Conspiracy Theories

You can suspect 9/11 was an inside job and on the other hand you can consider SH to lack sufficient evidence and be a quote unquote conspiracy theory. You seem to be lumping theories together. Not even alternative theory is plausible and the term conspiracy theory is misleading
I agree Baccarat. You can't lump all alleged conspiracies together -- that's too facile. For me, 9/11 might have its share of intentionally implausible alternative theories, and obnoxious internet sites do abound, but the fact of the matter is that there's just so much that doesn't add up with respect to the official narrative (e.g., as I stated above re: the 767 pilots) that once you take the time to pull it all apart you just can't put the toothpaste back in the tube again. One good David Ray Griffin or Webster Tarpley book about it and you aren't likely to be able to see things the same again. However, IMO, "smaller" scale potential false flag/terrorist incidents/lone gunman events are probably much easier to cover up and muddy the waters with stupid/contradictory alternative theories to get people off the trail of the truth. It works beautifully, as I too find little "value" in going too deeply into the SH saga or other questionable events.

Silence, I don't blame you for wanting to remain a "sheep" as you call yourself. It's probably a lot better for your mental health. But I don't think you can dismiss conspiracy "theories" simply because of your assumption that someone would have come forward. For one thing, whistleblowers have come forward with respect to a number of questionable official narratives -- including 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing -- but they are often marginalized or silenced in some way. And in my opinion, those who want to believe the official narrative will dismiss them easily as not credible, as going against the weight of the evidence, etc. even if they HAD a smoking gun. (incidentally, I don't think a smoking gun is necessary in most cases. Instead, you just have pile upon pile of unlikely coincidences and improbabilities until finally the official story collapses of its own unsupportable weight).

In addition, sometimes it takes a long time for the truth to out. As we all know now, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete fabrication. But how long did it take for that to get out to the general consciousness - and how many people would have believed a "conspiracy theorist" speaking that truth at the time it supposedly happened? Not many, since we rabidly and collectively believed "our boys" had been attacked and we were then conditioned for blood retaliation. What about other operations that went against the average citizen but weren't revealed until much later, like Operation Gladio or Operation Mockingbird? As we now know, these are not conspiracy "theories" anymore.

But I am curious about your participation in a Conspiracy Theory thread then if you see no value in researching conspiracy theories? Is it that you are open to them but have not yet found convincing enough evidence? Or are you just trying to convince those of us who do believe in (some of) them that we are wasting our time? I genuinely mean no disrespect in calling you out here (nor do I want you to leave) -- I'm just curious about what you are getting here of value, because most of my friends/ family who reject 9/11 Truth and have no interest in looking into/discussing it wouldn't be caught dead here.
 
You can suspect 9/11 was an inside job and on the other hand you can consider SH to lack sufficient evidence and be a quote unquote conspiracy theory. You seem to be lumping theories together
Agreed. I admit I am lumping all of them together which is not an approach I like to take.

That said my thought process still holds for 9/11. The monumental scale of complicit actors seems incredibly improbable. Again, I am not saying its impossible just, seemingly, highly improbable. So, you scan a few conspiracy sites and see what seems to be compelling points. Google refutations of such conspiracies and find equally compelling points. Of course, often discussing highly technical things that the vast majority of us have a passing knowledge of if any. Since I do not have the inclination, resources, access and likely the talent necessary to evaluate the evidence myself I'm faced with a choice:

Believe the expert opinion of the conspiracy theorist or the expert opinion of their critics. I'll go with Occam's Razor there: the simplest explanation. (Hint: That ain't the conspiracy theory.)

Not even alternative theory is plausible and the term conspiracy theory is misleading
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.
 
But I am curious about your participation in a Conspiracy Theory thread then if you see no value in researching conspiracy theories? Is it that you are open to them but have not yet found convincing enough evidence? Or are you just trying to convince those of us who do believe in (some of) them that we are wasting our time? I genuinely mean no disrespect in calling you out here (nor do I want you to leave) -- I'm just curious about what you are getting here of value, because most of my friends/ family who reject 9/11 Truth and have no interest in looking into/discussing it wouldn't be caught dead here.
Hell of a good question.

