To be fair, in the 1940s there was no twitter, cellphones, and mass communication. That being said, who really knows what goes on these days. The level of disinformation is crazy, we have more access to information than ever before but people seem content to watch cat videos.

In today's environment with twitter, cellphones, and mass communication, how much do you know about the ongoing operations of the CIA? Yeah, that's what I thought.

This a million times. It's always interesting how you see someone completely destroy a post like what you did here with southwestont's, yet he has 205 points and you only have 20.

to be fair we are mearly analysers of the effects, and have to deduce how these things happen, some people can make connections, some will be wrong, some wont make the connection some dont care about the connections.

its people like snowden and micheal hastings that we NEED.

^{or you dont look deep enough}

I figure they are both making very valid points. How much data would someone like Snowden be able to take with him if it were still confined to paper? A box or two? Nowadays, a teeny-tiny thumbdrive can hold what used to require rows of file cabinets.

Regardless, you still need access to that data, which is, you know, the hard part. Doesn't matter if it's paper or electrons, if it's properly locked away, you aren't going to see any of it.

Compartmentalization works as long as you use it, but at some point, you require connections across those compartments.

All good points

People prefer easy, if untrue, answers.

Excellent fucking reply. I would upvote this comment 5 million times if it was possible.

Isn't the problem that some people do?

Ongoing operations, as in everything they do every day as if @therealCIA is listing the itinerary on twitter? Not at all. Do we know more about conspiracies, potential conspiracies, and overall deceptive behavior from our government? Yes.

I don't need a CIA operative to post his mission on Facebook or take a selfie while torturing a soldier to benefit from social media. The fact is, radio, television, and newspapers were the only ways to get current news, and you were limited to the main sources which have always had the influence of the government.

Today, we aren't limited to a few methods of news which are represented by a few major groups with political interests of their own. Sure, we are doomed to drown under a sea of the truth, lies, misdirection, and disinformation, but we've got choices. Beforehand, questioning the reported news was considered such a nutjob move because there were no inklings of truth leaking out. There was no reason to be skeptical when the only sources weren't giving any indication that you should be.

Today, anyone can post a website, write an email, tweet, post on a forum, or deliver a podcast, all available to the masses. There are tons of inklings of truths out there, we just have to wade through the shit to find them. Seventy years ago, there was no shit to wade through, let alone indications that you should even go through the trouble.

Probably a whole lot more than Americans knew about the intelligence community during WW2

We don't know a whole lot, but we do know more than we used to. This is currently trending all over the place. I could find more but I'm lazy. I totally agree with you... I do think we see shades of the truth more and more these days tho.

to be fair, I'm sure people on the Manhattan Project could have found a way to tell someone without twitter and cellphones if they wanted the information to get out. There was the radio for example, movies too.

I agree that with the internet we have access to more information and disinformation as well. It's distinguishing between the two that is difficult.

They could have, but why would they have? There are some solid and reasonable motivations for someone to, say, expose a 9/11 conspiracy or something. It would mean we had a basically malevolent government, and the person would be performing a really heroic act.

It wouldn't even necessarily have to implicate them as the leaker -- they could try to get some solid evidence (any documents, communications, email accounts, proof of travel, really anything whatsoever that would back up anything you guys regularly claim), and send it and their testimony anonymously to University labs, foreign governments, or the media.

In extreme contrast, during the Manhattan project we were at war with foreign powers and had no guarantee of victory. The main beneficiaries of a leak would have been the people we were at war with, Germany and Japan, who (for all they knew at the time) would take that research, turn around, and start nuking US cities. I really can't figure out a reason someone from that project would have leaked something.

Again, this is in extreme contrast to a 9/11 conspirator, who would have lots of perfectly valid reasons to want to expose the conspiracy.

While we‘re comparing 9/11 it wouldnt require 130000 people pull off even the most extravagant conspiracy claim and less than a hundred to turn a blind eye and allow it to happen.

to be fair, Oppenheimer did almost immediately regret building the bomb and became one of the nation's leading ant-nuclear advocates

To be fair, we're all being fair

To be fair, there are some people that aren't being fair.

Richard feynman who was a lead scientist on the project had all communications to his wife monitored (as did everyone there) but had set up a system of secrecy with her and she was one of the few people not directly involved that knew some of what was going on.

It wasn't easy, but was possible.

Radio, movies, etc, these would still require a company to take the responsibility of publishing something. Twitter, facebook, these are self-publishing forms of media, much much simpler and easier to disseminate info this way.

No one seems to have pointed out that the discussion is meaningless.

Is it harder to keep a secret now? Yes, absolutely. That is part of the reason why the vast majority of the world's population regards 9/11 as a state-sponsored terrorist event rather than the actions of a few cavemen.

There are simply not that many folks left that don't realize 9/11 was an inside job. The one and only thing the regime has left at this point is to desperately hang on to the illusion in your mind that some plurality or small majority is against you. But it isn't the case.

There are simply not that many folks left that don't realize 9/11 was an inside job.

You must live in a much different America than I do.

[deleted]

Please go.

You're not worth the minimum wage you make.

[deleted]

we still were globally interconnected through email and aol instant messenger.

also the pure level of technology was significant even if we didnt have good camera phones, tons of people had digital cameras, as evidenced by the massive amount of amateur videos of 9/11 that exist

we still were globally interconnected through email and aol instant messenger.

Not to mention things like bulletin boards and Usenet. Internet forums were definitely alive and strong in 2001. Just because their focus wasn't on "social networking" doesn't mean they were any less useful for spreading up-to-the-minute information (in fact I'd argue they were more useful).

A very small minority, and similar demographic, actually used such tools. In comparison to the larger population as a whole.

I remember conspiracy theories about 9/11 circling online on the very evening it happened. In fact, stuff like this has been discussed in small communities on BBS etc. even before the WWW came along. Online forums and message boards are pretty much as old as the internet (not the WWW) itself.

We didn't have the cheap mass storage we have now.

we had AOL and Yahoo messenger.

Yup, I had MSN Messenger and AIM in 2000. Loads of people were using it even that far back, but even by then ICQ was dying.

So in that regard, the world of 2001 was actually more similar to the world of the 1940s.

Seriously? Just because our cell phones didn't have cameras, and only half of Americans owned one, and instead of Facebook and Twitter people used LiveJournal, ICQ, and AIM, that makes 2001 more similar to 1940 than to today?

Well how is 2014 more similar to the 1940s than 2001 is?

In 2001 you were lucky if you had a cellphone with a camera.

I don't recall any actually existing, and I'm in Europe where mobile phone technology has always been more advanced than the US for some reason.

First time I saw a phone camera was circa. 2002ish, and it was a detachable accessory for a Sony Ericsson T68i. The quality was truly awful as well.

I can't believe people who go on YouTube 9/11 vids and say "people would have captured the plane attacks on their cellphones!". No they wouldn't - back then, 35mm cameras with film, VCRs and analogue camcorders were the norm. We got a digital camcorder in 2001, it was bleeding edge and very expensive.

I think I got my first mobile phone with a camera around 2004. One of the first Nokia's with a camera. It was absolute rubbish quality, nothing more than a gimmick at the time.

Edit: It was this badboy. 0.3 megapixels with 128x128 resolution screen

I had a pda that had a camera that plugged into the PCMCIA slot - and a Motorola flip phone without a camera. I remember bitching that I had to carry both devices to have the tech I wanted in the palm of my hand. Also, pulling out the pda/camera to take a picture of all the students huddled around the TV on 9/11. So yeah, camera phones were pretty much nonexistent and only the most hardcore "geeks" had anything like it. There were bunches of digital cameras though. 1-2 megapixel things, like the powershot series. I had a canon XL2 at the time.

So what's the real story of 911 according to you? I read all kinds of conspiracy theories on the Internet right after 9/11. Some sounded convincing, but I'd later find a more credible source thoroughly debunk them. What has come out recently that I wouldn't have known about?

I don't know.

There is a misconception about "conspiracy theorists" that says they're all paranoid elitist assholes who think they have it all figured out. That they're convinced they know something others don't.

I don't know what happened. All I know is that I am unsatisfied with the official account, and that the stated reasons for how & why 9/11 happened are inadequate. There are dozens and dozens of questionable circumstances, coincidences, and unsatisfactory explanations, and I see nothing wrong with people rejecting the official story and wanting a new investigation. But it doesn't mean any of us have it figured out or claim to know the truth.

I have suspicions and ideas. But I do not claim to know what happened, and I don't believe I ever will. But I will likely forever reject the official account.

I think the most recent thing that has come out that, in my opinion, is the clearest documentation of all of the suspicious occurrences from that day, is Massimo Mazzucco's documentary "A New Pearl Harbor". It's been linked quite a bit around here and maybe you've seen it, but if you haven't I would highly recommend it. I'm not saying it is 100% correct or flawless, but it is well organized and very compelling and packed with sources and information. It may not tell us exactly who was responsible or involved, but I think it makes a very compelling argument that, at the very least, we were lied to about much of the event.

You hit the nail on the head, it's tougher to keep secrets wrapped up. With stuff like cellphones, thumb drives, etc. it's a lot easier to cause spillage with classified material. You can operate on a closed network and still get compromised (like stuxnet).

On the other hand, you don't need to find a place to put 130'000 people. They can be anywhere and not know how many others they really work with.

And at that level of compartmentalization may be oblivious to one's former co-workers being eliminated after the fact. If they caught wind of this, they may spill the beans, but since they wouldn't know that they were being eliminated they would take their secrets to the grave.

That's a large reason the recent leaks are so important. It illustrates their tactics acknowledge the impossibility to keep everything a secret. They increase the noise to the signal, make conspiracy where there is none. Release fake information to mislead people and to only mock, discredit and socially demonize anyone who would pursue the truth.

Basically, they give conspiracists so much bad information and bad publicity, they destroy the general public's trust and interest in the conspiracist or non-official storyline.

is it? NSA?

Sorry I'm not sure what you're implying

They can presumably help stop and nullify said spillages depending how deeply they are monitoring everything?

The NSA, whose entire job is to keep secrets and spying, has their dirty laundry aired on the front pages of the papers for over a year now.

You're obliterating your own supposed point.

I am posing a possible reason is all - calm the fuck down.

They have been operating in secret for decades. They have only been found out in the last year. The internet has been popular since at least 1998. The NSA has done a pretty good job of staying secret, IMO.

They have been operating in secret for decades. They have only been found out in the last year.

You seem to have an incredibly short term memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)

I'm assuming you're on the "yeah but the internet..." side of things. So, you have shown 3 examples of leaks. How well did the internet do in raising general public awareness in the 3 examples?

In the end, it was a reporter who worked at a newspaper that brought public awareness of the NSA.

My memory is fine.

So, you have shown 3 examples of leaks. How well did the internet do in raising general public awareness in the 3 examples?

Are... are you kidding? Led the news for months, congress held hearings, there was a class action lawsuit and Bush had to go to Congress to ask for a grant of immunity to the telcos for participating. Seriously. All three broadcast news outlets, all of the cable companies. Even PBS make three specials about 641A and the warrantless collection.

Oh, wait, I forgot, all those people watching the news are just sheeple who don't know anything, the real informed one is the guy on the internet forum who forgot they existed rofl.

You didn't answer my question. How well did the internet do in raising general public awareness? How in any way, was the internet responsible for the lawsuit against 641A. Klein brought the to the EFF.

Oh, wait, I forgot, all those people watching the news are just sheeple who don't know anything

This right here, this is why no one takes you seriously.

How well did the internet do in raising general public awareness? How in any way, was the internet responsible for the lawsuit against 641A. Klein brought the to the EFF.

Where did I argue it did? That was a strawman of my argument YOU set up.

Oh, wait, I forgot, all those people watching the news are just sheeple who don't know anything

This right here, this is why no one takes you seriously.

The lack of self awareness is SCRUMPTIOUS <3

The pentagon has a program called operation sock puppet that subverts social media. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

Thanks for the link man!

I agree, we do have different tools of communications now, and we have a lot more ability to get stuff on the internet. To get people to care or read it is a different matter.

We have Manning, we have Snowden, and others who have come forward and shared things.

There have been other whistleblowers before them.

That said I firmly believe that a lot of still kept secret.

I don't think the primary driver for spilling your guts is the availability of Twitter/Facebook/Cellphone. I think its a detractor. I am sure that sounds crazy. If you write on your facebook profile, on twitter, on your cellphone about what is going on, then chances are the NSA knows and you are out of a job, out of the industry, and quite possibly in jail.

Perhaps Snowden proves me wrong. I think he collected lots of documents and then ran away before posting, but I could be 100% wrong on that. But even if I am wrong, I still think its close to suicidal to go "Yeah I work on this super duper secret black government projects and we are doing this really cool thing now with... .. ... .... .... .. ...// Boy did you guys catch that ball game last night. So good. "

I dont know if the NSA can "stop" or "remove" posts on social media. I would prefer to think that they can not. I know they can on the regular web.

I think NSA and the public's general apathy can diffuse a lot of controversy and scandal. They don't have to remove posts. Look at Julian stuck in the Ecuador embassy on trumped up charges. They called him a rapist and then there was some outrage on facebook and twitter about Manning's material... which got everyone aware in minutes and then...... well we talked about it then stopped. There is footage of soldiers mowing down journalist and we just stop talking about it. No crazy cabal, just some people calling names and then the public moving on to twitchplayspokemon... Which come on is way more fun than watching war crimes and having an honest discussion with yourself and your neighbors about what you all know to be true. TL;DR NSA doesn't have to remove content, apathy will

probably all true :(

[deleted]

Yeah, misleading "serious" videos can be a lot more harmful than the frivolous ones. At least no one believes they've learned some kind of esoteric knowledge after watching a cat chase a laser pointer.

One of the things no one is really talking about here is that with the Manhattan project MOST people involved didn't know what they were actually doing beyond large scale industrial war effort. The number that truly understood would have been in the sub 5000 people number. Just with 9/11 there are many people involved in things but they didn't have to now what they were doing or why to have accomplished what was needed.

These people now may suspect their Involvement in it but don't want their part in it know.

And the work on the project was extremely compartmentalized and that atomic bombs were extremely theoretical at the time. Only the brass and scientists in charge of the project knew what they were doing. The people in Handford or Oak Ridge knew they were producing something for the war effort but didn't know of the bomb.

I mean, they had telephones, mail, face to face interaction with tons of people. It would be hard to just link the files to a website and let everyone see it, but someone in the know could have just gone to the AP newswire and if they could provide evidence/were a high ranking official, they probably would have been able to get the story published worldwide.

If anything they might have had an easier time disseminating the info because they aren't facing a load of bullshit competition from nutbags posting shit on twitter.

In 1940 someone might have said 'of course a vast conspiracy would get exposed now. Sure back in the day, without radio and telephones, a conspiracy could get covered up, but now, in modern 1940, we have the means to expose it!'

Exposure can be meaningless if people just dismiss what is exposed as nonsense conspiracy theory.

Try posting a video with General Albert Stubblebine to see what I mean.

Its not like they can manipulate the media or the information today....oh wait....

That and Stalin did find out. It is not known who, but he delayed invading Japan because he had someone in Alamogordo, NM, USA.

I remember reading someones comment once.

Fun story: Many years ago, this guy shows up in a yahoo chat room, and goes "hey guys, I can get anybody's IP, you just have to visit http://www.nsa.gov/cgi-bin/phf and I'll give you your own IP." So we did, and he made good on his claim.

Apparently, the nsa (/NIST) had some honeypot cgi scripts for the sole purpose of collecting data on script kiddies trying to exploit vulnerabilities that shipped in ancient versions of apache. And that guy was being paid to get bored out of his mind staring at screens scrolling filtered logs of suspicious traffic targeting the site.

