Can so many people keep a secret? - United 93 (2006) Discussion

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

obviously they couldn't - they never have.

except for the teletubbies plot for world domination. as far as i know, that's still secret.

reply

[–] RomaVictorrrr 10 years ago

How is it "obvious"?

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 10 years ago

Because, in order for there to be so many theories, there had to be doubts in the first place. I'm sure that if it really was a conspiracy then the people behind it didn't even want people doubting.

reply

[–] RomaVictorrrr 9 years ago

I respectfully disagree

i think the "people behind it" (if there are any) would be very happy that we go back and forth arguing for and against a conspiracy, the way people would go back and forth the lone wolf theory and the mafia or Cuba or whatever with the JFK. Everyone certainly doubts, but no one gets any closer to a real truth (if one exists).

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

If, big IF, there was really a conspiracy around 9/11, how could that many people keep it a secret?

It's one of the sillier logical fallacies the "debunkers" stumble over in trying to dismiss questions they don't want to consider.

If there were such a conspiracy, there's no reason at all that almost anyone involved would need to know that a conspiracy existed or what it was about. It would only have taken a very few people at the top of the plan -- in the US, and perhaps in Saudi Arabia -- to know and liaise; all the rest of it could have proceeded as it actually did, and no-one would be any the wiser. The hijackers, the military, all the emergency responders, would still have done what they did.

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, mind you. I'm just saying the argument that says "you can't get that many people to keep a secret" is a complete furphy. It didn't need "that many people" to know.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 9 years ago

perhaps you can explain to us how many people you believe would need to know about the plot in order to pull it off. go ahead and name names, provide explanations, and give hard numbers - none of this hand-wavey "didn't need 'that many people'".

of course they'll need a motive too, beyond "let's pull off a cool conspiracy!"

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

Or perhaps not. I'm not about to bow to the inane straw men you people erect.

I've already said I'm not advocating a conspiracy, so your knee-jerk indignation is unwarranted. But perhaps *you* can explain why, if there was a conspiracy, it would require "so many people" to know about it?

I'm not going to ask for names, since I suspect even you can see how absurd your post was.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 9 years ago

you don't have to be advocating a conspiracy to consider the scope that would be required to pull off something of the magnitude of 9/11. consider it a mental exercise.

you seem to believe that it'd only take a handful of people - which ones?

well, i suppose it could be pulled off by one operative in the basement of cia hq: all he has to do is persuade bin laden that attacking the usa directly is a good thing. why? maybe his last employee review was unfavorable or he was bored, who knows?

but the most popular conspiracies require many more than that, with murky or no motive to cooperate and huge rewards for blowing the whistle.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

but the most popular conspiracies require many more than that

Well no, I don't see that they do. In the official story, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad didn't need anybody involved in the day to be in on the plans other than the hijackers, so in another version of the story, why would Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz?

If you believe differently, then as I said, you need to make a case for that claim.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] cshak4 9 years ago

The time that 9/11 happened was obviously a terrible. For young people (millennial generation), it was a horrific time to grow up. The entire culture for a decade has to endure endless news headlines of 'terrorism.'

reply

[–] don savant 9 years ago

It is very easy when you compartmentalize. When there are leaks in these cases, they cover only a small section of an operation and sound insignificant or bogus.

reply

[–] IThinkImMe 9 years ago

How difficult would it have been to hire people from other countries to carry out the conspiratorial portion of the attack? Then all you have to do is pay them off and if they ever utter a word about it, kill them and their families. (Something we've been doing for a long time)

How many people kept quiet building the B2 bomber? Or pretty much any other top secret program? You will only ever know what they want you to know. My wife has had top secret clearance for over 20 years. She WISHES she couldn't tell me half of what she knows. But will carry every secret, no matter how mundane, to her grave. She CAN tell me she worked on the X37-B and that there are space based weapons, but thats about it. She CAN talk about the railgun to a degree, but specifics are never mentioned.

There were so many things going on that day, once you put everything in a neat little timeline, the broader scope becomes clear. That there is no possible way a guy in a cave with a laptop and a satellite phone orchestrated the largest attack on US civilians in history.

Do you think they're cognisant of how bad they got it?
Lets hope not, poor b@stards

reply

[–] Gary-161 9 years ago

>>My wife has had top secret clearance for over 20 years. She WISHES she couldn't tell me half of what she knows.But will carry every secret, no matter how mundane, to her grave.

She wishes she can't stop blabbering secrets to you but will carry a secret to her grave. Glad to see you still keeping to your usual standard of logic after all these years, Tim. As you are lowering her into the ground don't be surprised if you hear a voice from within the casket say: "oh, by the way, honey...I forgot to mention...."

I know you have the brain the size of a pea but I will try to explain it to you. The examples you gave are based on consensus. That is, society excepts that for the greater good they have to keep secrets from the enemy. Illegal activity would not come under that consensus. Such as US citizens killing US citizens in a false flag attack. That is why you get whistleblowers.

>>That there is no possible way a guy in a cave with a laptop and a satellite phone orchestrated the largest attack on US civilians in history.

It is known as an argument from incredulity. Anything is impossible when you resort to logical fallacies.

reply

[–] IThinkImMe 9 years ago

WTF are you smoking? Whatever it is, stop. Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Anything she talks about is 'public knowledge'. There are wikipedia pages for the programs she's worked on. And more often than not, due to the compartmentalization that goes on in government, those pages know more than she does.

Such as US citizens killing US citizens in a false flag attack.
Are you that daft, didn't I say "How difficult would it have been to hire people from other countries to carry out the conspiratorial portion of the attack? " Yes, I believe I did. So stop twisting my words.

Anything is impossible when you resort to logical fallacies.
The fact that you have any brain cells left is a logical fallacy.

Do you think they're cognisant of how bad they got it?
Lets hope not, poor b@stards

reply

[–] Gary-161 9 years ago

 If your wife wishes she couldn't tell you half of what she knows then she IS telling you half what she knows and probably a whole lot more. That is why she wishes she couldn't. Therefore she isn't capable of taking every secret to her grave, no matter how mundane. So that rather weakens your case that a foreign national would.

>>The fact that you have any brain cells left is a logical fallacy.

Ad Hominem. The logical fallacies continue because you have no legitimate arguments, Tim.

reply

[–] NobodymournstheWicked 8 years ago

That is a good question, but I guess there were ones that were really good about keeping a secret, as to a person that would not be as good and would tell the secret. Or even be forced to tell the secret?

reply

[–] tiffanykk2002 8 years ago

This is a great question.

It is easily kept a secret because for the most part U.S. officials were in the dark about the majority of the details. Given that this was a primarily Mossad operation, those secrets have been taken back to the Zionist state of Israel with the U.S. only being complicit members who were given instructions to carry out rather than the big picture.

You can't be a whistleblower if you were merely following orders and was otherwise unaware of how it would play out. Not to mention that many of those officials who blindly carried out such orders were given promotions for doing so.

Furthermore, isn't it abundantly clear at this point that the entire Bush administration were warned in advance of the attacks and did nothing? That isn't so much keeping a secret as it is ignoring or covering up a threat. Those who do know the truth, merely ignore, cover up, or feign ignorance (I don't recall) as to what little they do know. It's really not that hard to accomplish.

reply