The answer is pretty simple. I came here seeking to interact with people interested in consciousness studies, perspectives beyond materialism, God, etc. To my surprise, while much of what I was seeking to discuss is indeed here, its also home to folks who seem very "pro" conspiracy theory. So, I've waded in to play the for the "other team" so to speak to see where it leads. :)
 
Thank you for the response, Silence - and for not becoming offended by the direct question. Unfortunately, I think a fruitful discussion between those who tend to "believe" in certain conspiracies and those who don't is rather limited unless both sides have delved into the relevant research at the same level. "We" will keep pushing you to do some "real" research (e.g., read some of the better books on the subject) before you close your mind/dismiss everything as implausible, and I assume you'll keep asserting that you've seen/researched enough already or that there are just certain (psychological) hurdles (i.e, the belief that something of this magnitude couldn't have been pulled off) that won't allow your mind to jump over to the "other team." It's an endless loop that won't get us very far, I'm afraid.

I realize that sounds so arrogant on my part, my assumption that I've done more research on this than you have, and that those of us who understand 9/11 as a false flag op have already walked across the paradigm-changing abyss while you haven't, but I do generally think that's the feeling/assumption of most people who have reached the other side on this issue. Our minds have been changed -- we've gone through a growth in consciousness, for better or for worse, because of this. We know where we came from and what we were before. We weren't stupid, uneducated, or particularly gullible. We were just open-minded enough to follow the research and the evidence where it led us, and many of us were surprised, shocked, and saddened that others we loved weren't also willing to just take the journey.

I realize that the response to this seeming arrogance on my part generally is: "You just don't like that I just don't agree with you...." And that might be true if we were operating from the same level of research. Honestly, if you HAD read Webster Tarpley's Synthetic Terror or David Ray Griffin's various books on 9/11 and still believed the official narrative I would really want to understand how/why/what parts made you reject it all/etc. I would be OPEN to that conversation. I would WANT to have that detailed, thoughtful opposing view. Hell, if someone could get me back to believing the official narrative through reason and logic and step by step debunking of every anomaly in that Corbett video, I'd probably be very grateful, cause sometimes it kind of stinks to be where I am right now.

But unfortunately, I've found that these conversations between proponents of the official narrative and proponents of the "conspiracy theory" can't get that far, and usually it's because the official story proponent, no matter how brilliant he/she otherwise is, just refuses to do the real in-depth research. That's been my experience so far in real life with people I love/respect, and seems to be where I am with you here right now. If you see no value in delving deeper, how can you play for the "other team" (the official story team? The non-conspiracist team?) in any meaningful way beyond just stating "Sorry. Nope. I just don't believe it."? Where does that lead us?

I also have to say, speaking only for myself, that 9/11 Truth cracked open my head to be open and interested in consciousness studies, perspectives beyond materialism, and inquiry into the possible nature of God/Source too. Understanding what I didn't know about the Deep State made me realize how little I knew about other things too, including how this world actually works and who the "players" are and whether there is more beyond the material world. I actually don't think I'm alone on this. So maybe that's why there ARE a number of conspiracy threads on a site like this? I can see just by skimming the shows that Alex has done over the years that he seems to see a connection between these two areas of interest as well....
 
The monumental scale of complicit actors seems incredibly improbable. Again, I am not saying its impossible just, seemingly, highly improbable.
You've got to eat an elephant one bite at a time. WAGing the probability of something you're not at all familiar with is not the best way to go... it's the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

You don't have to know how it was accomplished to know how it wasn't accomplished. To identify lies and errors and physical impossibilities and fantastic implausibilities in the official story is easy. A money trail implicating Saudi Arabia has been identified. A motive is easy to see. There have been whistleblowers. But to reconstruct exactly how the thing was actually accomplished is very difficult and no one knows exactly (because we never really had an investigation beyond torturing some confessions out of KSM).


I'm faced with a choice:

Believe the expert opinion of the conspiracy theorist or the expert opinion of their critics. I'll go with Occam's Razor there: the simplest explanation. (Hint: That ain't the conspiracy theory.)
Or you could hold off with the blade and remain skeptical (in the truest sense of the word which means to lightly hold on to conclusions with an open hand). With very little effort you can learn that elements of the official story cannot be true, and then from there simply say, "I don't know... more info needed to make a decision."
 
