Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[Sporanox]

And thus the "forever syndrome" we (traditional) conspiracy theorists often suffer. Just as there is no shortage of minutiae for sports fans to analyze and converse about, there's no shortage of startling goings on in the reports of current events or the revelations of old FOIA documents.

Well, I give you credit for admitting it. You do realize, though, that this makes your definition of the "research stage" for 9/11 conspiracy theories rather preposterous, because in the event of no convicting documents appearing, you will forever declare the conspiracy to be in the process of research. This is baseless, as you have admitted.

If there is an "operation" I've never thought it was of grand magnitude involving a large number of people, so you're "preaching to the choir."

I'm not sure how you figured this out, seeing as you apparently have zero experience in any kind of covert government operation (let alone the spy business), but frankly, I have 0 as well. I suppose I'll have to tread carefully on this one.

According to Time, Negroponte oversees 16 different intelligence agencies, which apparently didn't work so well with each other. What you're proposing is that shadowy string pullers prevented an exchange of information. But such a prevention would seem to require several well-placed, high-up members in each of the intelligence agencies in order to effectively block all movement of data. It would seem that a conspiracy of this order would not rely on a few low-level desk jockeys to get its work done. Plus, considering the fact that this would be the most earth-shattering top secret operation ever, I'd imagine the participators would prefer redundancy. Hence the more than one member in each agency.

Assuming two members per agency, which in my opinion is ridiculously low, you're looking at about 32 well-placed conspirators. Now how on earth did they get that many in exactly the right places? Isn't that a bit of a small chance?

Putting this in contest, it was tough enough for the Soviet Union to penetrate the ranks of the CIA with just one defector, Aldrich Ames, and even then the circumstances of his defection suggest that he did so of his own accord. The coincidence of several embedded agents agreeing to conspire on a plot this evil is stupendously implausible.

In the hypothetical scenario I speculated about, he doesn't need to be tracked down in order to obfuscate or disrupt the flow of intelligence that would otherwise prevent recognizing a coming attack is a certainty and prevent it.

Since I understand your hypothesis somewhat better now, I agree. You're basically taking the miscommunication among the various intelligence agencies before 9/11 and attributing it to an invisible company of motive-less elite instead of the more conventional "bureaucratic logjam" proposed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Considering the intel community was still fighting over turf as recent as 2005, I see no reason to invoke anything else than the latter.

1) perhaps more competent people were at the core of whatever operation resulted in a 9/11 LIHOP scenario, or 2) perhaps there are more competent people at the core of ensuring such an operation is not discovered as several orders of magnitude more volatile than wiretapping or illicit torture.

1) Whistleblowing has nothing to do with incompetence.

2) What would this involve? Murders to silence do-gooder whistleblowers? I'm pretty sure that suspicious "accidents"/homicides of humint assets would provoke a literal firestorm in the intelligence community. Suspicious disappearances of CIA agents are what provoked the hunt for Aldrich Ames.

I've had the opportunity to speak with several in the media, both "in the trenches" and higher editorial levels, and there is a unanimous desire to stay far away of anything that could be associated with "9/11 Truth." The angry activist style of the "truthers" have so polluted the landscape, that journalists stay as far away as they can.

First, Dylan Avery was just given yet another chance to eject his garbage - on the AP, no less. I guess nobody gave them the memo about staying away from truthers. I certainly wouldn't have anything to do with them.

Second, a more or less unemployed punk is quite different than somebody who has actual, documented experience in the intelligence community. Or two, or three. Anybody patriotic and brave enough to blow the whistle. Considering the risks some of these people take as humint assets, I wouldn't think they'd be intimidated by a fragile conspiracy network.

And I'd think they'd bring more direct information to the table than Sibel Edmonds' yawner that US intelligence agencies didn't utilize information that tied Osama bin Laden, planes, and major US cities together. That's already known...by everybody.

-Sporanox

 

[SkepticGuy]

Well, I give you credit for admitting it.

Believe it or not, many "traditional" conspiracy theorists are realists.

You do realize, though, that this makes your definition of the "research stage" for 9/11 conspiracy theories rather preposterous,

And also, you may recall the I consider the "research phase" the 9/11 conspiracy speculation to be polluted by the activist mentality of the "truth movement," thus making it hard, longer, and more difficult to attract "mainstream" investigative journalism.

I'm not sure how you figured this out, seeing as you apparently have zero experience in any kind of covert government operation

I don't rely on my experience, I rely on that of those who do. While the "alphabet agencies" tend to have a bed reputation among contemporary 9/11 "truthers" and "conspiracy speculators," the reality is that they're populated mostly by people who care and want to do right for their country. When some of them "catch wind" of potentially inappropriate activity, there is a desire to find it and end it.

