About the idea that conspiracies are all nonsense?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm a historian, remember?

[stromboli]

Mark Felt confessed to being Deep Throat.  There have been subsequent attempts to cover that up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

The man has many CIA friends, and is considered a WH insider reporter for many years ...
http://www.ctka.net/pr196-woodward.html

He was entangled during the Valerie Plame investigation, but that might have been incompetence, or Scooter Libby was using him as a cats paw.

Right. Woodward was a member of Skull and Bones (Probe article) or else the Book and Snake society. so that means he was with the CIA. Thank your for sharing.

[Mike Cl]

I was surprised by some of what I saw and learned as a Special Agent while on active duty with the US Army, and later with the Army Reserve.  The US has at least partial plans of attack or of military operations for every country in the world.  I was able to read some of these and they were in the form of magazine/books that look much like the Periodical Guide to Lit. found in most libraries.  They are under constant review and change; I was working on the Philippines area for a short two weeks one year for the Army Reserve in Hawaii.  But I had access to most of the other countries of the world, as well.  Interesting reading--in a boring sort of way. :)  Operational Plans are not noted for being a fun read.

[stromboli]

Gawd may know more about this than I do, but aboard ship (in the radio shack) they had some "light reading" that were top secret examinations of nuclear war and the aftermath. Several volumes. I've seen them and had explained to me what they were, but never read them. I only had a secret clearance. I think they came from the Naval War College, not sure. There was an entire set of orders we never saw that would be opened by the Captain and XO after missile launch.

It all ties in with what targets the missiles are pointed at for fire control solutions and so on. Fire Control and the requisite officers knew the targets before leaving port. They changed from patrol to patrol. The missiles have to "know" where they are with pinpoint accuracy to hit the target with pinpoint accuracy. We were using Satnav in 1968.

The ship is nothing but a sophisticated missile platform. But there were scenarios for many different post launch situations. My understanding was that included such things as scuttling the ship or even becoming a hunter killer after launch. Lots of shit to shoot at on the ocean. Got to use those ASROCS for something. This is the shit you don't dwell on when you are driving a vehicle that can bring mass death to millions in about 15 minutes of launch time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can neither confirm nor deny...

[The Atheist]

Operation Dropshot and Plan Totality (nuclear/conventional war with the Soviets) were proposed as well.  Those plans didn't materialize, either.

But the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had even considered staging false flag attacks--and killing American civilians on American soil--to garner public support for the invasion of Cuba is worrying. If they fantasized about it once, why not a second time?

Besides, I can name several incidents off the top of my head of Uncle Sam doing crazy stuff. For example, during WWII, dozens of terminally ill patients were administered plutonium without their consent because researchers wanted to see the long-term effects of dropping a nuke over a populated area. During the middle of the 20th century, military planes dropped millions of mosquitoes infected with the common cold over several major cities (yes, a few people died) as a form of simulated biowarfare. The Army would then visit these cities dressed as health workers to study the infected up close.

And let's not forget about how Uncle Sam recently apologized for having infecting people in South America with syphilis back in the day.

Because 'Murica can do no evil. . . can do no evil . . . no evil . . . .

Because 'Murica.

[Mike Cl]

I can neither confirm nor deny...

.................oh, I bet you can................:)  I never got close to those plans--the nuclear ones.  They were top secret and I had a top secret clearance--but not the 'need to know'.  Two things you had to have to read any classified material--the correct clearance and 'the need to know'.  I did not need to know about any specific nuclear attack plans.  So, I never got to see them.  So, I'd bet that at the very least, each branch of the military have to have complete sets of plans for battle in each country of the world--nuclear and conventional. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

From memory: "It is not the policy of the United States Navy to either confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on its ships or shore installations. (beep)."

[Baruch]

Right. Woodward was a member of Skull and Bones (Probe article) or else the Book and Snake society. so that means he was with the CIA. Thank your for sharing.

I don't know even one ex-CIA director, he knows several.  So does that make me CIA?  The most likely sign, back then, of being CIA wasn't Yale, it was Notre Dame.  The CIA loved to recruit good Catholic boys ... just like the founder of the OSS (pre-CIA) was a good Irish Catholic-American.  Averill Harriman was part of the recruitment from the Ivy League ... George H W would have been recruited that route ... a social distinction ... Yale for management, Notre Dame for the real work.

[Baruch]

I can neither confirm nor deny...

Same here ... I still work with the military ... just not in a "hot" area.

[stromboli]

.................oh, I bet you can................:)  I never got close to those plans--the nuclear ones.  They were top secret and I had a top secret clearance--but not the 'need to know'.  Two things you had to have to read any classified material--the correct clearance and 'the need to know'.  I did not need to know about any specific nuclear attack plans.  So, I never got to see them.  So, I'd bet that at the very least, each branch of the military have to have complete sets of plans for battle in each country of the world--nuclear and conventional. 

Need to know and clearance. Top Secret Crypto for those involved in communications including radiomen. They don't think a cook is worthy, that I can vouch for.

[Hydra009]

But the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had even considered staging false flag attacks--and killing American civilians on American soil--to garner public support for the invasion of Cuba is worrying. If they fantasized about it once, why not a second time?

Once again, a bad reputation is not enough to convict.  You have to substantiate this stuff.

It's true that the US gov contemplated false flag operations in the past.  But does it logically follow that 9/11 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the US gov?  No.  That claim has to be substantiated on its own - other alleged incidents are irrelevant.  And without evidence, all of this is just talk.

[Baruch]

Once again, a bad reputation is not enough to convict.  You have to substantiate this stuff.

