Who was in on the inside job ?

[beachnut]

Of course the truthers main claim is the USG or elements within did 9/11 and therefore any USG investigation would be a cover up and a new one would be the same... It's a win win for them... because like the energizer bunny it keeps on ticking..

the truth of 911 truth - a constant conspiracy

I think Gage would "esplode" if he had to answer "who was in on the inside job".


Most 911 truth followers are intelligent; they will wonder how they were fooled and acted like failed followers when they wake up. 911 truth followers called people who figured out 911 "failed debunkers"; thinking anyone who exposes their lies and fantasy, are influenced and controlled by government propaganda, ignoring their cult like beliefs in a failed movement based on lies and ignorance.

Most 911 truth followers who wake up, have learned a lesson in gullibility; added tools to combat future woo. Tools which can be used to avoid failed claims in the future; could save them thousands of dollars avoiding scams based on BS.

 

[Jango]

Whom were you quoting, then?

Does who said it matter more than what the words themselves mean, literally or contextually? If the answer to that question in your opinion is 'no', then why ask who said it to begin with?

 

[JayUtah]

Does who said it matter more than what the words themselves mean, literally or contextually?

Yes.

You yourself chose to frame the proposition as a quote rather than just as a naked assertion. If it were simply your assertion, you'd be on the hook to prove it. If you attribute it to someone else, it transfers responsibility for its justification onto the person who said it, thereby allowing you its rhetorical use but freeing you from the need to prove it. You characterize the proponent as a "wise man," insinuating that we should pay it some heed. If you can't tell us which learned sage gave us this bit of wisdom, then we're left with the supposition that you pulled it out of some orifice.

Your argument is that everyone can be reliably bought, either by a plethora of reward or by a Damocletian threat. So far your line of reasoning to support that argument amounts to begging the question and quoting anonymous oracles.

The reason I bring up Walpole is that he is the "wise man" British prime minister to whom the quote "Every man has his price" is most often (wrongly) attributed. But despite the attribution, he didn't say it. Which is to say, he most certainly did not endorse the proposition that everyone is universally mercenary. In fact his sentiment is almost exactly the opposite -- that there exist men who will say anything or advocate any cause as long as they are remunerated for it. "All those men have their price" (emphasis added). When you hear cries of "We need a new investigation!" or "9/11 was an inside job!" you have to consider that all those men have their price, usually measured in donations to the cause.

Now for the second time, I have pointed out that the carrot-and-stick argument has certain natural limitations. You insinuate that the Powers That Be can offer a carrot so large that silence can be bought forever with it. The obvious problem is that the irresistible carrot cannot be eaten in private without being noticed. The less obvious problem is that someone who has knowledge that hurts you is your own sword of Damocles. Simply appeasing them doesn't guarantee their silence. People normalize. They wonder if they can't have both the generous reward you gave them and the moral comfort of revealing the grand secret. People who reward underlings for keeping immoral secrets are forever vulnerable to blackmail.

You insinuate there is a stick potent enough to guarantee perpetual silence. But it is human nature not to live under the stick for very long. People long for freedom and self-determination. They fear whether their promise of silence is enough to assuage your wrath, therefore they hedge their position. They wonder whether there is some way to reveal the secret without suffering the consequences you laid out for them. And they often find a way.

Frank Serpico is, of course, the classic example. He was immersed in a world of wholesale corruption. He was invited to be a part of it; he refused. He was threatened with death if he didn't keep it secret, and was not deterred. And because of him the corruption of the New York City police department was unearthed. There is also Jeffrey Wigand, who had a moral compunction against the U.S. tobacco industry and spoke out on it. Al Pacino figured prominently in telling both those stories, for reasons that probably don't matter.

If the anecdotal evidence doesn't convince you of the naivete of your argument, consider the statistical argument proposed by William Seger.

 

[Dog Town]

Like every other question about 9/11 conspiracy theories, this one was answered in 2007.

FTW! Thread over, yet somehow NOT!

 

[Fonebone]

Gold - the picklock that never fails

Actually Walpole said, "[A]ll those men have their price," speaking specifically of insincere proponents. The statement is commonly used to mean all men are mercenary, but that's actually the opposite of what Walpole intended.

Perhaps Addison is more accurate and concise ....

"_Gold is a wonderful clearer of the understanding;
it dissipates every doubt and scruple in an instant;
accommodates itself to the meanest capacities;
silences the loud and clamorous, and cringes over the most obstinate
and inflexible_
A man who is furnished with arguments from the mint, will convince his
antagonist much sooner than one who draws them from reason and philosophy."

 

[LSSBB]

Perhaps Addison is more accurate and concise ....

"_Gold is a wonderful clearer of the understanding;
it dissipates every doubt and scruple in an instant;
accommodates itself to the meanest capacities;
silences the loud and clamorous, and cringes over the most obstinate
and inflexible_
A man who is furnished with arguments from the mint, will convince his
antagonist much sooner than one who draws them from reason and philosophy."

