Who was in on the inside job ?

[DGM]

No I haven't. I'll look them up but when it's a factual book I'm reading I do prefer it to be just the dry information rather than a narrative style, so when I get round to researching the political aspect I probably will start with the Commission Report. Thanks for the recommendations.

The order you read them wouldn't really matter. The commission report is a moderator for both books.

Good luck.

* If you get though these, try the NIST reports...........

 

[Stellafane]

Pretty sure Hooters was in on it.

I will personally investigate!

 

[Redwood]

Truthers immediately jump to the canard of "compartmentalisation" when you list all the "perpetrators", little realising that they are narcissistically stating that they are the "only" ones who were "smart" enough to figure out the "inside job" when hundreds of thousands of involved professionals couldn't.

I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I somehow get the impression that the designers of the control system of a huge drone aircraft-missile that looks like an airliner but is capable of pinpoint control at 500 knots would need to know a lot about the aircraft itself. Something tells me that the response to control inputs of such a craft would be much different from a slow-moving surveillance drone or a small supersonic anti-aircraft missile!

Likewise for the folks who actually tested the things before they were used. (Or did the Vast Conspiracy just cross their fingers and hope they'd work? Imagine if they didn't! Talk about embarrassing!) I just can't picture them wondering what ever happened to that drone-missile they naively tested back in 2001 that looked just like an airliner....

 

[Vinny Shinblind]

Pretty sure Hooters was in on it.

I will personally investigate!

Make it a hands-on investigation, and provide photographic evidence.

As far as the thread topic, I'll repost something I wrote a few years back regarding the truther contention of "compartmentalization"...

You see, all those innocent contractors packing thermites into the WTC towers, scattering aircraft parts around the lawn of the Pentagon and the bulldozer-dug trench in Shanksville....to this DAY, they have NO IDEA they were part of the 9/11 inside job!

 

[Jango]

You must be assuming the inverse of this: That strangers *could be* morally rotten to the bone people until I know that they are not?

FTFY, sir

Do you automatically trust that everyone you encounter would agree to conspire to murder thousands of compatriots? Every single one? Not just at the top pf the administration and the services, but also the mid and lower ranks and the operatives?

Interacting with so many different people all across my country has taught me to be prepared for anything with people that come across my path. My father was a CO for 20 years. I was in the Marines. People can surprise you, you know? It is why police officers are on the defensive and ready to press the offensive: they don't know what they're getting involved in. Some traffic stops go without incident, but sometimes there is an incident and the cop or cops get killed because of it.

The local news highlights criminal offenses, and some of the people "look the part", while others don't I.e. "fitting the profile". This imbalance exists in many different contexts. Take psychopaths as an example of that 'different context'. Do they always look the part? No. Many look quite unassuming, but they're a psychopath nonetheless, a person who has absolutely no concern whatsoever with anything remotely associated with normal human behavior, like feeling sad, remorse or even fear.

Jobs that have inherited authority, like the police, the military, the intelligence services, the government, are alluring to psychopaths because it 1) inflates their ego and grandiose POV of themselves, 2) allows them to have official cover for their manipulative personality & 3) gives them access to power, which goes along with #1.

Is it your contention that people like that do not have positions of authority in the government and security services?

I found this a while ago, might be interesting to have a look at.

The Saudi connection is the sole possible exception I see at this point where there may an element of "covered it up on purpose after the fact for reaons of foreign relationships".

Which is a major league betrayal by itself.

 

[beachnut]

... Jobs that have inherited authority, like the police, the military, the intelligence services, the government, are alluring to psychopaths because ....

got a study? What percentage are "psychopaths".

Like the Boston bombers? Or Hitler?

BS flag -


It appears 911 truth has the psychopaths as believers, like the Boston bombers.

I never found any "psychopaths" in the military, guess they skipped the USAF.