It's true that the US gov contemplated false flag operations in the past.  But does it logically follow that 9/11 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the US gov?  No.  That claim has to be substantiated on its own - other alleged incidents are irrelevant.  And without evidence, all of this is just talk.

I would have liked it better if George W and Dick would have personally flown the planes into the Twin Towers ... would have prevented a few subsequent problems ;-)

[widdershins]

My problem is not with people accepting the official 9/11 story. That's all fine and well. My problem is when people act like questioning the official story makes you an idiot. You can pretend that any questions have been "debunked", but nothing that I've said about 9/11 has been debunked. It can't be debunked, so all this debunked talk you hear is nothing but nonsense. We don't know exactly what happened that day, and anyone acting like they know exactly what happened acts like they know more than they do. You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. You pretend to know everything about everything. I don't pretend to know everything.
...

This is the problem I have with that.  It's not my duty to "debunk" anything, it's the claimant's duty to give evidence in support.  Frankly, if there is any basis in reality there should not be any evidence which is later "debunked".  But clearly some such claims (not evidence, claims, which is a very important difference) have been "debunked".  You expressly state that neither side "knows".  So what you're saying is there is no "evidence".  If there was evidence then we would "know".  So if there's no evidence to support a position, why would one have that position?

All the actual evidence there is supports the accepted explanation, to my knowledge.  Everything else is just claims by uneducated people who believe themselves to be smarter than the experts who have given the accepted explanation.  And lack of evidence is exactly why I dismiss all conspiracy "theories" outright, without examination.  This isn't science.  By this use, theory means "wild-ass guess".  Outside of science, when there is evidence to support a claim, that claim becomes "fact".

[FaithIsFilth]

This is the problem I have with that.  It's not my duty to "debunk" anything, it's the claimant's duty to give evidence in support.  Frankly, if there is any basis in reality there should not be any evidence which is later "debunked".  But clearly some such claims (not evidence, claims, which is a very important difference) have been "debunked".  You expressly state that neither side "knows".  So what you're saying is there is no "evidence".  If there was evidence then we would "know".  So if there's no evidence to support a position, why would one have that position?

All the actual evidence there is supports the accepted explanation, to my knowledge.  Everything else is just claims by uneducated people who believe themselves to be smarter than the experts who have given the accepted explanation.  And lack of evidence is exactly why I dismiss all conspiracy "theories" outright, without examination.  This isn't science.  By this use, theory means "wild-ass guess".  Outside of science, when there is evidence to support a claim, that claim becomes "fact".

You are correct that it is the claimants duty to give evidence in support. I only said no one could debunk what I was saying, because when 9/11 comes up, you will often see people say something like "9/11 questioners? All concerns people have about 9/11 have been cleared up and debunked. Next!" I think it's a false statement when someone says that all concerns have been cleared up and debunked, so that's the only reason I brought up debunking. You are completely right when you say it is the claimant that has to provide the evidence. About the claims that have supposedly been debunked... all I would say is you don't even need explosives in the buildings for Bush and Cheney to let it happen (maybe the buildings falling were just a bonus that could have happened or not happened), so I don't even bother with the explosives part of the story.

Why would one have the view that a truther does, without complete evidence to back them up? I can't say for sure because I myself am unsure about 9/11, but many truthers would probably say they think it's obvious that America was not caught off guard and attacked by Muslim terrorists. I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but I see where they're coming from. I think there's a good chance Bush and Cheney let it happen, but at the same time, I think Johan and others have a pretty decent argument when they say it would be hard to keep such a secret.

It is fine to dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on lack of evidence. No problem with that. Some scientists will dismiss the multiverse idea because the evidence is just not there. I don't understand this stuff very well, but from what I do know, I would say there's a decent chance the multiverse idea is correct, and there's a decent chance the idea is not correct. Other scientists, despite the lack of evidence, will talk about what may be the case. They will say there may be a multiverse, or other dimensions, or extra-terrestrials, or that we may be living in a computer simulation. Should we completely dismiss these ideas out of hand because of a lack of evidence? Not everything in the world comes down to having evidence or not having evidence. What about when they give ideas about exactly how life on Earth may have started, or when they give ideas about why the Big Bang happened? We are simplifying things way too much when we just say "Evidence or STFU". I value evidence just like anyone else, but evidence is not all there is.

I understand that it's MSNBC and others job to push the White House's line they want to be pushed, but I really have a problem with people like Rachel Maddow calling the 9/11 questions and questioners "dangerous". Some of the parents of victims of the WTC collapse ripped Rachel Maddow a new one for demonizing them for having questions, when their children were murdered. Their freaking children were murdered, and Rachel Maddow calls them dangerous for asking questions about the murder of their sons and daughters? These parents have the right to ask questions, and calling them dangerous is beyond a cheap shot/ low blow by the White House who dictates what MSNBC and Maddow are to say.

I'm fine with people saying 9/11 conspiracies are silly and unlikely, but is it really necessary for these people to be labelled dangerous nuts? I get it if you're calling people nuts or dangerous for being anti-vaccines, and I understand that a whole lot of 9/11 truthers are also anti-vaccines, but should we really be calling the parents of a dead son or daughter, who has questions, or others with questions dangerous nuts? It's Maddow's job to get the people to buy into the idea that they shouldn't be questioning the mainstream. I can understand her calling people dangerous, because she's only doing her job. Others who call these people dangerous though, when it's not their job to do so? I think they should leave the demonizing of people who simply ask questions to shills like Rachel Maddow.