I haven't checked recently. Maybe it's still there. If it is, make sure to load the script 3 times to make sure your attempts get flagged in real time to someone. I don't know if they see your user-agent, but if they do, it might be a good place to say hi.

Everything is relative. In 100 years people are going to be saying the same thing about us now. The reality is that it remained a secret.

I totally agree with you. However I do think the levels of transparency and openness are much higher compared to that of 1940s. general petraeus couldn't keep secret that he was having an affair. Wikileaks has shown us so much. The issue now I think is all the shills spouting misinformation and the sheer amount of information to digest to figure out what is going on.

Yea but the Clinton blowie and Gen. Petraeus comes off as more of a distraction than evidence they cant hide a giant conspiracy. If youre a married man and put your dick in crazy, and crazy gets jealous, crazy will make sure everybody knows your dick went in crazy.

Totally, that is why I am saying everything is relative. We have access to more information, but now that information is tainted.

[deleted]

Compare this to fucking 9/11 conspiracy theories

What does compartmentalization have to do with you buying the official narrative of 9/11?

That's a rhetorical question. Keep carrying on and muddying the waters.

[deleted]

i dont buy the looney-tunes explanation put forward by people who demonstrate they understand fuck all about physics.

Could you be more vague in insulting anyone that questions the official story?

[deleted]

who demonstrate they understand fuck all about physics

Why did you feel the need to leave out the rest of the quote? Was it to avoid your confirmation bias?

[deleted]

i think that a lot of people have a lot of stupid ideas on 911

i dont buy the looney-tunes explanation put forward by people who demonstrate they understand fuck all about physics.

Im not insulting anyone who questions the official story.

Your bias is showing.

[deleted]

My previous post answers your question.

[deleted]

I have never heard of a theory of 9/11 involving lizard people..

http://letsrollforums.com/wtc-victims-may-have-t22985.html?s=22d88c292bd511d9361d0460964a5dc5&amp;amp;

[deleted]

Nope, Just a whooooole lotta questioning.

My issue was that you are generalizing r/conspiracy with a bunch of kookoo youtube videos.

We may hold hands when we get lonely...But that does not mean we go to the dance together.

[deleted]

Hey!

Your point is showing.

[deleted]

I still believe in a thing like compartmentalization.

Personal experience, A friend spent his entire life prepping himself for the air force, ROTC program and everything...All of a sudden he's at home sitting on a pile of money, and no job...He never told anybody as to why, accept for a tid bit that he saw transformers....Take that for what anyone can...But, It is very possible for today's government to keep things from the public. Not as easy, But plausible.

edit: This was back in 2009, Right before the rollout of drone programs on US soil..My guess is that he probably saw them servicing one in a hangar.

[deleted]

When you have modern governments like china and korea, you can see compartmentalization on a mass level.

Its just that we live in a free society, so our normalcy bias is a little different.

No case of mental illness, no injuries, and was honorably discharged. If he had done anything to get kicked out, It would have been a dishonorable.

Darpa works out of the University of Texas..Does every student studying their technology know what its development is for? no, That is a form of compartmentalization.

I see you are stuck on the 9/11 thing because of the post, But i'm way past that.

Another good example of compartmentalization is the Navy seal team assassinating obamaBin laden...How many people in the intelligence agency new about that operation? Something that is very rare, Black Ops or not, People within the circles still hear about things...To me, that is a form of compartmentalization.

Project Manhattan in my opinion shows the fruits of the tree. If something wants to be hidden, Governments find ways. So the idea is not a logical leap.

Like the 9/11 drills occurring at the same time, The stand down called by dick Cheney, all of those events somewhat contain compartmentalization.

edit, Holy shit did not mean to type that.

[deleted]

Welcome back to "Skeptics meet Skeptics"

lol. I agree with everything your saying. Just two philosophical differences.

And you have to remember, Snowden was a lucky dude. He was stationed on a military base with outdated infrastructure in hawaii.

I posted a documentary about the psychology of control, And it covers the underwear bomber incident with Kurt Haskell. If that name does not wring any bells...ITs because our media outlets did not talk about the underwear bomber calling a lawyer on the plane as a key witness to the events.

i think that a lot of people have a lot of stupid ideas on 911

i dont buy the looney-tunes explanation put forward by people who demonstrate they understand fuck all about physics.

Im not insulting anyone who questions the official story.

How many times will you repeat your lie?

[deleted]

Im not insulting ANYONE who questions the official story, just the subset of people who try to put forward their own poorly thought out 'theory'.

So you've described yourself as a debunker about 5 times now. We get it. Have fun with that.

Until you or NIST releases their computer input simulation data for WTC7's collapse initiation sequence, you have no footing regarding anyone who questions the official story because the official story doesn't show proof of their official conspiracy theory (that fire alone brings down WTC7).

[deleted]

The burden of proof is on those who make a claim.

So we are in agreement that NIST should release their computer simulation data of WTC7's collapse initiation sequence.

Cheers!

[deleted]

NIST won't prove their conspiracy theory. It would jeopardize public safety according to NIST.

If the government can't prove their narrative then the government offered you a conspiracy theory that you bought without the proper proof.

[deleted]

it still doesnt lend any credibility to any competing 'theories'.

If NIST can't prove their conspiracy theory, it most certainly lends credibility to the only possible explanation that ISN'T a fire-induced collapse.

[deleted]

All that slander just because I told you NIST couldn't prove their conspiracy theory. The truth really seems to rub you the wrong way!

Rule 10 - Posts that attack the sub, users or mods will be removed. Accusing another of being a troll or shill is considered an attack. Repeat offenders are subject to a ban.

The NSA collects enough information, to easily blackmail ANYBODY into submission. Everyone has a weakness; money, family, etc. If certain people want to keep you quiet, it's easier now, than ever before.

It really boggles my mind how people can take the NSA leaks, which contain tons of information about a wide range of activities the NSA actually engages in, and then just assume that those activities being real makes it ok to just assert that the NSA is just doing whatever nefarious activity they can imagine.

Snowden scrubbed the NSA databases and stole millions of pages of documents. He then gave those pages to journalists who have been reviewing them for several months. Those documents have thus far revealed the existence of several heretofore secret programs. But they have not revealed the existence of anything like the blackmail program you imagine. In fact, they haven't revealed anything that support the claims of any of the major conspiracy theories from the last ten years (9-11, sandy hook, chem trails, HAARP, etc.).

Now, maybe the documents supporting those theories have yet to be revealed, or maybe Snowden was unable to steal them. But, if anything, it seems to me that Snowden's leaks (especially when viewed along side Manning's, which likewise did not reveal anything supporting those major conspiracy theories) strongly undercut the likelihood of those conspiracy theories being true.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence.

Evidence would be NIST's hidden computer simulation data for their WTC7 collapse theory.

NIST chose to deny an FOIA request for this data by claiming "public jeopardy" if released to the American people.

We've been through this before. Only a portion of the data was withheld and that data would not be necessary for someone to make their own simulation model and assess whether or not the NIST report's conclusions were reasonable. You thus still have not articulated a reason why that data would be necessary to evaluate the NIST reports conclusions.

that data would not be necessary for someone to make their own simulation model

In order to replicate NIST's model we need NIST's input data. I'm not trying to build my own model. I'm trying to verify NIST's model. Why are you against me? It's only some harmless computer simulation input data that would jeopardize the public's safety...

But you do not need to replicate their model in order to verify whether its conclusions are plausible. Do we really need to go through this again?

you do not need to replicate their model in order to verify whether its conclusions are plausible.

NIST's conclusions are based on missing computer simulation data.

But you do not need that data to verify whether those conclusions are reasonable. All you need is to substitute a reasonable range of potential values for the missing data. It's a very simple exercise that anyone with the expertise to understand the simulation model could carry out. If no reasonable values allow the model to reproduce the NIST report's collapse scenario, then you can invalidate the conclusions of that report.

This is actually how most academic work has been done for the past 100 years. While having that missing data would be helpful to evaluating the NIST report, it is not at all necessary. Your fixation on that data is thus very strange to me. I really think you are missing the big picture. You should just be focusing on whether or not he NIST report's conclusions are valid under reasonable assumptions. The report has been out for around 6 years now, and yet there is zero peer reviewed work that finds their model unreasonable. Conspiracy theorists are constantly telling me about how many "experts" they have on their side, but I cannot understand why none of those so-called experts are able to do the work necessary to cast serious doubt on NIST's model. Though they would not need NIST's exact calculations to do so, they have access to the vast majority of those calculations, as well as the detailed assumptions and data from the report itself. In the absence of even a good faith effort to produce an alternative model, why should I take their criticisms seriously in the shadow of the extensively reviewed report by 200+ undisputed academic heavy weights (including governmental and nongovernmental engineers) that has been cited by countless other actual structural engineers around the world?

you do not need that data to verify whether those conclusions are reasonable.

Broken record syndrome huh?

You should just be focusing on whether or not he NIST report's conclusions are valid under reasonable assumptions.

NIST's conclusions are based on hidden computer simulation models.

It isn't surprising you would like me to stop asking for the data. It shows NIST doesn't have scientific proof of their conclusions. It also shows you believe unfounded conclusions based on assumptions. That's not science.

You can ask for the data all you want. But it makes no sense to pretend like the reports conclusions are invalid unless you have it.

And, by the way, if you want that data, then you need to FOIA request it and appeal NISTs determination to withhold. You claim NISTs determination was incorrect, yet there is no record it was ever appealed. Once again, conspiracy theorists fail to put their money where their mouth is.

And speaking of putting one's money where one's mouth is, don't you think it is odd that the insurers for the wtc complex buildings, companies that ultimately had to pay out billions after years of prolonged litigation in federal courts, didn't see fit to even raise the argument that the buildings were destroyed by something other that the structural damage from the airlines, collapses of other buildings, and/or fire? Some of the wealthiest companies in the world represented by the best lawyers and they didn't use their access to experts or discovery to chase your rabbit down its hole, even though it would have saved them billions if your rabbit actually existed. Do you know why? It's because your theory is entirely baseless. Or maybe you think insurance companies like giving away record rewards to people who openly violate their insurance contracts.

it makes no sense to pretend like the reports conclusions are invalid unless you have it.

The NIST conclusion is based on hidden computer simulation data. The FOIA request was initiated and denied because the release of computer simulation data "jeopardizes public safety."

You must be a robot because I already told you this earlier. Here, I'll repost because you are ignoring my points repeatedly, by design.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence. Evidence would be NIST's hidden computer simulation data for their WTC7 collapse theory. NIST chose to deny an FOIA request for this data by claiming "public jeopardy" if released to the American people.

I'd rather be a broken record that is playing a correct recording than one that is endlessly repeating nonsense. Again, the data is not necessary for verifying the conclusions of the report. A structural engineer could verify those conclusions independently with their own model. You are fixated on the data because you know that you have (1) no comparable support for your own ridiculous theory (a theory rejected by those who stood to lose billions of dollars by rejecting it), and (2) no countervailing data that even challenges the assertions of the NIST report, let alone refutes them.

So keep beating the drum: the NIST report must be invalid because none of the so-called engineers who parade about stealing money from talks for conspiracy theorists have managed to do actual academic work to challenge its conclusions. Its sad that that makes sense to you. I suppose you also doubt the existance of the Higgs Boson because you cannot verify all the supercollider data?

the data is not necessary for verifying the conclusions of the report.

How can one verify what is not verifiable?

I've explained this to you at least three or four times now.

To verify the conclusions you do the following:

(1) build an alternative model;

(2) test that alternative model for a reasonable range of possible parameters and scenarios;

(3) determine whether any reasonable combination of parameters and scenarios allow for a collapse scenario that is substantially similar to the one outlined in the NIST report (if the model does allow for a substantially similar scenario, you can largely verify the report, and--depending on the particularity of your results, perhaps even completely verify it); and,

(4) if no reasonable combination of parameters and scenarios do so allow, then use the data generated by your model to develop an alternative hypothesis for what accounted for the collapse.

Again, this is something any group of academic structural engineers should be able to do without much difficulty. It's how most academic work dealing with extremely complicated empirical questions is carried out.

So why can't this be done in this situation? What is stopping the so-called experts who believe the NIST report is incorrect from doing the basic work they would be expected to do in criticizing any other such report?

1) build an alternative model

NIST built a model which can't be tested by anyone. NIST chose to hide behind a law instead of showing their work.

Why would they be afraid to let their scientific model see the light of day? It's the same reason you keep telling me I don't need NIST's model to test NIST's conclusion; it is a fraudulent conclusion.

Without verifiable evidence NIST's word doesn't mean anything.

I know your response will be about my capabilities and not NIST's.

Why don't you answer my question? I answered yours dead on.

As to withholding the data, neither you or I have enough information to determine whether NIST was correct in withholding that data. The proper place to determine that would be federal court. Those who filed the FOIA request with NIST had a statutory right to challenge NIST's determination on that withholding data (which, again, was only a fraction of the total data). Why didn't they exercise their right to appeal? I can't say and neither can you. But they didn't. That, however, would not stop you or any engineer who buys into your beliefs from requesting the same data and then appealing NIST's determination.

But, again, you have no counter for the reality that the data is not needed to verify NIST's conclusions. And you have no explanation for why you believe in an alternative hypothesis for which there is exactly zero academic evidence. Your fixation on the data is just a way of avoiding the truth: NIST's conclusions, were they invalid, could easily be countered by a competent structural engineer with an alternative model. You lack such a model, so you scream to high heavens about the data you don't actually need.

Why didn't they exercise their right to appeal?

What part of "jeopardizing the public" didn't you understand from NIST's words on the denial of the FOIA request?

the data is not needed to verify NIST's conclusions.

How do you know this? You can't verify what you can't see.

Do you know how FOIA requests work? The stated reason for denial has no bearing on whether a requestor has a right to appeal the denial.

And, for the 10th time, you do not need the data to independently verify the conclusions. You can verify or disprove the conclusions with an alternative model that considers all reasonable assumptions and scenarios. You think you need the data, but that's only because you have no alternative model. What you don't seem to realize, sadly, is that you have no alternative model because no serious academic structural engineer actually finds the NIST report's conclusions so questionable as to test them in that way. The only engineers who make such claims, unsurprisingly, are those who make money by touring about and talking to conspiracy theorist groups. And those individuals have a strong monetary interest in not building an alternative model, because they know such a model would either (1) corroborate the NIST report's conclusions, or (2) fail to meet the standards for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Those conspiracy theorist-fleecing engineers are much happier making fantastical claims while taking superficial pot shots at the NIST report because that's how they drive youtube traffic and get invited to speak.

you do not need the data to independently verify the conclusions.

How would you verify NIST's conclusions without the data NIST used to reach it's conclusion?

Are you actually reading my posts? If you can independently produce those conclusions, then you can verify them. If their model is an accurate description of what happened, then a trained structural engineer should have no trouble reproducing it with reasonable assumptions as to any data he cannot glean from either NIST's report or their subsequently released data. If he cannot arrive at a substantially similar conclusion as to the collapse sequence given all reasonable parameters and scenarios, then he has a basis to challenge the NIST report's conclusions. He does not need NIST's data or exact calculations to see whether he can independently arrive at NIST's conclusions.

you do not need the data to independently verify the conclusions.

How would *you* verify NIST's conclusions without the data NIST used to reach it's conclusion?

Edit:

He does not need NIST's data or exact calculations to see whether he can independently arrive at NIST's conclusions.

That's not the point. He needs NIST's data to test NIST's conclusions.

You seem to be missing the bigger point on purpose.

The bigger point being NIST can't back up it's conclusion with NIST's science because NIST hid their computer simulation data of a "fire induced" collapse initiation.

Stop making this about me. It's about accountability for NIST's unproven conclusions.

I wouldn't have the technical ability to verify the conclusions even if I had the data. Would you?

