A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Is it too much to ask if people at least made a stab at stating one proposed mechanism by which institutions protect themselves from investigations and dissidents [...]

Umm... it's a claim that you are pushing. It's up to you to provide supporting examples, not us. How backwards are you?

 

[Stupid]

Is it too much to ask if people at least made a stab at stating one proposed mechanism by which institutions protect themselves from investigations and dissidents,......

Here's one mechanism they use to protect themselves from investigations....

They steer clear of concocting huge conspiracies that, if fail, would bring huge investigations.

=S=

 

[Ragnarok]

Here's one mechanism they use to protect themselves from investigations....

They steer clear of concocting huge conspiracies that, if fail, would bring huge investigations.

=S=

Is this the old "it'd take an army of 1,000's" stick being waved again?

They have an even better one - Plausible Deniabilty. If they cover their tracks well enough, they don't even need to worry about investigations. They can just swamp you with an avalanche of media cow dung and disinformation.

 

[dtugg]

Is this the old "it'd take an army of 1,000's" stick being waved again?

They have an even better one - Plausible Deniabilty. If they cover their tracks well enough, they don't even need to worry about investigations. They can just swamp you with an avalanche of media cow dung and disinformation.

What if they didn't cover their tracks well enough? What if somebody decided to go to Bob Woodward's office and spill the beans? And remember, this administration hasn't been exactly competent. Would you be willing to take this kind of chance just so you could invade Iraq to steal oil or whatever the hell you think the goals might of been?

 

[Ragnarok]

What if they didn't cover their tracks well enough? What if somebody decided to go to Bob Woodward's office and spill the beans? And remember, this administration hasn't been exactly competent. Would you be willing to take this kind of chance just so you could invade Iraq to steal oil or whatever the hell you think the goals might of been?

There is no person who has spoken about non-mainstream theories on 9/11 who has not been discredited and smeared beyond any credibility. You may like to believe that is because everyone of them is wrong, but I'm not quite as trusting as you. I prefer to consider the possibility that smarter people than you and I could get around the objections raised on boards like this.


* waits for smartest guy on teh intrawebs to come and tell me off *

 

[metamars]

Debunkers still clueless....

Here's one mechanism they use to protect themselves from investigations....

They steer clear of concocting huge conspiracies that, if fail, would bring huge investigations.

=S=

What is it about

Of course,it's assumed that, for purposes of this question, the parts of the government in question had done something wrong or distatestful enough so as to attract the attention of citizens who suspected that an investigation was merited.

that you don't understand?

 

[dtugg]

There is no person who has spoken about non-mainstream theories on 9/11 who has not been discredited and smeared beyond any credibility. You may like to believe that is because everyone of them is wrong, but I'm not quite as trusting as you. I prefer to consider the possibility that smarter people than you and I could get around the objections raised on boards like this.


* waits for smartest guy on teh intrawebs to come and tell me off *

You're right, all twoofers have been smeared and discredited, because they have no evidence whatsoever for their fantasies and apologize for terrorists while spouting them. This has nothing to do with being trusting, it has to do with evidence and logic. Twoofers have neither. The "official story" has a mountain of evidence and makes sense. Any "objections" you or anybody else has been brought up have been discussed to death here. 9/11 really is a dead issue for all intents and purposes.

 

[metamars]

What if they didn't cover their tracks well enough? What if somebody decided to go to Bob Woodward's office and spill the beans?

I doubt that even if Woodward wrote an article about it, it'd get published.

A better choice for trying to get published would be the Atlantic, which carried an article about false flag perpetrators in the service of the British.

To defeat the IRA, the British called upon Brigadier General Frank Kitson, who had defeated the Mau Mau guerillas in Kenya, and then wrote about it in a now-classic counterinsurgency book Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency, Peacekeeping. The key characteristics of the anti Mau Mau operation was "stealth and fraud", according to a review by Dale Wharton. (BTW, according to the article Double Blind in the Atlantic, principles laid out by Kitson are now being followed by American forces in Iraq.)