But such a prevention would seem to require several well-placed, high-up members in each of the intelligence agencies in order to effectively block all movement of data. It would seem that a conspiracy of this order would not rely on a few low-level desk jockeys to get its work done.

When you consider that only a very small number of people (single digits) knew about the "nuts and bolts" of the massive IT hardware in the "secret room" feeding TCP/IP packets from AT&T to the NSA, it's not hard to speculate that intra-agency networks could be similarly tapped and subverted. And in reality, it may not be all that hard to simply take strategic advantage of existing "turf wars" to ensure an environment of confusion.

Again, this was a speculative scenario to illustrate the point that a classic definition of a "9/11 Conspiracy" of criminal proportions could exist without needing to get into "truther" pet theories.

First, Dylan Avery was just given yet another chance to eject his garbage - on the AP, no less.

Giving someone a chance to look foolish is very different than giving serious credence to conspiracies surrounding 9/11. I can't think of any time when anyone form the "truther" camp appeared on mainstream news and it turned out positive for "the movement." Can you?

 

[slyjoe]

A few questions:

1. What is the evidence that only a few (single digit) people knew about the taps?
2. Why would TCP/IP traffic be of concern as opposed to UDP packets?
3. How would taps "subvert" networks? Not sure about the word subvert in this context.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Giving someone a chance to look foolish is very different than giving serious credence to conspiracies surrounding 9/11. I can't think of any time when anyone form the "truther" camp appeared on mainstream news and it turned out positive for "the movement." Can you?

And that says nothing about the movement to you?

 

[Sporanox]

And also, you may recall the I consider the "research phase" the 9/11 conspiracy speculation to be polluted by the activist mentality of the "truth movement," thus making it hard, longer, and more difficult to attract "mainstream" investigative journalism.

Well, of course it's full of twoofers, as you put it, but even in the absence of them, you'd still be in this "forever syndrome" of countless FOIA requests and indeterminate waiting for some credible witness. There's a reason you labeled it "forever."

Also, I find it very hard to believe that a simple FOIA request would ever give out any details that would prove something was behind 9/11 in the intel communities. CIA overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh and "intervention" in some Latin American countries? Outside of the US, a long time ago. 9/11? Never. And I don't even know if either was uncovered by an FOIA request. I assume not.

I don't rely on my experience, I rely on that of those who do. While the "alphabet agencies" tend to have a bed reputation among contemporary 9/11 "truthers" and "conspiracy speculators," the reality is that they're populated mostly by people who care and want to do right for their country. When some of them "catch wind" of potentially inappropriate activity, there is a desire to find it and end it.

So instead of finding concrete evidence that inappropriate activity occurred (with their experience and position in intel, of course), they simply theorize about it?

When you consider that only a very small number of people (single digits) knew about the "nuts and bolts" of the massive IT hardware in the "secret room" feeding TCP/IP packets from AT&T to the NSA, it's not hard to speculate that intra-agency networks could be similarly tapped and subverted. And in reality, it may not be all that hard to simply take strategic advantage of existing "turf wars" to ensure an environment of confusion.

Again, this was a speculative scenario to illustrate the point that a classic definition of a "9/11 Conspiracy" of criminal proportions could exist without needing to get into "truther" pet theories.

You do realize that one of the problems with inter-intelligence agency cooperating before September 11th was the late sharing of critical information - through briefings, not through electronic transmissions. A particular example is the tracking of Khalid al-Midhar, who flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The CIA had information that could lead to his arrest when entering the country, but presented it to the FBI too late to make a difference.

This just goes to highlight the fact that a few people in this "secret room" would not have been able to stop intelligence flow. Instead, you would need the carefully planted higher-ups that you alluded to when you said some might encourage "an environment of confusion," which leads us back to the improbability of planting roughly 32 conspirators in administration or another other high level of the agencies.

EDIT: Although you described the scenario as speculative, it seems to be the only scenario you've come up with.

Giving someone a chance to look foolish is very different than giving serious credence to conspiracies surrounding 9/11. I can't think of any time when anyone form the "truther" camp appeared on mainstream news and it turned out positive for "the movement." Can you?

It was up to Mr. Avery, when given face time on AP, to prove the twoof of the 9/11 movement. If you watch the clip, the interviewer did not appear to hold any sort of bias - in fact, Avery was allowed to ramble on for pretty much as long as he liked. So the blame's not on the media for painting him into a corner. It's on him for unintentionally confessing to charges of idiocy.

If somebody really had solid evidence about a 9/11 conspiracy, they would get plenty of a chance to make an equally solid case in an environment like the AP interview. That hasn't happened because there is not a shred of this evidence.

-Sporanox

 

[SkepticGuy]

And that says nothing about the movement to you?

Volumes... it says volumes.