And yet not all are guaranteed to be convinced by gold, nor shall those who once are convinced feel obligated to be silenced forever.

 

[Jango]

And yet not all are guaranteed to be convinced by gold, nor shall those who once are convinced feel obligated to be silenced forever.

Why does it have to be a universal occurrence before it becomes important? A hypothetical situation was proposed. People can be gotten to. Not always, but can be. It is not a hard concept to understand whatsoever. Intelligence agencies use the carrot and/or the stick to recruit spies. This is a recorded historical fact.

Is a picture with words required to understand this?

 

[GlennB]

Why does it have to be a universal occurrence before it becomes important? A hypothetical situation was proposed. People can be gotten to. Not always, but can be. It is not a hard concept to understand whatsoever. Intelligence agencies use the carrot and/or the stick to recruit spies. This is a recorded historical fact.

Is a picture with words required to understand this?

People have been agreeing with you, so why the technicolour post? They've also been pointing out that a plot such as the one in question needs 100% compliance from many recruits.

You haven't responded to that.

 

[JayUtah]

Why does it have to be a universal occurrence before it becomes important?

Since there don't seem to be any credible 9/11 Inside Job whistleblowers as of yet, then your argument has to be a universal occurrence if it's to explain 9/11 up to this point. Either it has been a large-scale secret perfectly kept for 13 years (barring pre-occurrence planning), or you're just hoping for some revelation in the undetermined future. The latter would be more of a religious belief than a rational one.

 

[Jango]

Yes.

No.

Just because there are examples of people that have not been gotten to does not mean that people cannot be gotten to. It is not a black & white issue, either they always do or they never do. Like most everything in life, there is a tremendous amount of grey. Given that the hypothetical proposed had no limits upon resource expenditure (LOTS of gray area), why are peoples conceptualizations of this hypothetical so narrowly focused? That narrowness ignores the methods used on pre-selected and targeted individuals (the evidentiary file I spoke of) is not tailor made for the individual chosen. You're arguing that I'd cold call people without knowing a damn thing about them first, which is not something I said at all. I was very specific about it too. I was not narrow that the carrot and/or stick approach would be conducted under what most people probably visualize when they hear those words -- a briefcase full of money or having someone dragged into an alley. Alternatively, you underestimate the culture of fear that can be created when resources are not an issue. Creativity is another element you underestimate. If you want creativity, look no further than the Stasi and their Zersetzung Program. That program, with the addition of some modern elements, like Scareware, and the "Everyone has a price" becomes, contextually, an emotionally driven response to the stimulus being applied upon the selected target. And it becomes a matter of biology then, do they crack and go along with it or crack and rebel against it, up to and including committing suicide. Those programs are far too intrusive to be ignored, so the middle option is out. Professionals can be hired that do not leave traces of evidence so if the person rebels and tries to blow the whistle, he or she does not have a shred of evidence to corroborate their claims. They can still be gotten to even if they try to alert others about the unprovable things that are really happening to them. After they've exhausted other people with by all appearances just the rantings of an insane person, the disruption in their lives that is driving them mad will take a person to the precipice. Breaking someone down like that is not an issue if resources are not an issue. If you don't like the answers to broad hypotheticals, then don't propose such broadbased hypotheticals.

 

[Jango]

Since there don't seem to be any credible 9/11 Inside Job whistleblowers as of yet, then your argument has to be a universal occurrence if it's to explain 9/11 up to this point. Either it has been a large-scale secret perfectly kept for 13 years (barring pre-occurrence planning), or you're just hoping for some revelation in the undetermined future. The latter would be more of a religious belief than a rational one.

Besides the highlighted Bull, why are you transitioning my responses to a conceptual hypothetical to specifically 9/11?

 

[JayUtah]

...needs 100% compliance from many recruits.

Agreed. There's a huge difference between carefully picking a few well-suited recruits to train as double agents or moles, and applying those same principles to entire agencies and organizations filled with a variety of people, most of whom were established at those agencies ahead of time.

This is not to sidestep the proposition that carrot-and-stick methods are suitable motivators for recruiting a double agent. But that selection is biased. In short, those methods work because they are applied only to the handful of people for which they are known or suspected to work. All those men have their price -- others do not, and they are therefore not candidates for such recruitment.

Picking and choosing the people you will recruit by threats or reward is not to say all people can be effectively threatened or rewarded.

 

[JayUtah]

Just because there are examples of people that have not been gotten to does not mean that people cannot be gotten to.

But you were asked to describe how such an operation could be made as airtight as it presently appears to be in the hypothetical 9/11 case.

It is not a black & white issue, either they always do or they never do. Like most everything in life, there is a tremendous amount of grey.