Stop making this about me. It's about accountability for NIST's unproven conclusions.

?

?

If you don't have the skills to verify the data, you have to rely upon a structural engineer's assessment of that data, anyhow. But if you are relying on the work of a structural engineers, you don't need to data because a structural engineer would be able to verify NIST's conclusions without NISTs data, as I've explained like ten times now.

Also, I should note that its very odd to respond by quoting your own arbitrary rule against personalizing the issue in response to my answer to your own personalized inquiry.

a structural engineer would be able to verify NIST's conclusions without NISTs data

How does one verify NIST's science without the science NIST used?

Edit: NIST's computer input data 'variables' are hidden so NO ONE can replicate this experiment except for the good fraud 'dr' shyam sunder and co.

One can verify the conclusions by reaching substantially similar conclusions with an independent, alternative model that relies on reasonable assumptions . Similarly, one can reject the conclusions if they are unable to reach substantially similar conclusions with an independent, alternative model that relies on reasonable assumptions.

What part of that do you not understand at this point?

How does one verify NIST's science without the science NIST used?

stop ignoring the question

ah, now the semantic games come out. you cannot give any good reason why NIST's conclusion cannot be tested. you know those conclusions are testable.

is it fun to ignore reality?

you cannot give any good reason why NIST's conclusion cannot be tested.

NIST hid their science. That's a good reason. You've bought a lie without any proof to back it up.

Edit: you're the last one to be lecturing on semantics, as you always insist on making me accountable for NIST's failed computer simulation data.

an independent, alternative model that uses reasonable assumptions could and would test all aspects of the NIST report's science. their exact science is not even important by itself (though there are plenty of details about their method in the 2000+ pages published with the NIST report and the hundreds of input data spreadsheets they released with the FOIA request); the important thing is the conclusions. and, by testing those conclusions, you are testing the entirety of the science of the report. that seems to be the jump you cannot understand. perhaps its because you've never done serious graduate-level research work or something, but this type of independent analysis, far from being a rare thing, is the standard in academia. if you want to know whether their model could reasonably explain the events that day, you have everything you need already. just keep ignoring the forest for the trees, though.

it all comes down to the fact that you do not have an alternative model because there is no serious work done in support of the conspiracy theorist version of events (despite, again, the fact that insurance companies lost billions by not having it done). again, your fixation on data that you yourself cannot even use or analyze is just a shield for your ego: you've bought into the monological psychology of the conspiracy theory, but you now recognize that there is zero academic support for your theory, so you contrive to invent a technical problem with the NIST report where none truly exists. by doing so, what you really want to say is that the NIST report is no more legitimate than the garbage turned out by the so-called experts conspiracy theorists like to give their money to. but the only way for that to make is to ignore the fact that there really is no technical problem. those so-called experts you rely on (despite the fact that they have no actual alternative model of what happened, not even roughly sketched out) would not need to rely on the data from the NIST report to do actual academic work that tests it.

in any case, we've gone through this enough now. you either are too dense to get it or just don't want to get it. you choose the unsubstantiated garbage spun out by self-interested individuals over an exhaustive report put together by a coalition of over 200 prominent structural engineers from academia, the private sector, and the government.

you've been demonstrably wrong about both the FOIA process and the testability of NIST's conclusions but that doesn't affect your views.

an independent, alternative model that uses reasonable assumptions could and would test all aspects of the NIST report's science.

How can you verify what isn't verifiable?

the conclusions are verifiable. as are the vast majority of the assumptions, stated explicitly as they are in the report and the released input data. you do not need to verify the exact parameters to validate or invalidate the report. that's what running a range of reasonable assumptions does.

the conclusions are verifiable.

Not without NIST's hidden computer input variables. Or are you the fraud dr. shyam?

Why do you need the data to verify the conclusions? Why exactly can't you verify them with an independent model?

Why do you need the data to verify the conclusions?

You bought NIST's conclusions without seeing their scientific data. That's called faith, not science.

can't answer the question?

If NIST can't show their science then NIST is a faith-based organization.

Edit:

How can you verify what isn't verifiable?

Don't pretend you've truthfully answered my questions. Or is this going to evolve into a gotcha game?

There is not a single human on this earth (minus the scientific frauds at NIST) that can replicate NIST's findings because NIST chose to hide their findings.

Edit 2: I answered the question. I need the data to verify that NIST's faith-based explanation of WTC7's collapse.

no, you didn't answer the question. the question was why can't an alternative model independently confirm or invalidate NIST's conclusions re the collapse sequence?

Because NIST didn't release their computer simulation conclusion data, which is the basis for their conclusions.

If NIST can't have their work independently validated, then NIST's work is not verifiable.

An independent model doesn't need the calculations to conclude whether those conclusions are reasonable or not. Why are there NO independent collapse models that support an alternative hypothesis?

I see you are ignoring my statement to talk about 'an independent model.'

You repeatedly ignore requests for NIST's data by switching the goal posts.

An independent model doesn't need the NIST model's calculations to conclude whether that model's conclusions are reasonable or not. Why are there NO independent collapse models that support an alternative hypothesis?

I'm not ignoring your statement. I've been talking about an independent model for like a week now, buddy.

An independent model doesn't need the NIST model's calculations to conclude whether that model's conclusions are reasonable or not.

The problem is you've been ignoring the fact that NIST can't prove their own model's computer simulation data as valid. Why did you take NIST's word as faith instead of looking at the crucial missing science that supposedly shows the first fire induced steel framed collapse.

NIST doesn't get to ignore Newton's 3rd Law and you can't keep deflecting by changing the goal posts.

Good luck.

You cannot answer the question, can you?

NIST doesn't get to ignore Newton's 3rd Law and you can't keep deflecting by changing the goal posts.

Show me an indepenent analysis that demonstrates NIST is ignoring "newton's 3rd law." Oh, that's right: there are no such analyses. Which brings me back to the question you cannot answer: Why are there NO independent collapse models that support an alternative hypothesis?

Before you back NIST's conspiracy theory, NIST or you must first supply a complete scientific study of NIST's conspiracy theory. You chose to believe NIST's conspiracy theory, which at this point is a faith-based theory.

For me to replicate NIST's data, I must first obtain NIST's data.

Keep moving the goal post to 'an independent study' again. It is your only deflection technique.

NIST provided more than enough data for you to verify their work with an independent analyses. You just want to have it both ways: you claim you cannot validate the work without the data (data which you almost certainly wouldn't understand and couldn't use yourself), and yet you want free license to make ridiculous, unfounded statements about NIST's work, as if you had already done the work to invalidate it. But neither you nor anyone else has, which odd considering you are conceding that NIST did provide enough information for their conclusions to be invalidated. Again, your whole fixation on the missing technical data is just a thin cloak for your lack of actual analyses that invalidate NIST's conclusions.

So the choice is between:

(1) finding persuasive the extremely detailed and well-documented work done by over 200 preeminent structural engineers over a 5 year period--a work that clearly states its major assumptions and conclusions and presents and rejects several alternative hypotheses

AND

(2) rejecting that comprehensive and exhaustively documented work in favor of theories for which ZERO rigorous academic work has been done by even a single structural engineer

I choose the former as the most sensible position. You choose the latter.

And you still haven't answered my question: why are there no independent analyses that support an alternative hypothesis?

NIST provided more than enough data for you to verify their work

NIST hid their computer simulation data, so, I stopped reading at the point where you denied NIST's hiding their computer simulation data. You obviously don't want people to think NIST is a faith-based institution. How's that working out for you?

You've relied on NIST's faith instead of science.

And yet you claim NIST's conclusions are obviously wrong, which means you think they provided enough data for those conclusions to be falsified. Disingenuous much?

Still haven't answered the question: why are there no independent analyses that support an alternative hypothesis?

And yet you claim NIST's conclusions are obviously wrong

You claim NIST's conclusions are right without the crucial proof NIST hid.

Still haven't answered the question: why are there no independent analyses that support an alternative hypothesis?

When you or NIST can provide the FIRST full scientific account we can talk. Until NIST releases their computer simulation data that NIST hid from the public, NIST hasn't released a full analysis yet.

Let me know when NIST or yourself feels confident enough to show the hidden data. What, you mean you don't have NIST's hidden data either? That would mean you are using faith instead of science as your proof.

Disingenuous indeed.

are you really unable to figure out what NIST's main conclusions and assumptions are from reading the report? if their conclusion is wrong, why do you think you need the technical ANSYS data to falsify their report? (do you even realize that the data you are asking for is inputs to a model that took 8 months of computing time on super computers to generate calculations and would be entirely incomprehensible and useless to someone like yourself?)

Are you now saying that the NIST report doesn't "ignore newton's third law"?

i guess we can make progress towards being sensible, after all.

(do you even realize that the data you are asking for is inputs to a model that took 8 months of computing time on super computers to generate calculations and would be entirely incomprehensible and useless to someone like yourself?)

How many times have you asked me specifically to do the work NIST chose to hide? How many times have you demanded the proof from NIST, vs. the amount of time you've parroted a baseless claim, that fire induced collapse from common office fires can bring down WTC7 at nearly-free fall speed for around 2.5 seconds...

If that were the case, why doesn't NIST release the data if it's useless to 'common folk' like myself?

You are making up excuses for NIST yet again.

Edit-words

I'm not asking you to do the work. I'm asking structural engineers who espouse different theories to do the work. This has been done with WTC 1 & 2, for example (see http://www.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/~isobe/187.pdf, in which an alternative model concludes that the WTC towers would have fallen even without the fire). You've fallen into the logic trap of claiming you can invalidate the NIST report without actually having any proof that you can do so, which means you are holding alternative hypotheses to an entirely different standard than you hold the NIST report.

The NIST report was reviewed and certified by over 200 preeminent structural engineers from varied fields (academia, private sector, government), all of whom had an independent say on its methodology and whether or not they would certify the final report's contents. That level of input, expertise, and consensus is almost unprecedented, which is why the report is not seriously challenged by any academic structural engineer: it's entire drafting process was far more rigorous and thorough than that of even typical peer reviewed work. That you don't grasp this is just because you obviously are not familiar with academic scientific reports (as you made patently clear with that little "newton's third law" snark)

Thus, as with any peer reviewed work, the NIST report's conclusion stands until challenged and invalidated by an alternative hypothesis. Which brings me back to the question you have been thrashing to avoid answering for three days now: why are there no independent analyses that support an alternative hypothesis?

As for WTC 7, it had major fires across many floors for several hours, a broken sprinkler system, and no fire fighters working to stop the blaze. (It was also damaged heavily by the spire and other parts of the north tower, which is what triggered the fires, but that structural damage did not play a major role in the collapse initiation, at least according to NIST.) The fatal flaw of WTC 7 was an unusual column configuration that allowed it to straddle a con ed power substation over which it had been built. NIST published over 2000 pages on the subject of exactly how the particular pattern of fires led to a failure of those columns, so I'll defer to them on the details, but, suffice to say, the fires eventually did enough damage to the floor trusses (as they did in WTC 1 and 2) to disallocate crucial support columns and trigger a systematic failure across floors 8-16, which lead to total collapse.

You've used how many lies here?

A. Con ed isn't an issue according to NIST (although you say it is)

B. Damage from twin towers isn't an issue according to NIST (although you say it is)

C. NIST's 2000 pages on the subject, yet you point to the hidden computer simulation data as proof, without NIST's proof (you are making a claim based on faith, not science)

You'll go to this length to lie for NIST. Your word doesn't mean anything because you are lying.

I explicitly say damage from the towers was not an issue. Checked your reading comprehension at the door, did you?

And NIST concludes the special structures over the con ed substation were not at fault. But you obviously don't understand the NIST report if you think the con ed substation did not play a role in the design of the column and truss layout beyond the special structures. The long truss (40), which met column 79 (the point of failure and collapse initiation), was elongated due to the way the building straddled the substation.

I seriously doubt you've even read the report as published at this point (or, if you did read it, you read it with the same level of reading comphrension that allowed you to think "that structural damage did not play a major role in the collapse initiation" means that damage from the twin towers was an issue according to NIST). Yeesh.

EDIT: and after days of demonstrating you were wrong in the other thread, why don't we just keep the conversation there? http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1yw2y8/if_they_claim_the_conspiracy_was_too_big_to_keep/cft8s7n

The question is still waiting to be skirted by you once again.

C. NIST's 2000 pages on the subject, yet you point to the hidden computer simulation data as proof, without NIST's proof (you are making a claim based on faith, not science)

I would ignore that damning claim you are peddling as science too, because we both know it's faith, not science.

And yet the NIST reports are far more scientific than any alternative theory. And they even provide enough information that they can be challenged by structural engines with alternative hypotheses, as I have already pointed out and you subsequently ignored and tried to change the subject (see http://www.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/~isobe/187.pdf, in which an alternative model concludes that the WTC towers would have fallen even without the fire). You've fallen into the logic trap of claiming you can invalidate the NIST report without actually having any proof that you can do so, which means you are holding alternative hypotheses to an entirely different standard than you hold the NIST report.

The NIST report was reviewed and certified by over 200 preeminent structural engineers from varied fields (academia, private sector, government), all of whom had an independent say on its methodology and whether or not they would certify the final report's contents. That level of input, expertise, and consensus is almost unprecedented, which is why the report is not seriously challenged by any academic structural engineer: it's entire drafting process was far more rigorous and thorough than that of even typical peer reviewed work. That you don't grasp this is just because you obviously are not familiar with academic scientific reports (as you made patently clear with that little "newton's third law" snark)

Thus, as with any peer reviewed work, the NIST report's conclusion stands until challenged and invalidated by an alternative hypothesis. Which brings me back to the question you have been thrashing to avoid answering for three days now: why are there no independent analyses that support an alternative hypothesis?

the NIST reports are far more scientific than any alternative theory.

A $16 million NIST investigation with hidden science is scientific?

I know you love to mix up NIST's faith-based assessment with alternative models, but that's not an excuse for NIST's missing science.

Lol, now you are reduced to one line nonresponses. I think we are done here. Enjoy believing in garbage theories for which there is no scientific support.

Enjoy believing in NIST's garbage theories for which there is no scientific support.

FTFY ;)

*Except for the work of 200 of the world's most preeminent structural engineers and 2000+ pages of documentation that clearly sets forth their major assumptions and conclusions

Except for the work of 200 of the world's most preeminent structural engineers and 2000+ pages of documentation

NIST hid the work that shows WTC7's collapse initiation. You'd think with credentials like that (plus a $16,000,000 tax-payer funded budget) NIST would feel confident in their findings. Yet NIST hid their computer simulation data.

Bring out some more big numbers that have nothing to do with NIST's missing science. It makes your case all that more laughable.

Edit-words

*"missing science" that (1) neither you nor 99.99999999% of people on the planet could use or understand and (2) is not needed by anyone to test NIST's main hypotheses and conclusions.

which returns us to the question you cannot answer:

Why are there ZERO independent analyses that challenge NIST's main conclusions or assumptions and support an alternative hypothesis for the collapse scenario?

It's not NIST's fault your are too dense to read its clearly stated conclusions and assumptions and figure out that they are eminently testable by an independent model. Better go back to studying "newton's third law" in your middle school science class.

Does the straw man (independent analysis) or ad hominem attacks help or hurt your cause?

I see you still can't provide NIST's computer simulation data.