In Double Blind, we read accounts of two different IRA members who were actually working for the British. Scappaticci (an Italian immigrant) was originally a bona fide member of the IRA, but who took exception to the top leadership's tendencies to avoid danger, get rich by extracting cash from working class Irish Catholics, and even (occasionally) end up with the widows of lower level IRA men that had been killed. Interestingly, it seems that Scapaticci was a bit of a conspiracy theorist, himself, in that he suspected that the IRA preferred to portray the Protestant gangs as tools of the British, since the IRA could not defeat the British militarily, and thus there would always be a need for the IRA to fight such an enduring foe. Kind of like the neocon's wet dream of "war that will not end in our lifetime". See also the link in my sig about Nick Rockefeller's 911 "precognition".

The IRA beat him up, and told them not to cross them. Scappaticci was a good candidate for being flipped, and he did. He ended up not just killing Protestants but also Irish who were suspected of being British snitches, as one of his jobs was interrogating suspected snitches and then killing them if he concluded that they were guilty.

I put it to Martin Ingram, the former spy handler, that in the case of Scappaticci, the British strategy had gone amok.

“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “I think it went very much to schedule.”

“So you think—”

“I don’t think, I know. He was acting to orders.”

So the British government knew of Scappaticci’s killings?

“Oh, yeah,” he said. “The one preconception the IRA had is that if you are dirty—that is, if you have killed—then you cannot be an agent.” Scappaticci exploited that misapprehension. “His best protection,” Ingram continued, “was to keep killing.”

If that’s true, the British spy services beat the IRA by appealing to a belief that the United Kingdom wouldn’t sacrifice its own subjects—especially its own agents.

(emphasis mine)

The main other British spy written about was a Catholic who signed up with the Royal Irish Rangers (a British military group), thinking that he would go abroad to fight in a regular army. His name is Kevin Fulton. He was recruited to infiltrate the IRA. In his IRA capacity, he would sometimes blow up military targets, and other times civilians. He regrets only one of his killings, that of a policewoman. Apparently, he doesn't believe in killing women.

Fulton was suspected of being a snitch, and was interrogated by Scappaticci twice. He was told to come back for a third interrogation, but was warned off by a British handler, though not his own. His own handlers abandoned him after he fled, and he suspects that they wanted him to be sacrificed to bolster the reputation of the more valuable asset, Scappaticci.

From this article, we can infer a real possibility of what will happen to any snitch who admits his/her part in the 911 attacks - absolutely nothing. Now, to be clear, I think we can safely say that if Kevin Fulton started naming names of his handlers* and giving out information about his other contacts that worked for the British, he'd be dead in no time. But as long as personally incriminating information is confined to him or herself, and the American media continues its sleepwalking act (exceptions such as an occasional article in a magazine like the Atlantic notwithstanding), there will not only be no reform of the government, there will not even be anything like accountability for the self-confessed perps, either.



* they'd be fools to have given him their real names, but he could have helped develop sketches of what they looked like, etc.

 

[funk de fino]

metamars

Your stakenife stuff is rubbish. I suggest you read up a little more on it before you embarrass yourself.

A lot of your Fulton stuff is junk as well.

You just believe any old crap you read eh?

 

[1337m4n]

I prefer to consider the possibility that smarter people than you and I could get around the objections raised on boards like this.

Well there's your problem. Anyone who actually DID have evidence of mass murder by the US government wouldn't be going to JREF to brag "Hey debunkers try debunking THIS lololololololololololololol!!111!!11!!" That would stupid. Instead they would be taking the evidence to the media and courts, and no amount of ridicule would stop them.

I love the whole "discredited and smeared" argument; so people who have evidence of mass-murder by the US government, are just going to go into hiding and not present it, because some strangers on some Internet forum called them names? LOL.

 

[Myriad]

Is it too much to ask if people at least made a stab at stating one proposed mechanism by which institutions protect themselves from investigations and dissidents, before they make multiple posts on peripheral matters?