Though, nothing I didn't know.

 

[SkepticGuy]

You do realize that one of the problems with inter-intelligence agency cooperating before September 11th was the late sharing of critical information ...

I think you're spending far too much time (and I didn't help by responding) on something I clearly said was fully speculative just to illustrate a point. That's all it was. Maybe it's something... it might not be. But the intent was to show that there may very well be issues related to 9/11 that are "conspiracies," but have nothing to do with the typical pet theories of "the movement."

Now excuse me while divert my attention to a nice single-malt and a cigar. What's your poison?

 

[Sporanox]

I think you're spending far too much time (and I didn't help by responding) on something I clearly said was fully speculative just to illustrate a point. That's all it was. Maybe it's something... it might not be. But the intent was to show that there may very well be issues related to 9/11 that are "conspiracies," but have nothing to do with the typical pet theories of "the movement."

Well, they're all the same to me - false - but I have to admit, some of them take a little more effort to debunk than lifting a finger.

Now excuse me while divert my attention to a nice single-malt and a cigar. What's your poison?

I don't have any literal poisons, per se, but I do enjoy lots of junk food from time to time. Iced lemon flavored cookies

-Sporanox

 

[SkepticGuy]

Well, they're all the same to me

Apparently. But I pulled that one form my arse just to illustrate a point... and admittedly did so.

Iced lemon flavored cookies

Ah... now wash that down with some peppered vodka and you're good!

 

[8den]

AH! Good! Thank you for mentioning that.

I've had the opportunity to speak with several in the media, both "in the trenches" and higher editorial levels, and there is a unanimous desire to stay far away of anything that could be associated with "9/11 Truth." The angry activist style of the "truthers" have so polluted the landscape, that journalists stay as far away as they can.

-

Sorry but bullcrap. I'm a news media trenches type and the above is utter crap. No one in the media touches the "911 truth movement" because it has no substance or basis in reality. Real journalism does not deal with conjecture and speculation dressed up as facts, it works on actual facts. Which is something absent from the truth movement.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to whom you spoke to and what agencies they work for?

 

[SkepticGuy]

Sorry but bullcrap.

Back atcha'.

because it has no substance or basis in reality.

As has been seen here (JREF) all too often, there is way too much focus on the absurdity of many "theories" presented by so-called "truthers" which don't hold up. There are those whose knees don't jerk so suddenly and violently.

Real journalism does not deal with conjecture and speculation dressed up as facts, it works on actual facts. Which is something absent from the truth movement.

How many times do I need to keep repeating I am not, nor ever will be, associated with the "truth movement?"

My comment regarding the media people I've spoken with was not in regard to any theory presented by "the movement," but in a more generalized "fear of association" that nearly any effort to investigate 9/11-related issues will likely cause.

 

[8den]

Back atcha'

Thats not a response. I work as a freelance video editor, I've worked in CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, Sky News, and Bloomberg. I'm nailing my colours to the fence here pal.

Who have you spoken to the media? And what organisations do they represent.

How many times do I need to keep repeating I am not, nor ever will be, associated with the "truth movement?"

My comment regarding the media people I've spoken with was not in regard to any theory presented by "the movement," but in a more generalized "fear of association" that nearly any effort to investigate 9/11-related issues will likely cause.

I think I hear the sound of some goalpost shifting. You don't want to be associated with anything, you're happier just JAQing off.

 

[David Wong]

SkepticGuy has actually provided one of the best illustrations we've had in some time of how empty the conspiracy theories are. It's just the theory; the milisecond he's asked to provide some kind of chain of logic, or is challenged on it in any way, well, how about this other theory over here?

Or this other one?

Or... this one?

Hey, why not. Don't need any kind of, you know, factual basis or logic to accuse people of mass murder. Just keep throwing out theories.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Who have you spoken to the media? And what organisations do they represent.

NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, ABC News, History Cannel, SciFi channel (to name a few) ... and a couple we cannot mention as we're currently in direct discussions. We had a rather large media party in NYC on November 5th which was just one of the occasions I refer to where we've had an opportunity to engage media people about several topics.

 

[jaydeehess]

As has been seen here (JREF) all too often, there is way too much focus on the absurdity of many "theories" presented by so-called "truthers" which don't hold up. There are those whose knees don't jerk so suddenly and violently.

There are contentions ('theory' being too strong a word) brought up by some in the so called "Truth Movement" that simply are so far out there as to ganer scorn from the outset. The no-planes contentions being what comes to mind first for me. However, beyond the knee-jerk scorn are those who actually address these contentions technically and show them to be baseless.