Interesting dialogue.

The bottom line on these conspiracy theories for me at least is: Who knows?
The bottom line for me is:
"And how does that make you feel?"*
There's always a pay-off, a reward, for following a particular line. That, more than anything to do with what is factually correct or incorrect is the guiding light.

We follow our dreams.

*Spoken in the dull monotone of a psychiatrist addressing a patient during a therapy session.
 
Last edited:
Happy to have a respectful discussion and I realize there isn't much progress to be made on reconciliation of viewpoints here.

A question to the community: Why do you have conviction in one account over the other? I make a few presumptions in asking this question: I presume you are not a technical expert in the investigative arena (e.g., large scale building construction/engineering/etc in the case of 9/11). I presume you have not done any direct research based on actual evidence of the events; interviews of event participants/witnesses, etc. Generally, it seems, folks are relying on third party authoritarian figures as "research".* Both sides generally offer explanations of events that are often technical. How do you decide to choose the conspiracist's account?

* - Let's take one of the authors you referenced; Webster Tarpley. He has no scientific background nor engineering background as far as I can tell. No forensics nor investigative training. He's opined on several violent world events asserting they are false flags. Without looking into it I would ask how in depth his research is in each case. He also recently agreed to settle a libel suit brought against him by Melania Trump after he asserted she had been a "high end escort". This supposedly included a public apology and a "substantial sum".

Yes, I realize I am running down the road of character assassination. He may very well have done a perfectly scientific job with his book on 9/11. That said the Melania Trump event is a serious red flag for me when it comes to Mr. Tarpley. He's quoted as an outspoken critic of Trump as follows: "Trump, as has been widely noted, does not care about facts or accuracy. He has total contempt for facts and for reality in general, and many of his followers share in this attitude." (Source: http://tarpley.net/trumps-art-of-fa...but-never-attack-wall-street-federal-reserve/)

Yet he asserts Melania Trump was a high end escort on that very same blog only to retract the comment, make a public apology, and supposedly make a "substantial payment" when challenged?

Then there's stuff like this? http://tarpley.net/2007/07/21/cheney-determined-to-strike-in-us-with-wmd-this-summer/

Sorry, while I have no trust of institutions, especially large ones such as governments/corporations, I don't have any sense of trust in this gentleman either. They all reek of agendas of one form or another.

Well, that went on quite a bit further than I'd intended. :)

Again, I appreciate the dialogue and I would state for the record I am not asserting the events of 9/11 (or SH for that matter) went exactly to the official narrative. They both may very well have been uber-scale conspiracies. All I am stating is that I do not find the conspiracy theories (and many of their authority figures) to be compelling enough to breach a "plausibility" threshold for me.
 
So you discount the work of the firefighters there we said they heard explosions? And the countless scientists and engineers who said it's nearly impossible for the way the buildings collapsed, and architects?
 
A question to the community: Why do you have conviction in one account over the other? I make a few presumptions in asking this question: I presume you are not a technical expert in the investigative arena (e.g., large scale building construction/engineering/etc in the case of 9/11). I presume you have not done any direct research based on actual evidence of the events; interviews of event participants/witnesses, etc. Generally, it seems, folks are relying on third party authoritarian figures as "research".* Both sides generally offer explanations of events that are often technical. How do you decide to choose the conspiracist's account?
A question that intrigues me: does an interest in paranormal phenomena tend to accompany or foster a conspiratorial worldview? If so, Is it possible to get outside of that box and ask ourselves why?

Great blog here that nibbles at the edges of these questions.
 
A question that intrigues me: does an interest in paranormal phenomena tend to accompany or foster a conspiratorial worldview? If so, Is it possible to get outside of that box and ask ourselves why?

Great blog here that nibbles at the edges of these questions.
I think the word conspiracy is confusing you
 
So you discount the work of the firefighters there we said they heard explosions? And the countless scientists and engineers who said it's nearly impossible for the way the buildings collapsed, and architects?
Not necessarily. More directly I don't feel qualified to sift through such testimonials to deem their collective veracity and support for the alternative account of 9/11.
 