Sure, I don't mind this. One mechanism -- I think most rational people would agree the most reliably effective mechanism -- by which institutions protect themselves from investigations and dissidents is to not only conduct their affairs with propriety, but to also document that fact.

This applies at all scales. To protect himself or herself from possible consequences of tax audits, for example, an individual taxpayer in the US should (and most do) not only report all taxable income and not claim illegitimate deductions, but also keep documentary records proving that non-taxable sources of income are legitimately non-taxable and that the deductions claimed legitimately are indeed legitimate. Large corporations and other institutions do the same thing, on a much larger scale and at enormous expense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Architect]

A better choice for trying to get published would be the Atlantic, which carried an article about false flag perpetrators in the service of the British.

To defeat the IRA, the British called upon Brigadier General Frank Kitson, who had defeated the Mau Mau guerillas in Kenya, and then wrote about it in a now-classic counterinsurgency book Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency, Peacekeeping. The key characteristics of the anti Mau Mau operation was "stealth and fraud", according to a review by Dale Wharton. (BTW, according to the article Double Blind in the Atlantic, principles laid out by Kitson are now being followed by American forces in Iraq.)

<snip>

So let's be clear here, you're quoting a clandestine and illegal anti-terrorist strategy of the UK security forces which has subsequently become public knowledge, indeed has led to considerable public controversy, in support of an alleged conspiracy theory of arguably greater knowledge which has - despite the pressure it would place upon its participants - not become public knowledge through similar leaks, comments, investigation, and the like.

It seems to me that there's an inherrent irony here, you know.

 

[metamars]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Sure, I don't mind this. One mechanism -- I think most rational people would agree the most reliably effective mechanism -- by which institutions protect themselves from investigations and dissidents is to not only conduct their affairs with propriety, but to also document that fact.

This applies at all scales. To protect himself or herself from possible consequences of tax audits, for example, an individual taxpayer in the US should (and most do) not only report all taxable income and not claim illegitimate deductions, but also keep documentary records proving that non-taxable sources of income are legitimately non-taxable and that the deductions claimed legitimately are indeed legitimate. Large corporations and other institutions do the same thing, on a much larger scale and at enormous expense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ding! Ding! Ding! You get a point.

At first I thought that you had produced just an argument which went against the premises I had laid out. But then I thought about it a little more.

An education professional once told me that the teacher's union in in Yonkers, NY, I believe it was, managed to have their teacher evaluation records destroyed after every school year. Why? So that when little Johnnie or little Mary graduate, and the parents throw a fit because little Johnnie or little Mary can't read, and are now having trouble finding a job, the parents can't subpoena teacher records which no longer exist, during a lawsuit.

The context of our discussion made clear that teachers aren't to blame for all the educational woes of children, but they certainly bear a large part of the blame. So while not putting all the blame on the teachers, it still stands to reason that another way of the teachers and school systems protecting themselves against lawsuits, in school districts where they are doing a competent job, is to do the opposite of what the Yonkers teacher's union demanded, and that is to document things, and to keep the documentation.

Extending this argument to the cases that I laid out, though, we would expect that incriminating documents either not be produced, to begin with, be classified, or be destroyed. However, in at least the 2 cases that posit mega-OOPS, we can infer that normal workflow would demand some protective documentation be produced to begin with, in at least some cases, and that destroying and/or classifying such documentation out of the reach of the public does not always occur. And furthermore, that in some of these document-keeping school districts, there are incompetent teachers, even if most be fine.

So, you get a point!

 

[funk de fino]

Ding! Ding! Ding! You get a point.

At first I thought that you had produced just an argument which went against the premises I had laid out. But then I thought about it a little more.

No, you quite blatantly did not.

 

[metamars]

Wop! Wop! W-o-o-o-op!

No, you quite blatantly did not.

You're just jealous because you didn't a point. 'Point-envy', you might say!

I may consider giving out Cheerio box awards, in which case, you will be a candidate. Definitely a candidate if I give out the coveted 'Special Sourpuss Editions' of the Cheerio box awards.