Did you finally realize that since you can't provide NIST's computer simulation data you and NIST have no science to back your conspiracy theory up?

three days and you still can't answer the question. now it's a strawman? do you even know what that means? that would mean that i introduced it as a false statement of your argument, genius.

but its not a statement of your argument; it's a statement of fact that completely undercuts your argument: you cannot rebut the fact that there is more than enough explicit information in the NIST reports for them to be tested independently and falsified or validated. if that were not the case, then your line of thinking would be something more than a hollow disguise for your true position (as you demonstrated with your comical newton's third law comment, you actually believe that the NIST report is invalid, not that it cannot be invalidated as you disingenuously state over and over), but it is exactly the case. NIST presented a testable hypothesis that was reviewed and endorsed by over 200 structural engineers. that is as scientific as it gets.

which is why you still cannot answer the question: Why are there ZERO independent analyses that challenge NIST's main conclusions or assumptions and support an alternative hypothesis for the collapse scenario?

But let's just see how long you can make an ass of yourself by not answering and hiding your head in the sand.

Did you finally realize that since you can't provide NIST's computer simulation data you and NIST have no science to back your conspiracy theory up?

Now you're ignoring my statements...

I don't need their computer simulation data. I don't have an ANSYS license and I don't have a supercomputer cluster, and I don't have the know-how to analyze the data even if I did. You don't have any of that software, equipment, or knowledge either. So it turns out that we both ultimately have to rely on experts to do the hard work for us.

Well, guess what, the experts don't need that data either. As I've pointed out over and over, expert structural engineers have all of the info they need to independently assess NIST's work. Thus the fact that there have been ZERO alternative hypotheses offered leaves NIST's as the most persuasive.

All the NIST model is doing is describing an event. Either that event happened the way NIST described or it didn't. If it didn't, you don't need to know why or how NIST reached their conclusions to say NIST is wrong; all you need to show is that there is a better explanation.

For example, I say that my computer simulation has calculated that the weight of one atom of oxygen is 1 kg. Do you need my computer simulation data to show I'm wrong? Really?

All the NIST model is doing is describing an event.

Then NIST shouldn't say that releasing the computer simulation data would 'jeopardize public safety.'

But since you don't know what the data says, you are trusting NIST blindly. That is faith-based opinion, not scientific analysis.

Why are you blindly trusting NIST?

I'm not blindly trusting NIST. They provided over 2000 pages of documentation in support of their conclusion. They also had it certified by hundreds of actual engineers. In the absence of an alternative hypothesis, that is more than sufficient to be considered scientific consensus. It far exceeds the level of consensus and disclosure related to nearly any other theory published in a peer reviewed journal. (Not that I think you've ever even opened a peer reviewed scientific journal in your life.)

So where is the alternative hypothesis? You been hiding it somewhere?

And, lol, are you really contending that the NIST report is doing anything more than describing and actual event? Do you not think that WTC 7 collapsed now?

The only thing "faith-based" in this entire conversation was your ridiculous contention that NIST "ignored Newton's third law." I still chuckle every time I type that. Care to provide your evidence? I'm guessing you have it hidden away with your alternative hypothesis?

BTW, do you need my data re my oxygen atom simulation or not?

I'm not blindly trusting NIST. They provided over 2000 pages of documentation in support of their conclusion.

NIST hid the crucial computer simulation data. 2000 pages don't mean anything without the computer simulation data.

I'm sure you know that. Which is why you keep trying to change the goal posts.

So it's your position that it is impossible to know whether the NIST conclusions are valid or invalid without the fraction of the simulation data that it withheld?

It's your position to demand people without NIST's data replicate NIST's data.

It's your position to demand independent analysis of NIST's variables without NIST's input data.

It's your position to demand an already documented FOIA request for the input data for the collapse simulation data on WTC7, which was denied because it would 'jeopardize public safety.' That's according to NIST's director.

It's your position to ignore NIST's hiding of the crucial data that you yourself point to as proof that NIST is right.

It's your position to deny, deny, deny. You aren't here to discuss the lack of NIST's scientific proof for the office fire induced steel framed collapse.

Edit-typo

why won't you answer? deflect, deflect, deflect. it's almost as if you know your argument is based on complete bullshit.

let's try again: So it's your position that it is impossible to know whether the NIST conclusions are valid or invalid without the fraction of the simulation data that it withheld?

You aren't here to discuss the lack of NIST's scientific proof for the office fire induced steel framed collapse.

If you think being the aggressor is helping, think again.

why can't you answer the question? why are you afraid of stating what you truly believe?

is your position that it is impossible to know whether the NIST conclusions are valid or invalid without the fraction of the simulation data that it withheld?

Why is your position that NIST's conclusions are valid without the MOST IMPORTANT fraction of the simulation data that it withheld, which holds the key to NIST's unproven conspiracy theory?

Because the that data is not necessary to validate or invalidate the NIST report's conclusions. Or do you disagree and think you need that data that data to validate or invalidate the the NIST report's conclusions? No need to be so coy. Just go ahead and affirmatively state a position that makes no sense. It's your position whether you say it or not.

that data is not necessary to validate or invalidate the NIST report's conclusions.

Of course the collapse sequence computer simulation data is necessary to validate the collapse sequence. You are continually lying.

Lol, ok.

Difference being that in the 40s, if you saw something, all you could do is tell people or, if you're lucky, show them a pic (highly unlikely.)

It's exponentially easier to spread info in the modern age.

You have an excellent point but the times, they are a changin'.

Also remember that today's population is so much more technologically minded and scientifically literate (not to mention not drafted en mass into the military/government/industries that directly serve the war effor). There weren't many people who could understand the Manhattan Project at the time, most of whom were working on the project (or other countries' equivalent projects), hell most of the people involved with the project couldn't understand it (because most of them were welders, machinists, etc). So getting information about the project and spreading it to the masses would have accomplished almost nothing because it would have sounded like sci-fi nonsense. But the growth of scientific literacy and the demilitarization of our citizenry, followed by an increase in active distrust of the government/military/corporations all contribute to a national climate where (imo) it is unlikely that there will ever be an equivalent conspiracy involving anywhere close to that number of knowing participants.

It's exponentially easier to spread info in the modern age.

In one sense, yes.

In another, no it isn't. Why? Because now there is so much "noise" and such a large volume of "trivia" that getting anything through all of it and actually into people's brains is much, much more difficult.

And even if you succeed, it will likely be dismissed, or quickly forgotten...

Oh, look... shiney thing!

Now what were we talking about?

Personally I cannot wait for the level of communication Twitter 3.0 and FaceBookNext are going to bring us. I'm sure they will all laugh at our puny communication methods in 100 years!

Also, keep reminding them that the military works with different levels of clearances and a "need to know" basis. Meaning that you could be given a task and have no idea what it's related to.

Most people are fairly specialized and perform one or two types of tasks. If you were asked to perform your standard duty you wouldn't question it, and you wouldn't be allowed to question it. You just do your part and don't get to see the big picture.

Then there's the simple fact that you are facing serious legal issues if you do give up any of the information. There are currently over 850,000 contract workers with top secret clearences, why do you not think information is leaked every day? Because people like being free citizens and not being put in military prison.

Compartmentalization is the most employed tool of the master hand. Everything works this way and it assures plausible deniability all the way down the chain, unless errors are made and left unchecked. The "too many secrets to keep" fallacy is just a generalization that doesn't hold up, unless one thinks that all people are heroes in waiting as opposed to people just doing their job and not trying to get fired.

The problem with this is that the Manhattan Project wasn't a secret. The Russians knew all about it regardless of how much compartmentalization we had set up. It's also a project that was completed in war time to defeat an enemy, not an attack against our own people. There's a big difference between a military operation kept secret from our people for a few years (not a conspiracy) and some of the large scale conspiracy theories that many people back

Hence why Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA. Everyone assumed bad things were going on, but a lot of things were just not said or kept quiet.

Heck, NSA spying on everyone was regularly referenced in popular media and was still a 'secret' until recently.

That's only evidence that everyone except the American people are aware of NSA spying. Pretty much every government knows.

it assures plausible deniability all the way down the chain

That is not why we have compartmentalization. It's the whole "need to know" thing to minimize the number of people who have knowledge about x, y, or z. Although as pointed out, "minimize" is kind of a misnomer based on how many people have clearances.

Meaning that you could be given a task and have no idea what it's related to.

My father was a specialized machinist some years ago in Canada. He suspects he made parts that later wound up on the Canadarm but can never be certain - he was just given specifications and an absurd error tolerance.

Even civilians aren't wholly immune to that.

http://youtu.be/9jtU9BbReQk?t=31s

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

In one of Richard Feynman's books "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" from what I remember, he knew exactly what they were making.

Also, he talks about how he would crack one of the Military leaders safe with top secret documents inside.

Of course HE did, he was a physicist working at the highest level of the project. In that same book he talks about how most people there had no specific idea what they were doing beyond important large industry war projects.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The watertight security of the Manhattan Project is an urban legend, and it was certainly not a "complete secret":

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-project-leaks/

It is factual and correct to state that the Manhattan projects actual purpose (developing nuclear weaponry) was indeed kept a secret from not only the general populace, but many of those involved in the project, from the projects start up until the bomb was dropped.

One the bomb was dropped, everybody involved in its' construction pretty much figured out what they had been contributing to.

That would certainly seem more reasonable. So, by parallel, you could plan something like 9/11 in secret, but once the towers came down, everybody involved would presumably also "pretty much figure out what they had been contributing to." But here we are, 12 years later, and no-one credible has claimed involvement in any aspect. That'd be like America keeping its involvement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki secret through 1957.

Sibel Edmonds blew the whistle about 9/11, but keep pretending like she doesn't exist, because its easier to say nobody blew the whistle than to contemplate what she actually said

http://reddit.com/search?q=Sibel+Edmonds http://twitter.com/SibelEdmonds

I dont understand what im looking for on here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

Sibel Deniz Edmonds is a former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Edmonds gained public attention following her firing from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002. She had accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleged serious security breaches and cover-ups and that intelligence had been deliberately suppressed, endangering national security. Her later claims gained her awards and fame as a whistleblower.

In March 2012, she published a memoir, titled Classified Woman – The Sibel Edmonds Story.

Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, but her testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report.

its hard to point to an quintessential piece of content to encapsulate Sibel Edmonds, because she is such a prolific content producer on so many topics.

She has spoken at length about Operation Gladio, which is a huge story all by itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

one remarkable thing Sibel Edmonds did was to find a work-around for her gag-order. she simply put the pictures of 20 people she calls "deep state rogues" on her blog and let the users fill in the blanks...

http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/sibel-names-names-in-pictures.html

this idea of using pictures of peoples faces was adapted and used in operation 6 degrees, operation 4 colors, and operation 64 squares, which are ongoing

so THIS http://friendfeed.com/search?q=op6d+OR+op4c+OR+op64s+OR+0p6d+OR+0p4c+OR+0p64s+OR+op6degrees+OR+op4colors+OR+op64squares

becomes THIS https://www.google.com/search?site=&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=hp&amp;biw=1791&amp;bih=987&amp;q=http%3A%2F%2Ffriendfeed.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dop6d%2BOR%2Bop4c%2BOR%2Bop64s%2BOR%2B0p6d%2BOR%2B0p4c%2BOR%2B0p64s%2BOR%2Bop6degrees%2BOR%2Bop4colors%2BOR%2Bop64squares&amp;oq=http%3A%2F%2Ffriendfeed.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dop6d%2BOR%2Bop4c%2BOR%2Bop64s%2BOR%2B0p6d%2BOR%2B0p4c%2BOR%2B0p64s%2BOR%2Bop6degrees%2BOR%2Bop4colors%2BOR%2Bop64squares&amp;gs_l=img.3...877.877.0.981.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1ac.2.36.img..1.0.0._u8vgII5dDU#facrc=_&amp;imgdii=_&amp;imgrc=AWcr2CA8-BnzmM%253A%3BqTi8Gm5hOhNAUM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fm.friendfeed-media.com%252Fb95297277d72fbe81d1167f7521276314398b64d%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ffriendfeed.com%252Fop6dtimgenck%3B308%3B175

Excellent material, but for the lazy;

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pTBJmWVXhA

5:50 She also lists & mentions the dozens of high-level whisteblowers besides her coming forward who were ignored because of "National security" & "Classified" subjects, & the gag order.

its hard to point to an quintessential piece of content to encapsulate Sibel Edmonds, because she is such a prolific content producer on so many topics.

What I think sucks is that some people, for certain topics, & at times myself included, are too lazy to actually take the time & go over the colossal evidence & material she provides to actually see how deep the events & conspiracies of 911 run, what they knew, what they covered up, etc.

I'm also... not a very intelligent person admittedly, & then there are the people that come out & prey on people like me for that reason, & this often ends up discouraging (at least myself) from even voicing my opinion or attempting to state my point with sources & confidence, it causes a "What the fuck ever, I don't care" negative type reaction, this needs to change.

The one thing I try to remember is this;

• There is no such thing as stupidity, only hard work.

I can't seem to remember whom I got that quote from though.

Government Allowed 9/11 | Interview with Sibel Edmonds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pTBJmWVXhA

now, according to the 9/11 truth trolls playbook, the trolls who previously pretended that sibel edmonds didn't exist will come out of the woodwork to attack her character or sanity.

I'm also... not a very intelligent person admittedly, & then there are the people that come out & prey on people like me for that reason, & this often ends up discouraging (at least myself) from even voicing my opinion or attempting to state my point with sources & confidence, it causes a "What the fuck ever, I don't care" negative type reaction, this needs to change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)

Others blamed the radio audience for its credulity. Noting that any intelligent listener would have realized the broadcast was fictional, the Chicago Tribune opined that "it would be more tactful to say that some members of the radio audience are a trifle retarded mentally, and that many a program is prepared for their consumption."

Government Allowed 9/11 | Interview with Sibel Edmonds?

Yeeeah kind of a confusing title, I think they mean it as "Government allowed it to happen" - An interview with Sibel Edmonds, I just blame the uploader for poor labeling, the devil is in the details as they say.

now, according to the 9/11 truth trolls playbook, the trolls who previously pretended that sibel edmonds didn't exist will come out of the woodwork to attack her character or sanity.

I've actually seen people do this already, & not just with her.

Others blamed the radio audience for its credulity. Noting that any intelligent listener would have realized the broadcast was fictional

Hmm, yes, in this context, I suddenly* feel not so unintelligent.

and that many a program is prepared for their consumption.

Indeed Chicago Tribune, well said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger

Fascinating, this problem goes waay back, I'll have to use this phrase when I see this occurrence in the future, thank you sir.

You're summarized perfectly the problem with this comparison.

Not even comparable though, so no, not by parallel, you are presenting a false parallel.

The people involved in the Atomic Bomb project had absolutely no idea what they were contributing to, they were just working on pieces to a compartmentalized puzzle in which they could not gain enough pieces to link together to form an accurate idea of what the puzzle is.

I'm pretty fucking sure whoever planted the Thermite charges in WTC7 and the Twin Towers knew exactly what they were doing, and were paid handsomely to do so and to keep quite about it.

It's like you all pretend that there aren't reprehensibly evil people in this world that are willing to commit mass murder for money.

Marvin P Bush was a head of the company Securacom when it had contracts with the WTC complex, Dulles Airport, and United Airlines during the times of the attack.

It's not hard to see how 9/11 could have been kept a secret when all of the prime locations of the attack were covered by a security company operated by a relative to the at the time President.

TL;DR - The reason people involved in the manhattan project have come forward afterwards is because it is legal for them to do so, and they were not engaged in illegal activities, the manhattan project was 100% government approved.

9/11 is not a government approved project, however, so it's easy to understand why nobody has come forward, because those involved explicitly committed illegal acts, so illegal that it is only logical to assume that not only have they been paid off financially so as to keep the secret, but also are put under threat of death should they choose to reveal sensitive information that could indict a person.

Like, you do understand how evil and corruption and greed work yes?

whoever planted the Thermite charges in WTC7 and the Twin Towers

You aren't serious? How the fuck would that happen without the people who work there finding out?