This video while not on the topic of 9/11 reminds me of doing my own research and coming to my own conclusions. One Scientist says this diet is the best, another say this, all have evidence for their diets....yet it doesn't work on all

 
Why do you have conviction in one account over the other?
The official account of 9/11 relies almost exclusively on appeals to authority and presumptions about what did or did not happen. It is not evidence based.

I make a few presumptions in asking this question: I presume you are not a technical expert in the investigative arena (e.g., large scale building construction/engineering/etc in the case of 9/11).
I'm a liscensed professional engineer (mechanical) and although I don't design buildings, I do regularly design structures utilizing structural steel.

I presume you have not done any direct research based on actual evidence of the events; interviews of event participants/witnesses, etc.
There are hundreds of hours (maybe thousands) of videos and images and recordings of primary sources available online. What you won't find online are any videos of KSM's testimony which was extracted by the CIA using torture. Not even congress was allowed to see that. The CIA supplied intelligence reports to congress and that was what the 9/11 commission relied on. Fox guarding the henhouse?

There are also many peer reviewed journal articles with transparent research available for independent verification and analysis.

Generally, it seems, folks are relying on third party authoritarian figures as "research".* Both sides generally offer explanations of events that are often technical. How do you decide to choose the conspiracist's account?
You have to get a little technical and independently verify.

Webster Tarpley. ...He also recently agreed to settle a libel suit brought against him by Melania Trump after he asserted she had been a "high end escort".
Ah... so that's why he's no longer a regular guest on Alex Jones's show... lol

What I've heard from Tarpley, he seems bright and a good researcher. Not everyone is right about everything though. I don't trust anyone blindly. I have to see how and why they came to the conclusions they did. It's like they say for investing: if you don't understand how it works, then don't invest in it.

Ketchum is a great example of an intelligent professional - actually worked at NIST for decades - who was in a silo working on his own interesting life's work and gave no thought to 9/11 or NIST's investigation of it. But once he actually looked into many years later he was completely changed by what he found. How many other highly capable technical professionals like him are out there? I'd wager quite a few.


All I am stating is that I do not find the conspiracy theories (and many of their authority figures) to be compelling enough to breach a "plausibility" threshold for me.
But your "plausibility threshold" is based on what you think you already know. Every "alternative history" I've ever looked into and changed my mind about initially seemed highly implausible. They were all beyond my threshold, so I had to suspend some beliefs and overcome the scoff reflex and wade into the muck, and the payoff was gold.
 
But your "plausibility threshold" is based on what you think you already know. Every "alternative history" I've ever looked into and changed my mind about initially seemed highly implausible. They were all beyond my threshold, so I had to suspend some beliefs and overcome the scoff reflex and wade into the muck, and the payoff was gold.
I'm glad that's worked out for you and perhaps you're right and I'm wrong. Its interesting to me that both you and Arya seem to indicate some level of illumination or higher insight has been gained through your conclusions regarding some of these conspiracies.

Its interesting in part because what if you're wrong? I won't try to debate you point for point on 9/11, but what if you're wrong. What if there wasn't any conspiracy at all and the terrorist-crashing-planes story was the cause? Or, are you asserting to me, that its your stance there is a scientific level of "proof" that's been established to support the conspiratorial angle? It doesn't seem that any of these conspiratorial accounts have risen to that level of "proof" if you will, so how is such a high value placed on these theories? (i.e., "payoff was gold", Arya said something similar: "growth in consciousness", etc.)

We went round and round on SH Hurm. I took a fair amount of time to sift through many links you provided and to do additional research. I left that exercise both disappointed in the "science/evidence" aspects and even more so in the ethical (or more directly unethical) actions of some of the conspiratorial actors.

It seems the bottom line here is that there isn't any way to move some folks from the official narrative to the alternative and vice versa. I get that. That said, I do allow for the possibility that the alternative version could be true. Is the reverse true for you and others I wonder?
 