 

[funk de fino]

You're just jealous because you didn't a point. 'Point-envy', you might say!

I may consider giving out Cheerio box awards, in which case, you will be a candidate. Definitely a candidate if I give out the coveted 'Special Sourpuss Editions' of the Cheerio box awards.

You do not have points to give because you miss them by so much.

Care to try and argue the IRA informers crap you started? You could not even get Scappaticci's basic info correct.

 

[metamars]

A public service announcement

Could posters please save comments about steel frame buildings collapsing, NIST's competency, and what percentage of truthers are "morons" for another thread or threads?

Now, if somebody wants to comment on how NIST might protect itself from dissenters or from investigation, that would be relevant, as NIST is a part of the US government.

E.g., the 'meteorite' that NIST has stored away may have clues as to what destroyed the towers. Professor Jones has asked to study it, and to make the results public, regardless of what they turn out to be. To this day, no word of any cooperation from NIST, so we can say that they are behaving in a very unscientific manner by hogging data.*

If it's the case that that the meteor contains evidence of CD, and that NIST also knew this, then we can reasonably infer that they are protecting themselves from investigation by simply being hogs. (I don't think the "meterorite" is classified.)

I hereby award myself a point!


* Actually, a bit of hogging is normal amongst scientists, when the issue has to do with primacy of discovery. People don't want to be too generous when it might mean losing a Nobel prize, a patent, or just some acclaim as a discoverer. In this case, though, it's many years after the fact, NIST has already released their report, this is also a murder case, in principle NIST works for "we the people", etc., etc. As far as I'm concerned, they have no excuse, whatsoever.

 

[dtugg]

So tell me metamars, when does the government ever make physical evidence in murder cases available to the general public to study? Especially to one of the most incompetent scientists in the entire world (Jones)?

 

[Bell]

E.g., the 'meteorite' that NIST has stored away may have clues as to what destroyed the towers. Professor Jones has asked to study it, and to make the results public, regardless of what they turn out to be. To this day, no word of any cooperation from NIST, so we can say that they are behaving in a very unscientific manner by hogging data.*

If it's the case that that the meteor contains evidence of CD, and that NIST also knew this, then we can reasonably infer that they are protecting themselves from investigation by simply being hogs. (I don't think the "meterorite" is classified.)

The only 'meteorite' I know of is this one, stored in hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.

I don't know if this is the one you are talking about, or that NIST has another piece of debris, but the reason for not letting a truther investigate such piece of debris is the change of human remains being in there. I see no reason why a truther should disturb a possible final resting place to conduct some stupid research for some even more stupid thermite or whatever the hell this wackjob is looking for to further advocate his stupid theories about 9/11.

 

[Furcifer]

Could posters please save comments about steel frame buildings collapsing, NIST's competency, and what percentage of truthers are "morons" for another thread or threads?

Now, if somebody wants to comment on how NIST might protect itself from dissenters or from investigation, that would be relevant, as NIST is a part of the US government.

E.g., the 'meteorite' that NIST has stored away may have clues as to what destroyed the towers. Professor Jones has asked to study it, and to make the results public, regardless of what they turn out to be. To this day, no word of any cooperation from NIST, so we can say that they are behaving in a very unscientific manner by hogging data.*

If it's the case that that the meteor contains evidence of CD, and that NIST also knew this, then we can reasonably infer that they are protecting themselves from investigation by simply being hogs. (I don't think the "meterorite" is classified.)

I hereby award myself a point!


* Actually, a bit of hogging is normal amongst scientists, when the issue has to do with primacy of discovery. People don't want to be too generous when it might mean losing a Nobel prize, a patent, or just some acclaim as a discoverer. In this case, though, it's many years after the fact, NIST has already released their report, this is also a murder case, in principle NIST works for "we the people", etc., etc. As far as I'm concerned, they have no excuse, whatsoever.

LMFAO, derail a thread to spew disinfo, then re-rail to do they same.

Geeen-e-us!

This forum is merely a platform dive into your insanity isn't it? 10 9.9 10 10 10