Please answer me a single question. Just calculate how many miles of cable would be required to detonate a destruction of the WTC buildings, and then tell me where all those miles of cable were hidden, and how they were brought to the buildings in the first place, and then into the buildings, and then to the required floors and rooms and fixed onto the structural members of the buildings' skeleton, and how many man hours were involved. Don't worry about all the tonnes of thermite that would be required, I'll give that to you for the sake of the argument.

Oh, by the way. When calculating how many miles of cable would be required, please show your workings.

Conspiracy theorists don't care about details like that. They make statements with no backing or understanding and commit to it as a fact. Reading the comments in here is like watching a detective show where all the main characters are mentally retarded.

I like that comparison. But it's particularly important that all the detectives are retarded.

Ug. The Manhattan project was a secret. Therefore US administration killed 3,000 people, injured tens of thousands more, and destroyed $1,000,000,000s worth of property in pursuit of a political goal I am too stupid to understand was not connected with the event.

Clearly they used remote detonated charges! Duh! /s

Gotcha.

They sneaked in the thermite charges and each one had its own battery powered radio-controlled detonating package. All righty then.

Now you're thinking with conspiracies!

And it wasn't thermite, it was C4 and detcord. They didn't have to 'blow up' the building, just weaken the structural members enough so that a plane strike would finish the job. So they didn't need to carry as much.

OH! OH! WAIT! I got a better one! It wasn't RADIO controlled detonators! Those are too prone to interference and accidental triggering. It was a top secret piezo-electric detonator system, which, once armed, can be calibrated to detonate on a seismic shock of a certain intensity... so once the plane hit, the ones nearest the plane went first, then the amplified shock wave from those first detonations triggered the rest in a ripple effect that enhanced the shockwave, thus amplifying the effects of the explosion and allowing them to use less charges and explosives so that it would be harder to find residue and bomb components in the rubble!

If you are honestly serious about this -

here is a structural engineer with a very good idea of how it could of happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

The beams have a giant compartment where cutting charges could have been placed.

It doesn't really matter, because it's STILL more likely than a structural collapse at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds. Which would mean every single column would have to completely break within a few hundreds of a second of each other. Not 1 second, not 5 seconds, the building literally floated down to the ground for 2.5 seconds.

Who asked you?

Fire alarms and new security systems are installed every day. How many miles of wire are used?

That's exactly how valid your tangential logic is.

Buildings, especially ones which house large businesses, constantly undergo maintenance and updating. How many miles of wire were run when people switched from gas lighting to electricity? Courier to telegraph, telegraph to phone, phone to internet?

Do you sit and watch the people who repair and maintain your vehicle? Do you supervise the plumber and electrician when they come into your home?

Do you think that the guy hired to spray a flame retardant, or swap out some bolts, knows exactly what went into the product he is using?

How many pan-handlers have you seen today? How many maintenance workers? I can bet that you are far more accurate at remembering how many homeless people you pretend to ignore than you are at counting how many people who are just part of the landscape.

Can you name every person who you work directly with? Do you remember exactly what their job entails? Do you know everyone who works in the same building as you?

You must be like Justice, blind and faithless. Place it on the scale. Does it weigh the same as a duck?

Fire alarms and new security systems are installed every day. How many miles of wire are used? That's exactly how valid your tangential logic is.

So...extremely valid? It's super hard to install new security systems in a huge building without anybody noticing. I work IT and am responsible for network management in my building. I would absolutely know very quickly if somebody ran a whole bunch of new cable through it.

It doesn't matter how difficult it was. The bottom line is its infinitely more probable than a complete and utter structural implosion that reached free-fall speeds for 2.5 seconds.

That requires that every single column be completely and utterly destroyed within a few hundreds of a second from one another. There is no other way a part of the building could float to the ground, which is exactly what happened.

And if you want to see a solid theory on how the thermite may have been used- check this video out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

Of course it's a theory, nobody knows exactly how, but like I said, its completely and utterly irrelevant.

The towers didn't fall at free fall speeds. 12.5 years later and I'm baffled people are still repeating this. I mean, it doesn't even take an expert, you can watch the videos and see debris falling faster.

You mean WTC1 & 2?

Sure, maybe 1-2 seconds below free-fall.

The smoking gun is WTC7 (the one that was barely on fire, with no plane that hit it) - which did, according to NIST.

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

A portion of the building (the back wall), falling for a portion of the entire collapse (a distance of about 8 floors) is not the same as the entire building falling at free fall speed. No matter how many times conspiracy theorists try to conflate the two, they are never going to be the same thing.

The timeline you provided was for the observed collapse of the north face of the building. Notably, this time line starts several seconds after the collapse had already begun (at the SE corner penthouse). The reason the portion of the building fell so fast was because it was the last part to come down and all of the major support structures had between floors 6 and 18 had already collapsed or been severely compromised, making their resistance negligible (hence only 8 floors of "free fall speed" for only a portion of the building's edifice).

It's very funny to me that people post the NIST report as evidence that the collapse was physically impossible without explosions when the NIST reports explains--in excruciating detail--how the collapse sequence allowed for that. If you're going to post the NIST report as evidence for your theory, the least you have to do is create an alternative hypothesis that shows why (1) NIST version of events could not have happened, and (2) your version of events likely did happen. We never get that. We just get, "the building fell at free fall speed, that's unpossible!"

Block of text from http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html

Alan Reiss was the PANYNJ's World Trade Center Director, and as such was considered "mayor" of the WTC. [24] Reiss was employed at the WTC since 1984, working on building systems, the engineering and capital program, and eventually helping to secure major leases for tenants like Banker's Trust and Fuji Bank. In 1988, he was promoted to the position of the World Trade Center's supervising engineer, in charge of the complex's major systems. He was later promoted to Special Assistant to the Director, and eventually, WTC Director.

Reiss took the lead in the response to the 1993 terrorist bombing at the WTC, and it was reported that -- "As Special Assistant to the Director, he managed the design and construction team that restored the World Trade Center's infrastructure, allowing the Twin Towers to reopen within a month." [25] At the time he was put in charge of reconstruction, "a job that required him to meet with top brass twice a day." Reiss said about this period -- "there were so many innovations we made.... After the 1993 bombing, we implemented a ten-year redevelopment program. We were spending half a billion dollars on upgrades. It was an engineer's dream." [26]

Part of these upgrades involved constructing new command and control centers throughout the buildings. A new Security Command Center was built on the 22nd floor of the north tower (WTC 1), and a new Operations Control Center was constructed in the B1 level of the south tower (WTC2). [27] Additionally, NYC officials responded to the 1993 bombing by establishing The Office of Emergency Management (OEM), over a period of years, "to promote unified operations between and among the various city emergency responder departments." The OEM was controversial, in that it was not appreciated by the NYPD, which already had an emergency center. But ultimately, "on September 11, 2001, the OEM center located at WTC 7 became ineffective as WTC 7 was evacuated." [28] During Rudy Giuliani's run for President, he and his former employee Jerome Hauer traded accusations about who made the choice of putting the OEM in WTC 7. [29]

When interviewed after the attacks, Alan Reiss "compared the energy of the planes' impacts to the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon. But he said the buildings' construction may have saved some lives." [30] Reiss had the highest level of access to the towers, as would be expected for the Director of the WTC. But what is most interesting about Alan Reiss is the evidence that he was not telling the truth after the attacks. The first part of this evidence has to do with his surprising story of what happened to him on that day, and the visible evidence of his experience.

Many senior managers at the PANYNJ who had knowledge of the buildings died on 9/11 trying to help others escape, [31] but Reiss survived. In his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Reiss stated -- "We were stunned when 2 WTC was also hit by a plane. The police officers and I rushed to the rear emergency exit and looked up at the tower and realized we were at war...At the Port Authority Police's request, I then returned to the vicinity of 6 World Trade Center to assess the condition of One World Trade Center with then-Captain Whitaker, commander of the PA Police at the WTC, just as the tower began to collapse. We were both enveloped by this churning black debris cloud as we ran north on West Street. It was darker than any burning building I have ever been in as a volunteer fireman, and it was next to impossible to breathe due to the debris in the air."

One problem with Reiss' testimony is that people who had been "enveloped by [the] churning black debris cloud" were completely covered in dust. [32] But Alan Reiss, who is said to have narrowly escaped the 1993 bombing as well, did not appear to have any dust or debris on him despite having been covered by the dust clouds. An interview with Reiss just moments after the destruction of the towers, in which Reiss' police escort turned his back on Reiss and appeared unusually uncomfortable, demonstrated this fact. [33]

A second piece of evidence indicating that Alan Reiss was being less than truthful after the attacks includes this quote -- "Even if someone had told me the threat was a missile, I don't know what I could have done, let alone if someone had told me it was going to be a plane. No one ever thought about a hijacked plane being rammed into a building." [34]

We heard this same false claim -- that no one had ever thought about a plane being rammed into a building -- from George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. [35] After the public was presented with considerable evidence that many people in the US government had, in fact, thought about and planned for such an event before 9/11, Rice had to correct her comments in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

The reasons that Reiss should have been aware of the possibility included the fact that several people Reiss would have known had thought about this very scenario, including the WTC tower's design engineer, John Skilling. In a 1993 interview, Skilling said that, in the event of an airliner crash into one of the towers, "the building structure would still be there." [36] One of Reiss' own staff members, Frank A. DeMartini, the Manager of WTC Construction, was videotaped explaining how the towers could have withstood multiple impacts from aircraft. [37] Another person that Reiss would have worked with closely throughout the security upgrades, Brian Michael Jenkins, had also assessed the possibility of an airplane attack on the WTC. [38]

From 1989 to1998, Jenkins was the deputy chairman of Crisis Management for Kroll Associates. Kroll directed the PANYNJ's response to the 1993 bombing in terms of security upgrades, as stated by Reiss' program manager for WTC security systems, Douglas G. Karpiloff, who died on 9/11. Karpiloff reported -- "After the bombing, we had the top security consultants in the nation, Kroll Associates, do a complete security analysis for us, and we followed their recommendations." [39]

So they planted the bombs in 1993? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

At the time he was put in charge of reconstruction, "a job that required him to meet with top brass twice a day." Reiss said about this period -- "there were so many innovations we made.... After the 1993 bombing, we implemented a ten-year redevelopment program. We were spending half a billion dollars on upgrades. It was an engineer's dream." [26]

A ten year redevelopment program started in 1993 would end in 2003. That's a planned decade of constant modification. A $500,000,000.00 project.

So they had a huge project where they planted numerous thermite charges over a long period of time and nobody noticed? OK, got it, much more reasonable that it would be unnoticed with an even bigger, more complex project requiring more people to be involved.

I assure you, creative people exist. You may not know any, but they are out there. Some of them use their knowledge and creativity for good, others, not so much.

Luckily, it appears to me that if you had been leading up the team planning the attacks in 2001, it probably would have went a lot like the attacks in 1993 went. Planned by people whose only apparent knowledge of physics is derived from cartoons involving roadrunners.

Why are you fighting against logic? 3 buildings do not collapse from things that cannot cause them to. A 737 hitting the WTC is like a dinghy ramming an aircraft carrier. Even if it starts a fire, the ship isn't going to melt.

This is not a religious or faith based viewpoint, this is science and physics.

We were lied to, like Santa Claus drinking coca cola. You should probably consider actually understanding some physics.

Like when your friends start wondering how Santa made it to so many houses all at the same time. He has magical reindeer? Show me one.

It's weird, because actual physicists and structural engineers overwhelmingly disagree with you.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Are you familiar with the term "Gish Gallop"?

I am now. The tactic that has you fooled into thinking I am wrong.

Are you familiar with the term "Gaslighting"?

Do you even read?

Yes. Do you have the ability to synthesize information and restate what you're trying to say in a more terse form, in your own words?

Okay. Imagine a project, a half of a billion 1993 dollars, or $809,xxx,xxx.xx 2014 dollars, focused on fire suppression, security, and modernization. A ten year deadline. That would have a lot of activity in areas that the general population does not go.

When a new store is put into a shopping mall, do you get to watch the work through the windows? It's a work zone, hard hats, insurance, all that. To say that it is outside the realm of possibility that there were explosives placed into the wtc building in advance of September 2001 is ridiculous, especially when considering the odd way all three of the buildings fell. Either way, it was one hell of an insurance payday for the owner of the building, Mr. Silverstein.

And the happy coincidence that evidence related to an investigation being conducted regarding the 2.3 trillion dollars(3.04t, after inflation) that were missing from the pentagon was contained in wtc7. Information and investigations were also going on in the exact portion of the Pentagon that was destroyed also after undergoing recent renovations. It was a Naval Intelligence area if I recall correctly.

Who asked you?

Who asked you?

Who needs to wire explosives? Even in 2001 remote detonators were used. Also, have you seen the latest military tech for roadside bombs? It's a microwave. Apparently, blasting metals, like the ones used in high explosives, with microwave radiation will ignite them. Who knew? Aside from every person who has ever put metal in a microwave.

Now, It's possible to consider that a compound like thermite, with it's iron oxide, the aluminum, and maybe a little sulphur would ignite if placed in a microwave. right? I would test it out, but, I really don't need that kind of attention. Plus, I don't have an extra microwave.

Do you know what Radar is? Do you know what the big emitters are on top of our "aerial command planes"? The same planes circling the towers before they fell?

See, that's a bit of a crazy theory. But it could work. You could use a spray on nano-thermite, call it a rust prevention repaint for the bolts in the building, or a fire retardant spray for the steel columns to protect them from a structure fire that wouldn't be hot enough to melt them unless they were made of aluminum.

You know, as a safety measure, it would be wise to apply this stuff to any steel bridge you can find. In case of a viral outbreak, or civil uprising, it would be useful to be able to destroy vital infrastructure, for the greater good. Now, maybe 9/11 was just a weapons system demonstration...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218012000648

See, because the official story doesn't add up, you then have to wonder what actually happened. Were the planes just for show? Because it really looks like it to me.

Because it really looks like it to me.

Then you're an idiot.

This is, so far as I can tell, how it works.

Everybody watches as the first tower burns. Footage soon comes in of the aircraft hitting the building.

After a while, a second aircraft, clearly deliberately, flies at speed into the second tower. That too burns.

For an hour – an hour, mind you – smoke pours skyward. Black smoke. And flames stream from the building.

Then one of the towers collapses. Every reasonable person watching goes ‘Oh my god. Those poor people. Jesus fuck. God, I hope the people in the second tower make it.’

Shortly thereafter, the second tower collapses. Every reasonable person watching it goes ‘O shit. That’s awful. All the policemen and the firemen too.’

People like you, however, think like this.

‘Wow! I never saw a building that tall collapse. I never saw a building that big collapse. I never saw a building made from that somewhat unusual structural design collapse before. I mean, nobody in the world ever saw those things before – because it’s never happened. Not accidentally, not due to enemy action, not due to demolition. Nothing.

So-o, look. There’s absolutely NOTHING to compare this to. Not one previous event remotely like it.

But you know what? Working on nothing but what pops into my head sitting in my bedsit watching TV, and applying no proper principles of inductive or deductive reasoning, and with no axioms from which to proceed, I think – having no previous experience of demolishing buildings myself – that these buildings ought to have collapsed differently. I don’t know how, exactly, but they seemed to just – fall along their own axis. Admittedly, from about half way down there was too much shit in the air to see what happened, but still, just that bit above the dust was… fishy.

Don’t you think they ought to have collapsed in some other way? I don’t know – listed to the left a bit. Or listed to the right. Or maybe to the front. How can it be that they fell down straight? I mean, trees don’t do that, do they? Nor lampposts.

Nah, I’ve decided – again, without any experience or expertise to go on – that this is Suspicious with a capital S. This was done deliberately, by my government, in order to do – well, something, I’m not sure right now, but something they couldn’t do without surreptitiously destroying the WTC and killing the 3,000 people working there, something really devious that regular Joes would never suspect, only smart buggers like me who can fathom the Machiavellian depths of our politicians.