Its interesting to me that both you and Arya seem to indicate some level of illumination or higher insight has been gained through your conclusions regarding some of these conspiracies.
The illumination or insight did not automatically result from a better understanding of what happened on 9/11, but this opened the door to a broad range of topics and areas of research I had no idea existed beforehand. It also provided an understanding of false flag operations and wars for profit and empire. It provided a pattern to go back and look at other historical events and see the same pattern. Before my "real" education began, looking at world events was like trying to put a puzzle together upside down (with no picture); afterwards it was like putting the puzzle together with the picture side up and the box to look at. We can go back from the current war in Syria back to the Spanish-American war and see the same pattern repeating:

We could go back further... Spanish-American War? Same. exact. pattern. of affairs over a hundred years ago.

Begins with a bang up false flag:
"The United States Navy battleship Maine was mysteriously sunk in Havana harbor;

The anti-war president is goaded into war:
"...political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid."

U.S. backs the rebels:
"Revolts had been occurring for some years in Cuba against Spanish rule. The U.S. later backed these revolts upon entering the Spanish–American War."

Mainstream Media arouses popular support:
"In the late 1890s, U.S. public opinion was agitated by anti-Spanish propaganda led by newspaper publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst which used yellow journalism to call for war." "You furnish the pictures; I'll furnish the war." -Hearst

The popular intelligent empathetic cynics rage... Mark Twain:
"We have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit's work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world."

The leaders exhibit schizophrenic justifications simultaneously admitting the war was about resources and empire while hypocritically claiming a humanitarian need to stop the devastation and destruction... Theodore Roosevelt:
"Our own direct interests were great, because of the Cuban tobacco and sugar, and especially because of Cuba's relation to the projected Isthmian [Panama] Canal. But even greater were our interests from the standpoint of humanity. ... It was our duty, even more from the standpoint of National honor than from the standpoint of National interest, to stop the devastation and destruction. Because of these considerations I favored war."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War
We don't have to know exactly how 9/11 was accomplished to see how it fits into a much larger pattern of historical events. And we don't have to know exactly how 9/11 was accomplished to learn how the CIA was involved in all sorts of now declassified nefarious operations to overthrow governments and control minds. We don't have to fully understand how it was accomplished to understand how the monetary system and international finance has created debt slaves with an obscenely massive gap between rich and poor.

Are you asserting to me, that its your stance there is a scientific level of "proof" that's been established to support the conspiratorial angle?
Yes. Proof of building demolitions, proof of a coverup and wrongdoing by several government agencies, proof that the investigations that did take place contained unjustified assumptions and were of inadequate scope to illuminate the truth about what happened. We have a reasonable suspicion of several known individuals. No ironclad proof about specific individuals involved because there has never been an investigation that considered any option other than that the hijackers and KSM and OBL were entirely responsible - we need these individuals under suspicion put on trial to establish ironclad proof of their involvement or otherwise exonerate them. We also have motives. We have a well established historical pattern and declassified documents to reveal modus operandi.

It doesn't seem that any of these conspiratorial accounts have risen to that level of "proof" if you will, so how is such a high value placed on these theories? (i.e., "payoff was gold", Arya said something similar: "growth in consciousness", etc.)
As I said above, the actual event of 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more under the surface.

We went round and round on SH Hurm. I took a fair amount of time to sift through many links you provided and to do additional research. I left that exercise both disappointed in the "science/evidence" aspects and even more so in the ethical (or more directly unethical) actions of some of the conspiratorial actors.
Sorry you were underwhelmed... SH is not my strong suit. :) I never really researched it with the intent to master the info enough to debate it, only to satisfy my own curiosity. As I recall we went round and round about whether Wolfgang Halbig was truly an "expert". There's a lot less primary source evidence to go on with SH as compared to 9/11, so I wouldn't put that in the same league of certainty as 9/11. There are so many abnormalities about SH and it fits so perfectly with the gun control agenda, that it is far more plausible to me that it was either completely or partly staged. I could be convinced otherwise if there was evidence and reasonable arguments to explain the abnormalities.

It seems the bottom line here is that there isn't any way to move some folks from the official narrative to the alternative and vice versa. I get that. That said, I do allow for the possibility that the alternative version could be true. Is the reverse true for you and others I wonder?
For SH, sure, but for 9/11 the laws of physics would have to be re-written and so many other holes would have to be filled in, I just don't really see that ever happening.

It will probably just take a new generation with the passing away of the old generation for the truth about 9/11 to become fully mainstream in America. Myths die hard when they have become a central pillar to a culture's worldview.
 