Exactly. And the dilemma you were asked to address does not allow for grey. If you now admit that human nature does not allow airtight secret-keeping, especially on a grand scale, then you have effectively conceded.

 

[LSSBB]

Agreed. There's a huge difference between carefully picking a few well-suited recruits to train as double agents or moles, and applying those same principles to entire agencies and organizations filled with a variety of people, most of whom were established at those agencies ahead of time.

This is not to sidestep the proposition that carrot-and-stick methods are suitable motivators for recruiting a double agent. But that selection is biased. In short, those methods work because they are applied only to the handful of people for which they are known or suspected to work. All those men have their price -- others do not, and they are therefore not candidates for such recruitment.

Picking and choosing the people you will recruit by threats or reward is not to say all people can be effectively threatened or rewarded.

The total cost of the project escalates also, with more gold to pay 'their price' and more enforcers and professional evidence erasers. The latter would also need their gold and erasers too. And...

Well, I guess if they all cash in their Birth Bonds.

 

[BasqueArch]

No.

Just because there are examples of people that have not been gotten to does not mean that people cannot be gotten to. It is not a black & white issue, either they always do or they never do. Like most everything in life, there is a tremendous amount of grey. Given that the hypothetical proposed had no limits upon resource expenditure (LOTS of gray area), why are peoples conceptualizations of this hypothetical so narrowly focused? That narrowness ignores the methods used on pre-selected and targeted individuals (the evidentiary file I spoke of) is not tailor made for the individual chosen. You're arguing that I'd cold call people without knowing a damn thing about them first, which is not something I said at all. I was very specific about it too. I was not narrow that the carrot and/or stick approach would be conducted under what most people probably visualize when they hear those words -- a briefcase full of money or having someone dragged into an alley. Alternatively, you underestimate the culture of fear that can be created when resources are not an issue. Creativity is another element you underestimate. If you want creativity, look no further than the Stasi and their Zersetzung Program. That program, with the addition of some modern elements, like Scareware, and the "Everyone has a price" becomes, contextually, an emotionally driven response to the stimulus being applied upon the selected target. And it becomes a matter of biology then, do they crack and go along with it or crack and rebel against it, up to and including committing suicide. Those programs are far too intrusive to be ignored, so the middle option is out. Professionals can be hired that do not leave traces of evidence so if the person rebels and tries to blow the whistle, he or she does not have a shred of evidence to corroborate their claims. They can still be gotten to even if they try to alert others about the unprovable things that are really happening to them. After they've exhausted other people with by all appearances just the rantings of an insane person, the disruption in their lives that is driving them mad will take a person to the precipice. Breaking someone down like that is not an issue if resources are not an issue. If you don't like the answers to broad hypotheticals, then don't propose such broadbased hypotheticals.

Another example of a conspiracy that could not be kept secret, leaving behind large amounts of evidence.

 

[Georgio]

Are there really no credible 9/11 'inside job' whistleblowers?

 

[BasqueArch]

Perhaps Addison is more accurate and concise ....

"_Gold is a wonderful clearer of the understanding;
it dissipates every doubt and scruple in an instant;
accommodates itself to the meanest capacities;
silences the loud and clamorous, and cringes over the most obstinate
and inflexible_
A man who is furnished with arguments from the mint, will convince his
antagonist much sooner than one who draws them from reason and philosophy."

Since arguments from reason and philosophy do not convince you, and gold would, what is the price that would convince you. How much.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Jango
As a wise man once said, "Everybody has a price."

Actually Walpole said, "[A]ll those men have their price," speaking specifically of insincere proponents. The statement is commonly used to mean all men are mercenary, but that's actually the opposite of what Walpole intended.

Sooner or later the carrot-and-stick argument comes up in every conspiracy theory, and it doesn't work in any of them. As soon as the carrot gets big enough to ensure silence, it becomes useless as a motivation because the only way the person can enjoy his carrot is by conspicuous consumption of it. So where are all these handsomely paid insiders, living in houses in Monaco and driving their Bugatti Veyrons and eating out every night at five-star restaurants?

Conversely the stick never works to deter people for too long. Self-determination is a powerful driver, and the feeling that someone has inordinate power over you for immoral reasons doesn't sit well for very long.

Another example of sloppy thinking typical of conspiracists.

Here's a better quote.
The reason there will always be 911 truthers:
"There's a sucker born every minute."

 

[LSSBB]

Are there really no credible 9/11 'inside job' whistleblowers?

Do you have a list of candidates?

 

[BasqueArch]

Are there really no credible 9/11 'inside job' whistleblowers?

Here's the best one provided by truthers:
McPadden who claims he heard a "Red Cross representative" blow up WTC7.

""While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."
"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.
McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.
In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed. We will be releasing that tape over the next week. We also talked to other first responders who verified the story."

eta: Oh sorry, you said "credible".
​