Well, shit. I better start hitting up the internet for plausible scenarios which support my gifted and intuitive analysis of what I just saw only on a TV screen. First, coffee.’

Either that, or you just like writing horse-droppings on the internet.

Clever tactic. You could be a religious man.

Google WTC demolition access and start reading. This topic has been well researched, and the findings prove the means existed.

Who asked you?

The reason people involved in the manhattan project have come forward afterwards is because it is legal for them to do so, and they were not engaged in illegal activities, the manhattan project was 100% government approved.

I agree with you there. And that's why the secrecy and other circumstances in which it operated is completely irrelevant to 9/11, Sandy Hook or any other modern conspiracy.

No, that is wrong. It is relevant because it reveals how selective secrecy works.

It shows how people in the government can use their positions of power to act outside of the legalities of their offices by revealing how it's done legally.

No, that is wrong. Its not relevant at all. Cherry picking data and claiming its relevant is about as useful as discarding all scientific evidence that supports a theory and supersede it with your own, which has no evidence. Or better yet, ignoring evidence and then proposing a hypothesis that goes against [it].

[deleted]

No, it just decimated over 100,000 civilians, and flattened out 70% of their buildings...no big deal.

So 10,000 civilians?

[deleted]

You can't compare 3,000 civilians and 3 buildings to 100,000+ civilians, and 70% of Hiroshima's buildings, whether they're Americans or not. We're all humans with our own lives.

[deleted]

I wish I had access to YouTube right now to pull up that Carlin clip about America and WWII.

[deleted]

Suppose the people they got to do the dirty work hated America and Americans - and felt the same about killing thousands of Americans, as those on the Manhattan Project felt about killing Japanese civilians.

And somehow this is more likely than a few Saudis hating America and deciding to kill us because we've been occupying their lands.

A group of Saudi nationals attacked America on 9/11, so therefore America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, and Libya, and Yemen, and Pakistan, and ... yet Americans never got around to attacking Saudi Arabia?

Not suspicious at all!

That a few Saudi guys could plan, finance, and pull this off, all by themselves, is extremely unlikely indeed!

[Edit] About as likely as you getting five genuine upvotes in two hours, this far down the thread, where hardly anybody can see it!

More likely than a proven to be incompetent government, that can't even keep extramarital affairs from surfacing (Clinton, Patraeus, Gingrich), pulling off the greatest conspiracy of all time at risk of all involved being taken straight to a firing squad if it was foiled.

These guys were just figure heads - they are not the guys who are really in power. We have to listen to Snowden and Greenwald to find out who they are.

Oh really? Who the these people Snowden and Greenwald identified?

P. R Hodges and F. Nesbit!

Who are they and what do they do?

Wow...you totally debunked everything without even posting a link or anything but your own opinions. You must be the best your middle school debate team has to offer. Bravo!

"Non-Americans" are still "humans" to many.....so we dont excuse death based on national borders. Great if you do, but that isnt proof OR evidence of anything but your jingoism.

Why would it take hundreds of Americans to carry out 9-11? Where is that number from? The hijackers certainly werent American....14 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. There is no doubt that Israel either had information about the attack before it happened, or possibly even helped. There were several countries in play...there is no doubt of that. Why would it take 100 Americans?

Tell me who Valerie Plame is and I will continue this discussion. The fact remains that many people are ignorant to what goes on....most are overly skeptical (without being overly knowledgeable), and those who HAVE COME OUT about 9-11 (the ones that DIDNT keep a secret) are easily dismissed by people like you. All of a sudden those Eyewitnesses that "didnt exist" are now "flawed by the eyewitness dynamic....it really is the least accurate form of proof". The thousands of engineers and architects wont matter to you either....the words of military leaders and politicians are now easily dismissed...and people in the actual buildings (maintenance workers who heard explosions, bystanders who heard countdowns, and firemen who said the fires werent bad enough to warrant more hose for example) have less to say than some troll without any links to share.

I will play your game if you wish.....but at least play by your own rules and debate like an adult.

Your link sites one sloppy article published in a newspaper 3 years after the project started. An article that was not picked up by any major outlets and is only notable when looking back after the facts had already come out, as per the phrase "hindsight is 20/20".

And here are some points I find interesting from your own link:

After finding out about the leak, Col. Ashbridge, the military head of Los Alamos wrote:

The action of the newspaper in printing such an article shows a complete lack of responsibility, compliance with national censorship code and cooperation with the Government in keeping an important project secret. It is hoped that some steps can be taken to deny the paper certain privileges as a result of their disclosure of this project in such an article.

And also:

So what did [General] Groves end up doing? First he made sure that it wouldn’t spread further — he put the kibosh on any follow-up stories or further syndication. Time magazine was going to write a follow-up regarding West Coast atom smashing work, but the Office of Censorship stopped them. Then he had the reporter investigated and interviewed. For awhile he thought about getting Raper drafted to the Pacific Theatre — a rather bloodthirsty approach to the problem. He relented on this when, as it turned out, Raper was in his sixties. Not exactly Army grunt material.

EDIT: AzSnakePit is harping on the word "complete" by sourcing a link about an article that made it into a newspaper, then was immediately squashed out like a candle flame. And the only reason we can even look back on that article is because the truth eventually came out. But when the article came out, it was nothing more than a blurb in a newspaper. But congrats to AZ for successfully sidetracking the post and focusing on word semantics and the definition of complete to try to disregard the information. Notice his post immediately starts with "You are wrong". That sounds to me like someone who doesn't even want to learn something new, and immediately found the easiest hole to squeeze through in order to discredit the entire post.

So here is the new headline of my post:

If they claim the conspiracy was too big to keep secret, remind them that the Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people and remained a secret until President Truman announced 3 years later that Hiroshima had been bombed.

This is also interesting

https://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch1_f.htm

The aim of censorship was to prevent all mention of the atomic program in the American press; however, on the advice of the Office of Censorship, the District permitted a limited amount of information about certain aspects of the project to appear in newspapers published in communities near the Clinton and Hanford sites. Office of Censorship officials pointed out that complete suppression of information about activities at these locations would actually draw more attention than a policy of judicious release of news of local interest.

Again, the "complete secret" claim appears unfounded.

Not quite. It says:

the District permitted a limited amount of information about certain aspects of the project

You are making a lot of assumptions about what the phrase in bold means. It could have been disinformation, irrelevant information, etc...

Just more proof your "complete secret" claim is unfounded.

Way to nitpick at words.

It does demolish the "complete secret" claim, however. The article also says

I’ve sometimes heard people suggest that were the press like this during World War II, things like the secret of the atomic bomb could never have been kept as well as they were. And while there is something to that, in the sense that American journalists were far more cooperative and acquiescent during the 1940s, it also projects a rosier picture backwards than ever truly existed. Even during the Manhattan Project, there were copious leaks. Some small, some huge.

I think your point is important too because usually when people say no one spoke out it's not true. There are almost always whistleblowers and they are almost always marginalized or ignored.

People "speaking out" about something does not make it any less of a secret to the general public.

And in the link cited by AZsnakepit, the person speaking out did not even correctly identify what they were doing.

So the part about it being an atomic bomb did remain a secret.

but everyone in academia knew the US was working on a bomb. nuclear bombs weren't a mystery. people knew they were possible since the 30s they just had not been done yet. scientists around the world knew all the atomic scientists disappeared... in fact there are letters written talking about the mystery town and how they are probably working on "atomic energy". Hell congress investigated it because people were complaining about all the people and "waste" they thought was going on. A congressman was even told to "not worry about it" when he dug too deep.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Imagine yourself living in those times. You cannot re-write the experience of living in the past with information that comes out in the future.

i don't get what you post is meant to say.. Germany and Russia knew full well the US was working on a bomb... Worldwide Academia knew as well. A congressmen even investigated it. The only people who didn't know were the people actually working on the bomb..so yes quite a bit of people did know. they may not have known the US is working on a bomb called fat man who will be dropped from this plane on this city, they may not have known all the details but they did know the US was working on a bomb. again.... this is a FACT: ACADEMIA KNEW A BOMB WAS BEING BUILT. LETTERS WERE WRITTEN ABOUT IT.

Hell Russia pretty much built the bomb for us with all the spies they had working with us.

I am sorry that you cannot seem to grasp the concept behind my post. But I don't have the time or energy to spoon-feed it to you.

it wasn't a secret.. people knew. i think you are the one who are misinformed. just because everyone in the US didn't know doesn't mean people didn't know.

No, your version of how things went down is wrong. It is that simple.

Which part? I could direct to you Ask Historians if you want. They have lots of cites like "scientific journals". What do you want me to prove to you. That academia knew? That Russia knew? That members of congress knew? That Truman sent a letter?

The Manhattan Project was not common knowledge.

So just accept that and stop arguing.

I never said common knowledge but plenty of people did know about it. You can't say it was secret when a lot of people in the field knew about it. magazines published fucking articles about "atomic energy" at oak ridge. You are arguing with everyone in this thread telling you that you are wrong. Plenty of people knew but this was a time when a lot of people didn't even have a telephone let alone the internet

People knowing about atomic energy is not the same as knowing about a complex in the desert creating a bomb to be used on Japan.

You are really reaching.

People "speaking out" about something does not make it any less of a secret to the general public.

I agree, that's the point I was hoping to get accross.

Ask about any of the lesser known leakers and the information they leaked and people will still call you a conspiracy nut, sometimes even after you show them the leaked information!

Well to be fair you don't know if they are just doing their job or not!

That's like saying that any conspiracy theory that gets published today completely "demolishes" a "complete secret" claim to any nefarious activities that our government is currently involved in, but has not acknowledged.

It would be easy to look back at such publications and say, "Ah ha! People did know about this!" but unless it gains traction, and exposure, it will never be more than gossip and rumors.

Obviously, hind-sight is 20/20. But barely three years after the Manhattan Project was founded - approved by the President in June 1942 - it was all public knowledge. We're now 12+ years after 9/11, and where are we? And that's in a modern world where the President can't even get a blow-job without exposure: compare and contrast JFK!

The Manhattan Project wasn't an attack on our own people. The blowback was never going to be as severe as it would be if a self-inflicted "terrorist attack" came to light. There's much more at stake in keeping something like that a secret.

The Manhattan Project was never expected to stay a secret for very long.

the manhattan project is much more tame, the workers might not know everything but they do know that the object is ultimately helping the war effort. That means the workers will do a better job of keeping quite because of their patriotic values. There is no reason for someone to defend a 9/11 plot if it happened, at least one of the workers would risk prison to let such information out.

Who are the 9/11 "workers".

The ones that did the actual "work" area dead. And it doesn't take 130,000 to coordinate the hijacking of a few commercial airliners.

I'm not a 9/11 truther, but there is not much of a parallel between it and the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project was a massive industrial undertaking which required them to use a lot of "regular" people.

If an operation to hijack some planes was an inside job, there wouldn't be too many people to keep quiet.

Exactly. Thank you for bringing in common sense and accurate judgements. This thread is becoming very tiring with so many people trying to invalidate a historical event.

Exactly.

Finally, someone who gets it.

Do you have any other examples of some of these leaks?

"Perhaps the worst press violation occurred in August 1944, when due to procedural errors a nationwide Mutual Network broadcast mentioned the military creating a weapon in Pasco, Washington involving atom splitting. The Office of Censorship asked all recordings of the broadcast to be destroyed."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

The example they listed could hardly be called a leak. A drop of water in an ocean on information, even for that era.

A front page story in a major paper of one of the largest cities in the country?

Hardly the "drop of water in an ocean" you claim...

The article you site did not even say what was going on. Nowhere in that article are any valid warning that a nuclear bomb was being produced.

How is that a leak?

But that's okay, you have already given people an escape from having to think about my post, congratulations.

Sorry the facts don't fit your narrative.

My narrative remains true. Sorry you feel the need to play word-semantics games in order to remain in the dark.

• 20,000 news outlets gagged.
• Front-page story in a major newspaper.
• "Many rumors" around Los Alamos.
• Radio broadcast giving the location and work involved.

Shall I go on? These are facts. Sorry you feel the need to act all butthurt, just because it turns out your claim is totally inaccurate.

I'm sorry you cannot grasp the concept behind the title of my post.

You can keep arguing if you want, but it is getting harder and harder to hear you over my hundreds of upvotes.

Ah, I see: karma whoring at its very finest!

Yup. That's right. You caught me.

It's also getting harder and harder to see you over the steadily increasing number of these:

qwerteafortwo[S] comment score below threshold

In a subreddit where 'tards routinely vote-brigade, their downvotes make me happy.

I have been here long enough to understand the way things work on this sub.

The "huge leak" was the newspaper article I cited earlier that didn't even say what they were doing, just that people were doing something.

And of course there will never be a "complete" secret. But that does not mean that for all intents and purposes, it is a project kept completely secret from the general population and media.

Which the Manhattan Project was.

Or not:

There are many rumors around town about this project since thousands of construction workers from this vicinity have been employed at Los Alamos, many of our personnel go into town for shopping and weekends, and Dr. Oppenheimer’s name is fairly well known in Santa Fe.

Rumors in a small desert town do not discredit the claim that the Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret from the general public.

I increasingly suspect nothing short of national distribution of blueprints for the bomb would be enough to convince you... :-)

Even the article didn't mention the bomb.

The single article published once in a newspaper that nobody batted an eye about.

An article that was not picked up by any major outlets

The only reason it was not syndicated is mentioned in the bit you quote. It was because the government pounced:

So what did Groves end up doing? First he made sure that it wouldn’t spread further — he put the kibosh on any follow-up stories or further syndication. Time magazine was going to write a follow-up regarding West Coast atom smashing work, but the Office of Censorship stopped them.

Yeah, that's my point.

Proof that the government immediately squashed it.

Of course, the "Office of Censorship" and its large, fulltime staff was closed in 1945, and the media these days is much more immediate, making it a lot harder to censor.

The Office of Censorship has just changed shape. As highlighted in the latest Snowden leak which you can read about on the r/conspiracy front-page.

And which bears absolutely no resemblance to the Office of Censorship and how it worked at all.

Right, shills spreading disinformation is nothing like censorship.

Its not like they both achieve the exact same goal.

Er... No. The latter stops a story from being published. The other acts to direct the reaction and conversation thereafter. Totally different.

I really appreciate your zeal at making sure this common misconception that their is historical precedent for the ability of our government to control information from its people is put to rest. Your commitment to the truth is exemplary, its important the general public know that there is zero validity to the claim that los alamos was kept relatively secret from the masses, and that large scale false flags like hitler burning his own parliament building to create a boogie man out of the jews never happens, and certainly arent kept secret when they do.

Keep it up brother, you are doing great work, and wouldn't you know it, you did such a good job convincing me the other day of the very same fact!

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1ym4lu/sandy_hook_gamechanger_solid_new_evidence_of_a/cflt7be

Thank god we have a poster like AZsnakepit to guide us in knowing truth from fallacy, he does such a great job making sure ridiculous theories dont gain any traction by marginalizing the parts that could be construed as relevant and plausible, and maximizing the circumstance and reality that none of this is possible because there are a couple cases which prove "his" point.

Good bless you AZSnakrpit, you are a crusader and paragon amongst men <3

Shouldn't you be looking for ammo?

I iust wanted to say hi, and wish you a happy and productive tuesday!

See you around AZ!

Same goal. Your argument is invalid.

[deleted]

You seem confused.

[deleted]

Yes, I am a shill who makes a popular post in conspiracy, trying to help them.

Makes so much sense.

Define "popular"

and also shows that it couldn't happen today. The writers can just post it on the internet and spread it around to a few sites at which point it is impossible to squash it.