However, the psychopaths in 911 truth believe there was a USAF stand-down; how would that work - it means all the pilots were in on 911, including me - I flew the next day... What I found in the USAF was the opposite of stand-down; and a stand-down order would be exposed and ignored on 911. Where are the "psychopaths" hiding in the USAF?

Anyway, do you have some stats to back up your claim? Is it like the acient alien evidence?> nonsense, bs, made up - ... etc

 

[Oystein]

You must be assuming the inverse of this: That strangers *could be* morally rotten to the bone people until I know that they are not?

FTFY, sir

No, you did not fix that at all for me! You butchered and destroyed what I intended to say!

I meant precisely what I wrote:

You must be assuming that strangers ARE morally rotten to the bone people until I know that they are not.

Everyone.
Without a single exception.
Every stranger you ever ask to participate in the murder of thousands of compatriot civilians must be willing to either participate and/or shut his mouth about your inquiry. I.e. mustr be rotten to the bone morally.

Or else you'd have plenty of people by now who realize what your inquiry was about, and talk.

 

[ozeco41]

Try this for a simplified restatement.

Oystein is advocating 'beware that strangers could be "rotten to the core" BUT don’t presume they are until you have better evidence.'

Jango is saying "since they could be rotten to the core treat them as if they are until they prove otherwise."

At this stage I'm with Oystein - I appreciate much of Jango's posted logic BUT on this subject I disagree with what appears to be his default position.

My own could be:

"Treat everyone at face value until they prove otherwise WHILST never losing sight of the possibility that they could be evil - so don't commit until you know for sure."

 

[Jango]

Your conclusion is what I was pretty much saying, at least meaning to say.

My default position is On Alert But Friendly. Like walking into a pub or some other crowded place. Most guys I know start sizing up the other guys in the place. Not looking for a fight but seeing who might be the one to start one and those that can finish them. It is risk awareness because as parents tell their young children: Stranger = Danger. A stranger is a danger until proven otherwise but don't initiate hostilities until such a measure is duly required. Basically, coexist until that proves impossible. And that exists across the spectrum of social contacts, like strangers, acquaintances, coworkers, friends, lovers and family members. I say that because, unfortunately, people are hurt by other people from those contacts all too often for one reason or another -- emotional, opportunity, greed.

 

[Oystein]

Your conclusion is what I was pretty much saying, at least meaning to say.

My default position is On Alert But Friendly. Like walking into a pub or some other crowded place. Most guys I know start sizing up the other guys in the place. Not looking for a fight but seeing who might be the one to start one and those that can finish them. It is risk awareness because as parents tell their young children: Stranger = Danger. A stranger is a danger until proven otherwise but don't initiate hostilities until such a measure is duly required. Basically, coexist until that proves impossible. And that exists across the spectrum of social contacts, like strangers, acquaintances, coworkers, friends, lovers and family members. I say that because, unfortunately, people are hurt by other people from those contacts all too often for one reason or another -- emotional, opportunity, greed.

Now suppose you were an evil mastermind, while maintaining this default position, and your task is to recruit the guests at the pub to carry out (or actively let intruders carry out) mass murder against civilians in their own town. How would you assess your chances? Suppose you really need the two chaps there at nose of the bar, because they are the local constable and the local reporter. How do you talk them into mass murder? What if they refuse, could you convince them to keep their mouths shut?

You see, even LIHOP requires absolutely the participation and tacit approval of a significant numbers of quite specific people: For example the guys running the daily NORAD operations on that day.

How do you do this, if you don't assume that you can bacisally get everyone to do dastardly deeds?


The article about spies you linked to doesn't help, really. The spy business can be done with one recruit out of a hundred, and the article explains that often the spy types have personality disorders that can be exploited. With a terror operation, you need to secure the participation of a much higher percentage of the agents involved.