Last edited:
There is an interesting article which I found by surfing one of the best (in my opinion) anarchist websites on the Web, "Attack the System". It describes the strategic study conducted by Pentagon which says that the American Empire is on the verge of collapse (or, at the very least, severe crisis). Among other things, there were these wonderful statements (as summarised by the article):

Bad facts

Among the most dangerous drivers of this risk of civil unrest and mass destabilization, the document asserts, are different categories of fact. Apart from the obvious “fact-free”, defined as information that undermines “objective truth”, the other categories include actual truths that, however, are damaging to America’s global reputation.

“Fact-inconvenient” information consists of the exposure of “details that, by implication, undermine legitimate authority and erode the relationships between governments and the governed” — facts, for instance, that reveal how government policy is corrupt, incompetent or undemocratic.

“Fact-perilous” information refers basically to national security leaks from whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, “exposing highly classified, sensitive, or proprietary information that can be used to accelerate a real loss of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage.”

“Fact-toxic” information pertains to actual truths which, the document complains, are “exposed in the absence of context”, and therefore poison “important political discourse.” Such information is seen as being most potent in triggering outbreaks of civil unrest, because it:

“… fatally weakens foundational security at an international, regional, national, or personal level. Indeed, fact-toxic exposures are those likeliest to trigger viral or contagious insecurity across or within borders and between or among peoples.”
In short, the U.S. Army War College study team believe that the spread of ‘facts’ challenging the legitimacy of American empire is a major driver of its decline: not the actual behavior of the empire which such facts point to.
In short, according to the ruling class strategists, actual facts are only good as long as they support the existing power-structure. If they contradict its foundations, they are "bad facts" which is better to be left unknown to the population.

Such a transparent and inclusive informational policy. :eek:
 
Continuing the enjoy the dialogue. Thanks for the posts Hurm and Vortex.

Hurm, do you believe there are American government/corporate people who actively ordered the deaths of American citizens (i.e., 9/11) to further their political/socioeconomic agenda? (i.e., actual American citizens ordering the deaths of other (otherwise 'innocent') American citizens)

If so, would you mind sharing your best example with the strongest evidence?

Wouldn't that implicate former American Presidents? (Too many questions come to mind. I'll await your thoughts. :) )
 
Hurm, do you believe there are American government/corporate people who actively ordered the deaths of American citizens (i.e., 9/11) to further their political/socioeconomic agenda? (i.e., actual American citizens ordering the deaths of other (otherwise 'innocent') American citizens)
Yes. I think on occasion false flags or "I'm-not-touching-you's" have been ordered that amounted to ordering the deaths of American citizens.

If so, would you mind sharing your best example with the strongest evidence?
Operation Northwoods provides a window to the mindset and probably the only reason the documentation survived is because it never happened. If it were carried out, there would have been a more thorough effort to eliminate any paper trail.

"Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[2] The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Although you asked for Americans, I'll provide another clear example where false flags attacking innocent Iranian civilians were used Operation Ajax:
"On 4 April 1953, the CIA was ordered to undermine the government of Iran over a four-month period, as a precursor to overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.[23] One tactic used to undermine Mosaddegh was to carry out false flag attacks "on mosques and key public figures", to be blamed on Iranian communists loyal to the government.[23]

The CIA project was code-named TP-Ajax, and the tactic of a "directed campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist party",[24]involved the bombing of "at least" one well known Muslim's house by CIA agents posing as Communists.[24] The CIA determined that the tactic of false flag attacks added to the "positive outcome" of Project TPAJAX.[23]

However, as "the C.I.A. burned nearly all of its files on its role in the 1953 coup in Iran", the true extent of the tactic has been difficult for historians to discern.[25]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

According to Award Winning Journalist Seymour Hersch, Dick Cheney wanted to get us into a conflict with Iran and proposed disguising Navy Seals as Iranians and attacking an American ship in the Strait of Hormuz

Wouldn't that implicate former American Presidents? (Too many questions come to mind. I'll await your thoughts. :) )
Absolutely.

It is much less risky to order an "I'm-not-touching-you" than a false flag, and there's tons of examples of that, but I'm snowed under on real (boring) work right now! :)
 
Top