"That was not the first request for voluntary censorship of atomic-related information. Price noted in comments to reporters after the end of censorship that some 20,000 news outlets had been delivered similar requests."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_censorship

Wow, what a "complete secret". Only 20,000 news outlets apparently knew enough about it, that they had to be ordered not to cover it!

You seem to be confusing the timeline. Nice try though.

Nope. As mentioned elsewhere, the Office of Censorship closed in 1945.

20,000 news outlets!

As mentioned elsewhere, the Office of Censorship closed in 1945.

Cool story bro.

20,000 news outlets!

Why do you keep repeating this? You must be confused. It has no relevance to the discussion.

LOL. Sure, 20,000 news outlets having to be gagged by the government has "no relevance" to your false claim this was "a complete secret".

Man, such levels of pure doublethink are undeniably impressive.

You seem confused. Do you know what the word "gagged" means?

Okay, I'll play on your new, radically moved goalposts.

So, how long did the Manhattan Project remain a secret after Hiroshima had been bombed? Answer: we knew about the Manhattan Project THE NEXT DAY, the New York Times writing an in-depth front-page article on August 7, 1945.

http://apps.beta620.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1945/08/07/issue.html

That's what we're talking about here. Not pre-execution planning - where I can see compartmentalization allowing people not to put the pieces together. But we're now 12+ years after the alleged 9/11 plan is carried out, and there is not one credible claim from anyone involved.

Hiroshima bombing: not supposed to remain a secret. As another user already told you.

Exactly. The Manhattan Project was fully government-approved at every level, there was no real moral dilemma involved for the participants (since we were at war), the secrecy was for a relatively brief time and only required up until the plan was executed.

In other words, it has little or no relevance to any modern-day conspiracy theory.

60 years from now when we talk about what really happened in 911, this same guy will point to godlike productions to say that people knew...

Exactly! It is scary how hard it is for some people to understand that concept.

They don't understand historical relativity at all.

Wait. A guy who uses conjecture and argument from authority is nit picking the quality of an article cited? I failed to miss the citations of YOUR argument.

Not to mention patriotism can keep people quiet building a bomb to end a war, it takes a lot more to encourage people to keep quiet indefinitely for something unconscionable. Your logic is invalid, flawed, and sophist.

There are many reasons why this is a terrible comparison to how hard it would be to keep a conspiracy/secret anywhere even close to that today.

1. As has been mentioned social networking (Twitter, email, Facebook, etc) didn't exist. A lot of today's news stories start out via these methods. Heck revolutions have begun with these new technologies that were non-existent even 10 years ago.

2. The 24 hour news cycle. There are literally thousands of cable and online investigative reporters dying for stories like this to report on and expose...

3. Which leads us to voluntary censorship of the press. Google "The Office of Censorship" and "voluntary press censorship". Nothing like this exists today.

4. Some real life examples of this censorship: FDR died in 1945 with nearly all of America never knowing that their four (elected) term President was confined to a wheelchair. Let that sink in for a minute - we elected a man 4 times w/o knowing he was handicapped, and confined to a wheelchair.

5. How about a slightly more modern example: Most of the press that covered the whitehouse knew of Jack Kennedy's penchant for other women, most said nothing as a courtesy to the man and the office. Watergate and Nixon pretty much ended all those good feelings though.

6. In WWII there existed a patriotic inspired "loose lips sink ships" mantra around any and all discussions about military/government matters that is mostly entirely absent today.

7. We also now know that the Russians knew very well exactly what we were doing, and where we were doing it.

Now I'm not saying conspiracies couldn't exist today, only that they'd be orders of magnitude harder to keep secret, especially as time goes by and more and more smaller leaks and other clues get discovered.

Edit: a word or three

Good points. Also consider the fact that it's much easier to convince people to keep something quiet when they know it's a project to help their country win a war, vs. A very nefarious project that involves murdering their own citizens like 9/11.

That's another excellent point.

If somebody could uncover irrefutable proof that 9/11 was staged (say a handwritten memo from Cheney to Bush) they could win the Pulitzer prize and write their own ticket.

If somebody reported on what was going on in the Manhattan project they could be jailed for treason, and treated like an enemy sympathizer.

If people didn't buy it though, that person wrote their own ticket alright.. to a firing squad

Unfortunately even with absolute proof of. 911, I still don't think you'd be safe. The elite look after their own and the scary part is, the average member of public would just shrug it off as some "conspiracy" theory and the media wouldn't run the story...then some guys in black ski masks would pay you a visit or your car crashes so hard the engine flies off down the street.

Even common crooks on the corner don't go writing handwritten memos saying "yo I just sold dough boy 8 packs of crack yo".

The 9/11 conspiracy isn't so simple as the US government killing 3,000 of their own citizens to start a war. It's an international web of lies, and really you overestimate the goodness of the people who rise to the top of this system where the only way up is by clamoring over the backs and stomping on the fingers of your brothers and sisters.

In your shitty break down of why OP is absolutely wrong, you completely overlooked the main tool which makes conspiracies of this magnitude possible: compartmentalization. Nobody has all the secrets, probably not even the head. What makes you think Bush and Cheney even knew everything about it?

And no, if anybody uncovered evidence that 9/11 was staged, they would be silenced like anybody else who goes up against the beast.

Also in my original post I never once mentioned the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I discussed why comparing something that happened in 1945 to things happening today is logically invalid.

I stand by that contention. 1945 was a very different time, and the Manhattan project was a very different "conspiracy" than 9/11, Sandy Hook, JFK, etc.

Actually, buddy, I've seen you mention 9/11 multiple times in this thread as a way to discredit any and all speculation about conspiracies. Your head is so far up your ass you can't even see what your fingers have typed! In your "original post" (since apparently that's the only content by which your character may be judged) you never once addressed the issue of compartmentalization. This is because you have no way of addressing it, so you simply ignore that which you can't work out. Very childish indeed.

You keep going "it's too big to hide, it's too big!". Your argument is riding on thin air. We say "compartmentalization". Boom. Your point has been shot down. But no, you refuse to accept that or even hear it. The level of idiocy is infuriating.

Look girlfriend, the original post that I responded to here was how the Manhattan Project was a great example of how really huge secrets can be kept.

I pointed out many reasons why that was not a fair comparison.

There was no "compartmentalization" in the OP's post and no mention of any specific conspiracy by me or OP.

So you tell me, how did "compartmentalization" keep the entire country from knowing that FDR was confined to a wheelchair if the world wasn't just a very different place in 1945 than it is today.

So I'll repeat once again my original point. Comparing the secrecy of the Manhattan project to modern conspiracies (whether real OR imagined) is simply an invalid exercise.

Likely the masses would have thought him too feeble a man to lead a country in such dire straights had they known he was a dying man in a wheelchair. Even the wikipedia page for "FDR's paralysis" has this to say: While Roosevelt's bout with illness was well known during his terms as President of the United States, the extent of his paralysis was kept from public view. If you read further, you can see that he was capable of walking when in public and only used the wheelchair in private. So no, this had nothing to do with the technology available at the time. You are either dreadfully uninformed on matters you pretend to be an expert upon, or you are deliberately spreading false information. Either way, your conclusion is wrong as shit.

Additionally, I can say that your comparison of FDR and Manhattan or 9/11 is no more than anecdote, just as OP's statement. It's literally not even applicable either. Obama isn't in a wheelchair.

There was no "compartmentalization" in the OP's post and no mention of any specific conspiracy by me or OP.

You actually did mention 9/11 multiple times and this is truly a tired argument. Why you choose to continue to claim you never referenced a specific conspiracy when you in fact referenced two (FDR and 9/11). The only thing you got right is that the OP didn't reference anything but the Manhattan Project. However, you came here with your blades sharpened and ready for war and entirely missed the intention of the post. OP assumed that readers would understand that if a project as massive and expensive as the covert invention of the most powerful weapon on the planet can be hidden from the people it is supposedly being undertaken for, then when the the cavalry of ignoramuses come riding in on their high horses and claim big secrets can't be kept, we can offer them this anecdote of a time when a gargantuan secret was kept, and like a 22 caliber bullet can slip through a kevlar vest, maybe it will actually make an impact.

The 22 certainly won't always penetrate a Kevlar vest, however, and in this case, it doesn't appear to have done anything to got one well-conditioned wage slave all hot and bothered.

Too hot and bothered to address the issue of compartmentalization as a concrete counter-argument to his argument that big lies can't be hidden from the public eye.

And too hot and bothered to see that his argument, by directly citing a conspiracy in which the president of the United States had deceived his people about the state of his illness, defeats itself.

FURTHERMORE, since you do need your hand held to actually undertake the learning process, allow me to offer a few authoritative quotations that may, with luck, resound in the empty cavern between your ears:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Former Nazi Officer, Joseph Goebbels

The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. - Once more, Goebbels

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

But American Leaders probably don't know anything about such skullduggery and treachery, surely?

Well, not if the American Leaders recruited the Nazi officers who read "Mein Kampf" and became enamored with lying big.

“No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.” - JFK

Wow - you can post quotes. You should try formulating your own opinions once or twice. The exercise would be good for your brain.

Your brain is a mothafuckin' fortress, dude. I don't give a shit anymore. I've given you more of my time than you deserve. Carry on, automaton.

Don't worry, when you get to high school you'll really begin to learn a lot.

If you think you learn shit in high school.....damn. Just damn.

I think the fact that you took a joking reference to high school seriously tells me all I need to know about who I'm arguing with. Kids these days...sigh.

Good luck out there with all the boogeymen and chemtrails. Don't forget your tinfoil hats.

Yeah and fuck whatever generation you were born in. You don't even have any real argument here, all you've done is make attack me individually while ignoring my ideas.

Really. Re-read the thread. You threw the first punch. You were rude and condescending before I ever was. I was polite and never accused anybody of anything, nor ridiculed anybody or their theories.

Until you came along.

I get it though, you're young and impetuous. You'll learn as you grow up. We all do.

Dude, I don't give half a fuck about changing your mind anymore. You are a lost cause. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Dude you never had a chance to convince me that the MP has any similarity to anything going on today.

1945 is not 2001 no matter how hard you squint your eyes.

2014 is 2014

I said "in my original post I never once mentioned the 9/11 conspiracy theories".

Reading, do you do it?

In your shitty break down of why OP is absolutely wrong, you completely overlooked the main tool which makes conspiracies of this magnitude possible: compartmentalization

And the compartmentalization angle only works if you overlook the fact that there was no expectation of secrecy after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's my biggest beef with this "But the Manhattan Project!" argument: it uses the three years of secrecy around the atomic bomb before it went off to rationalize the continuing secrecy around 9/11 after the towers came down. The compartmentalization thing only works to a certain extent, because a lot of 9/11 truther theories I've seen hinge on the idea that certain things that happened on that day could've only been done by inside actors, people who were at least partly conscious of what they were doing. Like, all the compartmentalization in the world isn't going to remove the doubts of the hypothetical guys who rigged Building 7 to blow. It could keep them from realizing what they were contributing to when they were contributing to it, but it's not going to keep them from putting two and two together on September 12th.

I can't speak for others, but I don't believe Americans rigged the buildings to blow. Saudis or Israelis seem the most likely candidates, since we are on great terms with both nations and both have stood to benefit quite a bit. I do think Americans were complicit in the attacks, and there is a staggering amount of evidence to this even at the highest levels of our government.

it uses the three years of secrecy around the atomic bomb before it went off to rationalize the continuing secrecy around 9/11 after the towers came down.

I disagree with you about nuclear weapons development being a public matter post-WWII. All military research and activity is classified, and they only chose to let us in on the Manhattan Project because they could spin it as a necessary evil that turned out to be a roaring success anyways.

There is no staggering evidence of American complicity in 9/11, just your staggering misreading of the facts. There's a reason your opinion is a fringe minority that is even more fringe today than it was 5 years ago, and it's not because you're just smarter than everyone else.

Sure, taking out billions of dollars in insurance against terrorists on the building just prior to 9/11 isn't fishy. Condoleeza Rice telling her buddy the governor of SF not to fly on that day isn't fishy. The FBI confiscating all the footage of the Pentagon crash and then only releasing a single frame of footage isn't fishy. The invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks any way you spin it isn't fishy. The fact that Al-Qaeda itself was created and funded by the CIA 3 decades ago isn't fishy. How do you read those facts?

There's a reason your opinion is a fringe minority that is even more fringe today than it was 5 years ago, and it's not because you're just smarter than everyone else.

The above is blatantly untrue. More people than ever are aware that there was a cover-up of the true events of 9/11. However, the efforts to quell such dissenting opinions is greater than ever. I'm not smarter than everyone else, but I sure as hell feel smarter than you.

http://www.911myths.com/html/willie_brown.html

In fact, there is no evidence that a warning of any sort came from Rice. Brown himself has denied it. Instead, Brown got a routine security warning from "his security people at the airport," possibly in response to public warnings from the state department.

You are following the usual playbook of starting with a conclusion, cherry picking facts and stripping them of context. With the proper context, the narrative is clear.

Interesting, someone implicated in a conspiracy denied it.

JUDGE:"Buffalo Bill, did you prance around in that young woman's skin like a dancing queen?" FELON:"No, Your Honor, I did not." JUDGE:"The expert witness has spoken! Court is adjurned!"

Where is your evidence that Rice called Brown?

Excellent and logical counter arguments.

It's too big. They're too mean. Nobody knows anything.

That's exactly how I'm gonna form my plans from now on.

It's very interesting how you parade yourself about as an acute and discerning analyst, yet your world-views are based upon even shakier ground. Where in fuck's cunt is your evidence that we are wrong about 9/11 being a staged event? You come to r/conspiracy with that fuckin' mentality, and the burden of evidence is on you. We assume that if you are in this subreddit, you actually *know shit* about the 9/11 conspiracies and we don't have to hold your hand and explain everything we know to you. Do some outside fuckin' research before you stir up shit, because you don't know the first thing about this and if you did, your post would be more than a personal attack that doesn't address a single word I said.

Wow. You go girl!

Do you live in your own illusory version of reality? Because in the real world, when you are as ignorant as you've displayed yourself to be, a condescending attitude doesn't earn you any brownie points. Address my arguments, suck my dick, or GTFO of this subreddit because you are clearly lost.

1- There probably are leaks out there, we just don't get to see them, don't care, or consider it is just some "crazy conspiracy person".

2- Hundreds of reports are getting sacked for telling the truth and investigating those things. They are not easy to investigate and the government tells the editors to not publish them.

Also, remember the same technology that facilitates leaks, also facilitates surveillance.

Those who try to leak information are also more easily caught.

How is compartmentalization a "terrible" comparison? It fits perfectly well in today's era.

First, thanks for the polite, respectful response. I've seen much less of that than I expected based on my reasonable original comment.

The original poster, whom I was responding to had not said anything about compartmentalization. His post was simply that the Manhattan Project being successfully kept secret was an example of how large conspiracies today could be kept secret.

I simply pointed out many reasons why I believed this was not accurate as a comparison of how we (the press, the public and technology) interact and interrelate today. It is very different than in 1945.

And as others have mentioned the MP was something we were working on for our own self interest at a time of great tension and patriotism as we fought a world war.

I just don't think the MP secrecy is comparable to huge conspiracies of today. In my opinion of course.

I think it's a dead on exact comparison because aren't there many Black Projects going on right now that the public doesn't know about? For instance, based on the testimony of the Church committee in 1975 it was shown that there is a secret CIA project called MKNaomi. The Church Committee was not allowed to review the MKNaomi documents because they had mysteriously been destroyed.

Page 71 acknowledges the existence of MKNaomi: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123454403/MKULTRA-The-Declassified-Documents

So it's almost been 50 years. Still, no one knows what MKNaomi is about. How does that work out? We have the internet, the 24 hour news cycle, Google, etc etc. How is it possible for this secret to be kept?

