by a piece of a street lamp was actually staged.

So you tell me how many people these theories would require to pull of successfully.

 

[caveman1917]

Here's the thing, all 911 CT's are delusional.

Here's the thing, someone who goes around making strong claims about what the CIA did or did not do, failing to back them up and when challenged switches the burden of proof pretending that it's up to others to refute his claims rather than up to him to support them, is the last person I'll take on his word about what is or isn't delusional. Isn't delusional something like making strong claims without being able to back them up?

 

[pgimeno]

I'm implying no such thing. I'm claiming that if, say, 9/11 was a covert operation to get some Jihadi's to crash planes into buildings this does not require informing anyone except the couple of people psy-opping those Jihadi's into doing so. Who is it, exactly, that you think needs to be informed about this?

I must have misunderstood your position because I haven't seen it stated and you seemed to clap to others' silly MIHOP theories.

As a starting point, how about you visit this thread and make your contribution, so I can know what you claim? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185004

There is not a single false flag operation in history that required informing half the world beforehand and, indeed, if this claim were true then covert operations in general would be simply impossible.

Speaking of that, there is not a single false flag operation in history that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people.

 

[caveman1917]

I must have misunderstood your position because I haven't seen it stated and you seemed to clap to others' silly MIHOP theories.

My position is that just because the nuttier MIHOP's require a ludicrously large conspiracy doesn't mean that MIHOP's in general do so.

As a starting point, how about you visit this thread and make your contribution, so I can know what you claim? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185004

Not sure what that would add but I've posted there as requested.

Speaking of that, there is not a single false flag operation in history that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people.

None that we know of at least. We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods) so as a concept it's hardly unthinkable. There are also several terrorist attacks on one's own people for which the probability of them being false flag operations are high (Operation Gladio and the Years of Lead in Italy, as well as terrorist attacks in Belgium during the same period) though I suppose those wouldn't exactly qualify for mass murder.

 

[Axxman300]

None that we know of at least. We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods) so as a concept it's hardly unthinkable...(blah, blah, blah)

1. Northwoods was one of a long list of white-papers for the JFK NSC's Cuban Special Group.

2. Operations Northwoods was not a CIA plan, it was a Joint Chief's of Staff plan. CIA would have been a part of it but this wasn't one of their babies.

3. Northwoods never left the table because, let's face it, it's a stupid plan.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

4. Northwoods was a reflection of Operation Mongoose. Mongoose was a CIA operation which included all kinds of fun stuff including using Mafia connections in Cuba to attempt operations on the island.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...-operations-proposed-approved-during-cold-war

5. Operation Mongoose and Northwoods were a reflection of the Kennedy White House's Pax Americana which included increasing numbers of "Advisors" in South Vietnam, and backing a coup against Diem, which set up the Vietnam War.

I know the CIA didn't make 911 happen because they've just never been that good.

 

[caveman1917]

I know the CIA didn't make 911 happen because they've just never been that good.

It must be nice going through life just magically "knowing" things without being bothered by such nonsense as evidence or proof. You have a lot more in common with those "nutjob CTists" than you do with skepticism.

 

[RedStapler]

Not sure what that would add but I've posted there as requested.

You basically posted: LOOK GUYS, I KNOW MATH, I AM SO SMART.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

In what way was the CIA running Islamic extremists to engage in assassinations and terrorist attacks to overthrow Iran's government the CIA running Islamic extremists?

I'll let you answer that particular question yourself:

Here's the thing, someone who goes around making strong claims about what the CIA did or did not do, failing to back them up and when challenged switches the burden of proof pretending that it's up to others to refute his claims rather than up to him to support them, is the last person I'll take on his word about what is or isn't delusional. Isn't delusional something like making strong claims without being able to back them up?

Can you back up your claim about the CIA running Islamic extremists in Iran, in 1953?

Because several decades later the documents were made public.

That may have been the first time you heard about it, but it's been public knowledge since at least 1981.

Don't twist what was being said. The OP's claim is that it is a requirement for 9/11 being a covert false flag operation that federal, state, and local governments must have been informed, as well as a wide range of private sector firms and every other country's government. This claim is obviously false and beyond stupid. There is not a single false flag operation in history that required informing half the world beforehand and, indeed, if this claim were true then covert operations in general would be simply impossible.

Well, exactly. For the kind of false flag operation depicted by CT-ists, this is exactly what would be required. As you say, no such operation could or would be attempted. Therefore, the CT view of 9/11 is simply wrong.

 

[Leftus]

Sure, if you gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there then it's trivial to debunk because it indeed runs into major issues. None of that was specified in this thread though, it's also quite lazy skepticism going after the lowest-hanging fruit. Which then leads to the question, why not go all the way? I'm sure there's at least one person out there claiming that 9/11 was done by reptilian aliens secretly controlling the government, that's even easier to debunk.

Nuttiest? Hardly not. They are in fact the most common. There is no CTist out there who limits their CT to just the CIA working 19 Jihadists. They always, without fail, add in the kitchen sink. Nobody swaps out Al Qaeda with the CIA and leaves it there.

I've been pushing the Rodan theory in the "how they faked …" thread and Yankee will not address it. Aliens controlling the government is already a well established CT, and still runs wild despite it being a steaming pile.

 

[Oystein]

...
You want to know who knew the CIA helped topple Premier Mossadeq by 1955?

...

Love it!

Now, here our CTish friends (and perhaps us debunkers, too) find themselves in a Catch-22:

They assert that major secret service operations that change history (i.e. have results that everybody knows) can be and have been carried out in total and enduring secrecy, no matter how large or complicated the plot.

To prove that this is possible, a single example would suffice.
But any such example that they and we would know about would not have remained perpetually secret - for if it had, they/we'd not know it!