The concept of transparent conspiracy

[noise]

I want to elaborate somewhat on the idea of transparent conspiracy (see part 3), lest the idea seem too big to chew. It is chewable, but it takes a little work. Even though I have been chewing on it for some time, I am only now arriving at the conclusion, as I pointed out in part 4, that the theory is correct.

First of all, let's give it a name that will itself be more transpaent: MITOP. We are familiar with LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). Now we have "Made It Transparent On Purpose."

What do so many people now think 9/11 was an inside job? Because there are so many reasons to think so? Yes--for all of those reasons, and for one more that not so many people may have thought of: we are supposed to think so. The perpetrators, the people on the inside (Orwell's "Inner Party") want us to think so.

http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/logical6.htm">Full article

I like his theory. That said there are a couple of obvious objections:

1. If a key goal of false sponsorship attacks is to convince the public that the false sponsor was responsible, then why detract from that goal by way of "showing their cards?"

2. How could they know that MITOP wouldn't get out of hand? Wouldn't the lower level operatives be worried that if things (for example the real cover up afterwards) didn't go as planned that they would be sacrificed?

The answer appears to be that the benefits of transparent conspiracy (intimidation, inducing double think, demoralizing the public) outweigh the benefits of concealment. I don't pretend to have any definitive answers.

Naomi Wolf has an interesting take on psychological manipulation:

I have a section in the book about how lies in a fascist shift serve a different purpose than they do in a democracy. In a democracy, people lie to deceive. In a fascist shift, lies serve to disorient. Lies in the service of a fascist shift make it hard for citizens to trust their own judgment about what's real and what's not. Once citizens don't know what's real and what's not real, they are profoundly disempowered. The Bush administration seems to have learned that lesson, and they regularly name things the opposite. And there's a long historical precedent for making people feel that there is no such thing as truth.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/077">Link

The Bush administration has used three extremely effective traditional propaganda themes:

Shared nationalism: For example when a politician says something like "We are winning in Iraq." The use of such a phrase implies that all Americans are on the same team and share the same goals. This simplification is effective because it suggests that political leaders do not have agendas contrary to those of the public.

Conflation: Supporting the civilian command is the same thing as supporting soldiers. Thus, failure to support the civilian command is the same thing as failure to support soldiers. Another example in a different context is the conflation of Bin Laden and Hussein.

Authoritarianism: Failure to support the policies of the leaders is indicative of flawed citizenship and/or lack of patriotism.

I would guess when it comes to manipulating the public, all options are on the table.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Another concept to consider: MYGOD

Man, Your Guanophrenia's On Display

Not yours specifically, noise. You're only flirting with guanophrenia.

So the conspirators had to reveal just enough to let the people figure it out, but not enough that anyone could prove anything? Madness.

[noise]

2. It goes against conventional wisdom

One would expect anyone involved in such a massive criminal plot to be foremost concerned with concealing their involvement. As we have learned quite clearly the past few years, the rules are different for government (and government officials). Look at Whitman. That was criminal negligence yet it wouldn't be nice to send her to jail. After all she was just doing her job. Look at the Justice Department arguing that the CIA can use methods banned by international law (and US law for that matter).

Long time JFK assassination researcher Vince Salandria:

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfonzi.htm">Link

[Bolo Boffin]

3. It's not just conventional wisdom it goes against.

You are looking into the God of Job's whirlwind, and giving God the faces of schmucks like Bush and Cheney.

[noise]

4. I'm looking at sophisticated propaganda

The goal isn't to conform to a socially acceptable standard. That is the sort of mentality that leads to acceptance of torture and a police state. After all, our "leaders" act in good faith. Right?

Letter to a Patriot by Wolf

Shock Doctrine by Klein

1984 by Orwell

Brave New World by Huxley

All I'm doing is applying their ideas to 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Sometimes a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack.

Really, Bush and Cheney don't have to be hyperevil to be very bad men.

[victordrazen]

6. You think they are only "very bad"?

Without 9-11, they are hyper evil

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Only in "victordrazen" land is calling Bush and Cheney "very bad men" defending them.

:eyes:

[CJCRANE]

9. Interesting excerpt.

We take it as fact that mercenaries are hired to carry out coups in third world countries that have desireable resources (Margaret Thatcher's son was implicated in one a couple of years ago).

But very few realise that the most desireable resource is the USA itself - the richest and most powerful country in the world. It stands to reason that the richest, most powerful and most ruthless men in the world would do everything they can to grasp that prize.

[CJCRANE]

8. IMO it's transparent

to more people due to the internet.

Only on the internet can I read newspapers from all over the world, court transcripts, Pentagon reports, leaked documents, books, govt memos etc (often all in one day. Pre-internet I would perhaps read one newspaper a week and watch a 5 minute news bulletin).

Only about about 5% of this information makes it onto the TV news. That's what the PNAC crew rely on. They were Cold War dinosaurs who never anticipated the rise of the blogosphere. Even then there are very few people who have the time and motivation to look into deep politics...and I agree that is because deep-down most people are frightened of finding out what their leaders are capable of.

[noise]

10. It's possible

but another theory is that they (think tank plotters) were very aware of the Internet's potential. One example would be the use of disinformation. None of this stuff takes place in a vacuum. Disinformation is mixed with agenda driven political views and then all this Internet information is mixed in with establishment media views. One outcome is discussed on this board...ie...the idea that the "9/11 truthers" have special knowledge to which only they are privy due to their "perceptive genius" (quotes indicating extreme sarcasm). If there is any merit to the transparent conspiracy then I would guess very intelligent psychological experts were involved.

Some examples:

Passports of hijackers that survived the fireballs. Atta's suitcase that he wanted on the plane but somehow didn't get loaded because he took a bizarre last minute flight from Portland.

Trails:

Saudi Arabia: Bandar's wife giving cashier checks to an intermediary which were used to support al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Cashier checks? Bandar doesn't have cash? The blatant flights out of the US shortly after the attacks. The Saudis could have stayed and answered questions. Bush could have made sure they were questioned by an insider. Since the public was never going to see the transcripts the Saudis could have claimed anything but at least they wouldn't have appeared so guilty.

Pakistan: Mahmoud's $100,000 transfer. Admittedly, not everyone agrees the sourcing is legitimate. Combined with Mahmoud's visit the week of 9/11 it makes Mahmoud look very guilty. Another story along these lines was the alleged bribing of the 9/11 Commission by Pakistan. Bizarre story.

Israel: The art students and the moving van workers.

Sibel Edmonds has suggested Turkey was involved by way of the ATA/Turkish deep state links.

Robert Baer and Philip Shenon have indicated that Iran was involved.

Bush administration officials pushed the Iraqi links.

I have no way of knowing for sure if something was intended as part of a psychological operation or if it was merely operational sloppiness.