 

[Jango]

Now suppose you were an evil mastermind, while maintaining this default position, and your task is to recruit the guests at the pub to carry out (or actively let intruders carry out) mass murder against civilians in their own town. How would you assess your chances? Suppose you really need the two chaps there at nose of the bar, because they are the local constable and the local reporter. How do you talk them into mass murder? What if they refuse, could you convince them to keep their mouths shut?
You see, even LIHOP requires absolutely the participation and tacit approval of a significant numbers of quite specific people: For example the guys running the daily NORAD operations on that day.

How do you do this, if you don't assume that you can bacisally get everyone to do dastardly deeds?


The article about spies you linked to doesn't help, really. The spy business can be done with one recruit out of a hundred, and the article explains that often the spy types have personality disorders that can be exploited. With a terror operation, you need to secure the participation of a much higher percentage of the agents involved.

To answer this hypothetical, I must first ask for additional information: What kind of resources are at my disposal to undertake the highlighted?

 

[Oystein]

To answer this hypothetical, I must first ask for additional information: What kind of resources are at my disposal to undertake the highlighted?

Any you want to imagine. Resources sufficient to convince YOU that participating in mass murder is the right thing for YOU to do.

Just tell us the resources you would expend.

 

[Jango]

Now suppose you were an evil mastermind, while maintaining this default position, and your task is to recruit the guests at the pub to carry out (or actively let intruders carry out) mass murder against civilians in their own town. How would you assess your chances? Suppose you really need the two chaps there at nose of the bar, because they are the local constable and the local reporter. How do you talk them into mass murder? What if they refuse, could you convince them to keep their mouths shut?

Just tell us the resources you would expend.

Answer: Having a detailed evidentiary based profile on the people in the establishment. Knowing things about them, intimate things, weakness and fears, priorities and normal operating schedule can be used against them. Maybe they could succumb to a monetary bribe, or maybe they could be convinced because of an appeal to force they know to be legitimate like hired enforcers. The basic premise is that the people who have a full-range of working emotions can be "gotten to" in some way or fashion. How do you think intelligence agencies "get to" people? The same way the U.S. does its foreign policy: using the carrot and/or using the stick. Find something somebody can't live without or is obsessed about, and either threaten to take it away or make their dreams come true by capitalizing on their preferred sweet tooth.

Close tight knit relationships, like between spouses and blood family and best friends have ended in disaster because someone sold the other one out. Seeing as that commonly occurs, selling out the community no matter the size and as a whole is no large undertaking to accomplish given the right stimulus is applied.

It is the valuation of other people's lives in comparison to those whom we hold the absolute dearest in our lives, and us normally emotionally working people have all contemplated at one time or another What If situations like what would a loving parent do to keep their child or children alive or what would a loving spouse do to keep their partner/mate alive.

As a wise man once said, "Everybody has a price."

 

[carlitos]

Wow, what a crappy view of humanity. I wouldn't be able to go outside in the morning if I thought that my neighbors were willing to kill me "for a price."

 

[Georgio]

Wow, what a crappy view of humanity.

It's a lot more realistic and informed by psychological experiments than the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' worldview. Partly because what constitutes a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' is up for grabs in any given situation.

 

[GlennB]

Answer: Having a detailed evidentiary based profile on the people in the establishment. Knowing things about them, intimate things, weakness and fears, priorities and normal operating schedule can be used against them. Maybe they could succumb to a monetary bribe, or maybe they could be convinced because of an appeal to force they know to be legitimate like hired enforcers. The basic premise is that the people who have a full-range of working emotions can be "gotten to" in some way or fashion. How do you think intelligence agencies "get to" people? The same way the U.S. does its foreign policy: using the carrot and/or using the stick. Find something somebody can't live without or is obsessed about, and either threaten to take it away or make their dreams come true by capitalizing on their preferred sweet tooth.

Close tight knit relationships, like between spouses and blood family and best friends have ended in disaster because someone sold the other one out. Seeing as that commonly occurs, selling out the community no matter the size and as a whole is no large undertaking to accomplish given the right stimulus is applied.