To anyone who happened to be anywhere near the towers when the second plane (at least) hit while they watched the north tower burning, any contention that there was no plane would be immediatly seen as ridiculous. Similarily anyone who took refuge from falling debris under a vehicle, as many did when they began being pelted with dust and stones, who then reads Hoffman's idea that the dust was several hundred degrees will see the obvious flaw and ridiculous nature of such a contention. These people need not have expertise in aircraft identification or video manipulation of thermodynamics. They lived the event.

 

[Drudgewire]

As has been seen here (JREF) all too often, there is way too much focus on the absurdity of many "theories" presented by so-called "truthers" which don't hold up. There are those whose knees don't jerk so suddenly and violently.

We're caught in a catch-22 here though, because the truthers that come here rarely if ever rely on a search feature. As a result, what may seem like an out-of-hand and rude dismissal is most likely the product of total frustration since it's already been debunked calmly and collectedly many, many times before.

The options are to ban people that bring up re-hashed topics (which would be construed as "not dealing with the issue"), start from scratch and teach the same lesson that's been taught numerous times already to people that aren't listening to any answers they don't like anyway, or call them out for spouting the same nonsense and mock them for not having anything new or legitimate to present as the "proof" they say they have mountains of.

In other words, what appears to be a "knee jerk" reaction is simply a "how many [rule10]ing times do we have to go over this?" reaction.

As a personal aside, although I haven't been there in a long time ATS was the only conspiracy site I ever joined (since I'd joined "the dark side" by the time I became computer savvy). Had a lot of fun there, so thanks for that.

 

[8den]

NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, ABC News, History Cannel, SciFi channel (to name a few) ...

But the History Channel has dealt with 911 conspiracy theories, and effectively demolished them. The LA times carried an editorial about Rosie going off the deep end. The New York Times covers 911 conspiracy theorists. And The Washington Post on the internet phenomenon of the "truth movement". As to the Sci Fi channel well most 911 conspiracy theories belong there as they are fiction.

It's a rather piss poor argument from authority that says;

"These people publicly acknowledge the existence of these delusional conspiracy theories and dismiss the "truth movement", but actually they kinda agree with me, but it's a secret. Ssshhhhhh. No telling."

and a couple we cannot mention as we're currently in direct discussions.

In regards to accomplishing what?

We had a rather large media party in NYC on November 5th which was just one of the occasions I refer to where we've had an opportunity to engage media people about several topics.

Where was this party, and at what level in these organisations where these people?

 

[SkepticGuy]

But the History Channel has dealt with 911 conspiracy theories...

I think you missed my point. There is a world of difference between "covering" the madness of "9/11 Truth" and considering an independent angle of investigation unrelated to the pet theories of the "truthers."

Where was this party, and at what level in these organisations where these people?

Hotel Gansevoort roof lounge. Everything from senior producers & talent to "in the trenches" reporters as well as a few "conspiracy-minded" celebrities. If you listened to 1010 WINS in NYC that day, our site and the event was covered once-an-hour (with no mention of 9/11, sorry).

 

[SkepticGuy]

We're caught in a catch-22 here though, because the truthers that come here rarely if ever rely on a search feature. As a result...

We have the same issue. On the whole, "staunch truthers" tend not to last long on ATS due to a habitual lack of manners which seems to be a viral infection within their group.

In other words, what appears to be a "knee jerk" reaction is simply a ...

But it seems to me like the knee jerk is "conspiracy = truther." There are many reactions here that seem to immediately assume anyone who speaks of any conspiracy is part of the "truth movement," when nothing could be further from the truth. The truthers are activists, it's a completely different mentality with motivations that are not compatible with finding truth.

As a personal aside, although I haven't been there in a long time ATS was the only conspiracy site I ever joined (since I'd joined "the dark side" by the time I became computer savvy). Had a lot of fun there, so thanks for that.

We like to call it "alternative topics" and everyone is welcome to discuss anything... as you know. And there are many who accuse us of being in the epicenter of the "dark side" also... so there you go.

 

[Drudgewire]

But it seems to me like the knee jerk is "conspiracy = truther." There are many reactions here that seem to immediately assume anyone who speaks of any conspiracy is part of the "truth movement," when nothing could be further from the truth. The truthers are activists, it's a completely different mentality with motivations that are not compatible with finding truth.

While this is true, it comes from being gun shy. There's a good example near the top of the forum right now, in the "General questions from a new member" thread. As it stands lee5 may actually be the exception to the rule, but it's staggering how many new people show up with a "just asking a few questions my friend brought up" thread and within a page they're spouting truther mantras left and right.

So yeah, maybe we're a little quick to judge sometimes... but countless examples of the "wolf in sheep's clothing" (or more accurately, "a more stupid sheep in sheep's clothing") gimmick has led us there.

E: I missed your point. Yeah, not all conspiracy theorists believe the 9/11 ones either. My bad, been dealing with numbers instead of words too much today.