It is the valuation of other people's lives in comparison to those whom we hold the absolute dearest in our lives, and us normally emotionally working people have all contemplated at one time or another What If situations like what would a loving parent do to keep their child or children alive or what would a loving spouse do to keep their partner/mate alive.

This approach falls apart in the face of the reality of human nature.

Some strong/stubborn/decent types will judge that not only is it right that their spouse "dies in a traffic accident" rather than that thousands should die executing the plot but that they have a duty to spill the beans immediately. Others will take it as a bluff and say **** off. Yet others, more cunningly, will pretend to go along with it and record subsequent interactions for public consumption.

Meanwhile the conspirators would need perfect security. One sufficiently incriminating note, conversation, email, phone call, out of place blows the plan out of the water. People do screw up.

And so on. Just like the putative plan to cd WTC7, the original primary conspiracy suffers so many potential flaws - organisational and physical - that it's non-viable from the outset.

 

[LSSBB]

Wow, what a crappy view of humanity. I wouldn't be able to go outside in the morning if I thought that my neighbors were willing to kill me "for a price."

It's also an unsupported blanket statement, unless Jango has happened to interview everybody and done a brain scan.

And you are dead on, Carlitos. Society as a whole is currently operating on some level of trust that is evidently working.

 

[Jango]

This approach falls apart in the face of the reality of human nature.

Some strong/stubborn/decent types will judge that not only is it right that their spouse "dies in a traffic accident" rather than that thousands should die executing the plot but that they have a duty to spill the beans immediately. Others will take it as a bluff and say **** off. Yet others, more cunningly, will pretend to go along with it and record subsequent interactions for public consumption.[/QUOTE]

Yes, some people would trade one life for the many, but just as there are people that wouldn't, it is not universal, which is why I didn't limit the equation of getting to someone in just those terms/contextual basis I.e. everyone has a price, a weakness that can be exploited allowing the person to be gotten to. An example of that is torture. Some tough people can withstand torture to an extent, but the ultimate equation in this context is biological, namely, everyone has a breaking point where they can no longer withstand the pressures being applied upon them. Some people, like drug addicts for example, can be gotten to quite easily by opening up unfettered access to their favorite feel-good remedy.

I mean, if someone offered an addict unfettered access to the high of their choice so long as they killed you, say by shooting, what do you estimate your chances of surviving that particular encounter?

Meanwhile the conspirators would need perfect security. One sufficiently incriminating note, conversation, email, phone call, out of place blows the plan out of the water. People do screw up.

Yes, the 'human element' is a well-known, daily felt phenomenon, just as is the reality that people can be gotten to and go along with the program for one reason or another. By using the carrot and/or stick based upon an individual's uniqueness, which I highlighted by saying "Having a detailed evidentiary based profile on the people" is self-evident and effective. We all have an area in our life that is a weakness that can be exploited by someone with the means and motive to capitalize on that reality, be it emotionally or physically based.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, the 'human element' is a well-known, daily felt phenomenon, just as is the reality that people can be gotten to and go along with the program for one reason or another. By using the carrot and/or stick based upon an individual's uniqueness, which I highlighted by saying "Having a detailed evidentiary based profile on the people" is self-evident and effective. We all have an area in our life that is a weakness that can be exploited by someone with the means and motive to capitalize on that reality, be it emotionally or physically based.

There is no guarantee that a given crucial individual can be made to enter the plan, far from it in fact. Then you have a loose cannon out there, probably many. You're picturing a scenario where everybody required for the success of the plan has an overwhelmingly critical weakness. The real world isn't like that.

 

[Oystein]

Answer: Having a detailed evidentiary based profile on the people in the establishment. Knowing things about them, intimate things, weakness and fears, priorities and normal operating schedule can be used against them. ...

How do you collect detailed evidentiary based profiles of all the people you need for your conspiracy? Profiling is a labor-intense job. Wouldn't that multiply the people you need to be in the know and remain quiet?

As a wise man once said, "Everybody has a price."

That includes specifically and explicitly YOU, correct?