Well the simple answer may be that MKNaomi wasn't ever really anything. Who said it was? What did it do? Who felt its effects?

I mean just because somebody mentioned something doesn't mean it was ever anything important. If a secret falls in the woods - did it really ever do or mean anything?

I'm talking about events that don't need to be proven to have even existed. The Manhattan Project existed. No doubt about that.

But conspiracies about things that have occurred (9/11. JFK, Sandy Hook, etc) or something else on such a huge scale haven't ever been successfully kept secret.

Anyway, we're beating a dead horse really. I get your point, and do agree there are many things ongoing we don't know about. I'm (personally) just doubtful any are or ever will be on the scale of the MP ever again.

I'm (personally) just doubtful any are or ever will be on the scale of the MP ever again.

My man. 23% of the Pentagon's budget goes into "Black Projects". Almost half of all government documents are classified. Have you ever heard of Operation Paperclip? The Manhattan Project never ended. It was combined with the Nazi Kammlerstab (their MP) and continues to this day as the MK Umbrella operations of the CIA, NSA and Pentagon.

Most of the men that work in these projects and a lot of men in politics acknowledge that they belong to secret societies. GWB and John Kerry both have admitted to being in the Skull and Bones sect of the Jesuit Order. Have you ever read the Jesuit Order Oath?

There is literally a Secret Space Program. Do you think that we would actually be cutting the budget for the exploration into space? Hell no. Space is the most important frontier for all military's. NASA (the public space program) is the only one getting cuts.

Yup. Here's where I get off. You guys have fun, sorry I interrupted. :-)

The problem with you "true believers" is a circular reasoning: "The conspiracy theorists are full of shit because the conspiracy that big cannot stay secret - somebody would spill the beans. Some people are spilling the beans. They must be nutty conspiracy theorists because [back to the beginning.]"

Except what you're doing isn't "spilling the beans," it's conjecture. People aren't denying Snowden's leaks or calling him crazy. Don't conflate yourself with someone who is actually revealing secrets.

But it's not usually participants with actual evidence (documents, unpublished pictures, video/audio recordings) that "come forward". It's third party theorists and/or investigators.

There's a big difference between "yeah I planted charges in the south tower on 9/10 and here's my proof" and "it sure looks on this CNN video like a charge was used to bring down the tower".

These aren't equal situations at all. Can you point out actual participants of any of the bigger conspiracies that have admitted being involved AND produced irrefutable proof of the conspiracy?

I don't think you can and THAT is what people mean when they say "something that big could never be kept a secret - something would have leaked".

For the Kennedy assassination this is one of my two biggest problems. If it was a conspiracy it would have had to involve so many different groups: the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas police, the doctors and Parkland, the doctors at Bathesda, etc. Just too many people to coordinate and keep quiet all these years, through all the multitude of investigations, etc.

My second biggest problem is the second or third shooter conundrum. If you're planning this shooting, and you're using more than just LHO in the book depository, then you'd plan a story/deception to throw ALL the shooters under the bus (so the really big conspiracy would stay secret) such as "disgruntled cuban trio kill President" or some such backstory. You couldn't plan on there being poor enough ballistics to hide/confuse the presence of a 2nd or 3rd gunman. But yet there was only one suspect being sought immediately afterwards, only one backstory of a single disaffected communist/cuban sympathizer. And only after that fact did wed see how the ballistics looked very odd but not conclusively odd enough to if there were other gunman.

TL;DR: How do you have other JFK shooters, expect confusing ballistics and have no backstories for the others if they get caught/found.

But it's not usually participants

Well, they certainly have a very strong disincentive to come forward, don't they. Following your logic there were no serial killers since they didn't come forward.

For the JFK - actually, E. Howard Hunt did confess at the deathbed, still didn't convince the skeptics...

Serial killers are usually caught with corroborating evidence. In fact most people that confess to serial killings are found to be attention seeking idiots or mentally suspect.

I heard Hunt's sons just coached a senile old man for financial gain. None of what he said could be verified by third parties.

But by your own logic where are the deathbed confessions of all the other Kennedy conspirators? Shouldn't there be a bunch more, and at least one with a smoking gun (no pun intended lol)

Also you failed to answer my 2nd gunman question. How do you plan a huge conspiracy, with two gunman, then only throw one under the bus immediately and have NO ballistic evidence of the 2nd gunman? Luck?

Can you point out actual participants of any of the bigger conspiracies that have admitted being involved AND produced irrefutable proof of the conspiracy?

You mean like Ollie North in Iran/Contra? I'm confused by your question.

Actually I meant conspiracies that weren't known by the public at large to have actually happened.

By the time North and others testified it was not a question that some conspiracy had taken place, only on what scale it was and how high up the chain of command it went.

People shouldn't be allowed to comment in r/conspiracy until they have done some real research into conspiracies.

Every time you mention 9/11 you prove you don't know jack-shit about the conspiracies circulating the events. I have never met a single individual who was convinced by a single frame of a single video that 9/11 was a conspiracy. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of holes in the official narrative. Frankly, anybody who studies the evidence against "Al-Qaeda" versus the evidence against a government conspiracy can only rationally conclude it was the latter.

Your lack of evidence to back your arguments shows to me that you swallow the bullshit you are fed and gratefully request second helpings.

See you think because I don't believe in a particular conspiracy I haven't read a ton of research and articles on a subject.

That's a terrible argument. I've read a ton of articles, watched several videos, etc. I wrote two college papers on the JFK assassination. The opinions I formed from those are different from yours.

That means I feel absolutely as qualified to comment on these theories as somebody that believes them. You've reviewed the evidence and formed your opinion. I've done likewise.

Additionally I've not once disrespected you or your opinions. I stated my arguments for or against different theories and facts. I've been respectful and open to debate.

I'm afraid I don't see either of those characteristics from you. How about you take a stab at my arguments/theories and why they're wrong instead of "you're dumb cause you believe the bullshit".

[deleted]

It was certainly compartmentalized, as any normal adult with a functioning brain knows is standard practice in just about every realistic job scenario imaginable.

It should be common sense. But nowadays common sense goes out the window when dealing with people who pick and chose what fits nicely into their media-generated version of reality.

edit: it is sad that I have to keep adding edits to point out how many people have made it their job to sidetrack this, argue about word-semantics, and use their 20/20 hindsight vision to try to re-write the past. The Manhattan Project was a secret. Almost nobody in the country knew about it. Stop trying to chop up the point and just accept that. It is a fact.

OK. But do bear in mind this isn't necessarily transferable to anything.

You can't say that the Manhattan Project was kept under tight wraps and therefore 911 could also have been a government op. The two don't follow each other.

For starters, even if people tried to explain what they were working on in the MP no one would have understood it or it would have sounded like they were insane. "Oh you're going to split atoms and blow up the world eh? Yeah yeah, sure you are and I'm superman about to fly back to Krypton."

Had nuclear weapons already existed there is no way the MP would have remained as secret as it did (see the problems Iran is having).

For me the lesson here is less that big conspiracies can remain secret and more that extremely ambitious scientific projects can labor in obscurity because no one knows what the heck they're doing or believe it will even work. As an example if I tried to tell you I'm working for the government on a time machine so we can go back and kill Hitler you'd dismiss me as a nut. And rightfully so. If I told you I'm working for the NSA collecting the phone records of all Americans in contravention of the Constitution you're more likely to believe me.

You can't say that the Manhattan Project was kept under tight wraps and therefore 911 could also have been a government op. The two don't follow each other.

not saying that this is what happened, just explaining how it could have worked:

things you need:

1) a cell of fundamentalists thinking that they are working for a terrorist organization. they gonna die anywa, so they wont talk even if they knew something (and they don't)
2) a leader, an actual agent possing as a terrorist "serving a greater organization" and not sharing any unnecesary info to the rest of the team based on the compartmentalized nature of those orgs.
3) a handler for that agent.
4) another team smuggling supplies and money to the targeted regions under the belief that those resources are used on another different black op. nothing they didn't do every other day.
5) another team of analists working as an op-force and searching for weak points in the defenses (ex: reaction time for the airforce to intercept, security on airports and planes, possible routes and targets etc, ways to get the training without anyone raising a flag,etc). this is also a routine job, if fact there was a dossier a couple of months/years before 9/11 exploring the posibility of this exact type of attack that was presented.
6) the guys planing this. it can be done by one or two high ranking officers alone.
and that's it.

6) plans the whole thing and uses the intel provided by 5), the resources provided by 4) and feeds them to 3), who gives that to 2), who trains and arms 1).

the whole operation takes the cell, who cant tell anything because they went kamikaze and died, plus 4-5 people who know the whole thing and maybe a hundred that only did their regular jobs and have no idea how it was used.

further, you can kill 2 and 3 in a number of ways once everything is in movement and reduce the whole thing to only the 2 people planing it.

you dont even need the idiotic amount of people involved that some theories use, as you already have most of the infrastructure needed.

again, not saying that this is what happened or anything, just pointing some things that are pretty basic yet most people here get them wrong.

Right now there is someone making a washer mold with a theoretical maximum smoothness to it and he doesn't have a clue that it fits onto a death ray. Since he is running the high end machine shop he may get a whisper that it is for a weapon. Before 9/11 he prided himself on not working as a sub-sub-sub contractor for the military but after this day he said fuck it lets pay the entire world back for what they did to us. Coincidentally virtually the entire industry now functions to provide services for the military as this was one of the few things that could not be outsourced to China. Now his conscious sleeps well, and he has work.

What this infers is that if over one hundred thousand people could be "made" to 'stay quiet' then getting a few hundred people to 'keep a secret' is orders of magnitude simpler.

Granted few would have known much more than a small part of the 'whole story', people would have worked on a purely "need to know" basis, but no doubt thousands would have known it involved some type of a 'weapon', although, as it was a completely 'new' type of weapon, chances are no one would guess 'atomic' anything, let alone a bomb, it would have been easier to let people think what they liked, but as they were all sworn to secrecy 'or else!' talking about the project outside of work was strictly prohibited and would have been minimal.

Another thing is that thousands of people left the program, and yet nothing was ever divulged, which shows how successful they were at keeping people 'in the dark' via a "need to know" basis .... and the same strategy still works today, especially with enlisted military who know not to question any orders, and we know that mercenaries quite happily follow their employers 'instructions'.

And it has been conclusively shown, at least since the 'war' in the Yemen back in the early 60's, that 'private' forces are extremely effective and have unique 'benefits' for the country which is clandestinely 'supporting' (funding) them!

Since then, countless coups and other military actions around the world have been done by paid mercenaries, and aside from paying them they have several ways of 'keeping them quiet', with 'tragic accidents' and suicide being a favorite way to go for those who might pose a threat ... after a while you end up with a pretty trustworthy core 'corps' of men who will do whatever is asked of them ... for a price.

As we already well know. And as for 'clandestine govt forces' aka "black ops" we really have no idea at all and probably never will. Add to that the more overt CIA activities around the world and there's no doubt shit's going down we may never know about until it's waaay too late ... as has happened too many times before.

edit: spelling

It should be common sense. But nowadays common sense goes out the window when dealing with people who pick and chose what fits nicely into their conspiracy-generated version of reality.

See what I did there? The world has changed in so many ways since the 40's.

And in many ways the world is exactly the same.

Methods of information sharing and retrieval are certainly not the same.

But human nature is exactly the same. And humans are the ones processing the information.

Yeah, and now they have a lot more information to process.

Even biased information plants more doubt and a prompt to research than complete silence, and the internet makes researching something now ridiculously more effective than the 40s.

this is an appeal to nature, which is a fallacy. for example, if you were claiming that agricultural methods, cultural standards, or the day-to-day routines of people had NOT changed since the 4th century B.C.E.:

but human nature is exactly the same. and humans are the ones [doing whatever]

the fact that human nature doesn't change is not a given. the idea that you understand human nature is not a given. the idea that human nature alone predestines the circumstances of history is highly questionable.

Human nature may be the same, but how we interact with each other is nowhere near the same. Reporters hid FDR's wheelchair from the public, and did the same with JFK's womanizing. That wouldn't happen today.

A congressman yelled out "you lie" to the POTUS during a State of the Union address. That wouldn't have happened in 1945.

We are a much more divisive and invasive society today than we used to be. Very little is off limits in popular culture today. Could you imagine the topics on Jerry Springer being broadcast on radio in 1945?

My point is that today how we interact, discuss, investigate and report on activities of anybody including our government is very, very different today than it was in 1945. It's literally a different world.

Well, it's turning.

Yeah, we're still pretty fond of killing each other.

our leaders are

I was wrong, Col. The world hasn't changed one bit - Capt. America

Yep, strategic division of labour.

Question.

What if.. you're one of them?

Common sense has been replaced with Common Core.

http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/leave-kids-alone-us-schools-teach-creepy-stuff-8yr-olds/#gzHAhg4wWOvl6Uhl.99

That's not real. Maybe you should actually pull information from the Department of Education, not some media outlet.

Stop trying to chop up the point and just accept that. It is a fact.

Something you should never read in /r/Conspiracy

The Manhattan Project is a well-documented historical fact. It is also a fact that the US population had no idea they were building an atomic bomb in a secret desert facility.

Are you still confused?

"9/11 was committed by the terrorists. Stop trying to chop up the point and just accept that. It is a fact."

Sound familiar?

Not the same, at all.

One is still unsolved. The other was proven as we did drop a bomb on Hiroshima therefore a bomb MUST have been produced.

Ahh! Logic and reasoning.... take it away! I can't process it!

Except that's completely false. The consensus amongst engineers agrees with the official report.

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that disproves the findings of the NIST.

See this right here amazes me :=) Show me a link that says the NIST report was peer reviewed that's not from their own website. and the 9/11 commission report was complete bullshit, and even the scientific community seems to think that, although they might word it nicer..

Even if It were peer reviewed still would not settle things. If the government manages to round up a team of 10 -20 scientists willing to give their approval that is sufficient for you. No more questioning..

Over 2000 architects and engineers disagree with the official report, how o how is that not peer reviewed??

Does that just go completely unnoticed?

"Except that's completely false. The consensus amongst engineers agrees with the official report." At least you let people know ahead of time, that what your saying is completely false.. :=)

Can I ask for a source for, well, any of that?

http://www.ae911truth.org/ Now I would like to see you meet every 2000 plus of these individuals and calmly explain to them how they are batshit insane and need their head checked... Now you show me the peer reviewed article supporting the official explanation of the collapses, especially that of building 7.

If you find it, take note if it is a government agency or not and then take a look at some independent research and see where that leads you.. Maybe just google the subject thoroughly before showing off your ignorance :) Not trying to be condescending here, but this is really important... There are two theories out there regarding the 9/11 event.

1 A group of powerful people behind the scenes orchestrated it. 2 Some talibans with boxcutters penetrated the most sophisticated and advanced military empire that has ever existed on this earth.... Now one of these theories does indeed require the logical part of the brain to take a leave of absence and for multiple instances of unbelievable coincidences to occur. The other requires people to take a hard look at how they perceive the world.. Can you tell which is which my friend?

You've seem to have confused compartmentalized with bureaucracy in the context you're trying to rationalize this all as, which is kind of funny because of how over the top it is.

The only realistic job scenario where things would be compartmentalized in the way you're insisting is when something nefarious is going on. But I guess in your world, where anything unknown automatically defaults to nefarious, "every realistic job scenario imaginable" is compartmentalized.

Software developers compartmentalise job responsibilities.. In fact almost any job divides up responsibility. Talk about irony - criticising people for believing anything they want..

this is a different definition of 'compartmentalize' than the one used when referring to the secrecy of a project. what you're describing here is best described as division of labor.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Of course different software developers do different tasks, but under OP's reasoning, they won't know what the final product is for.

You're telling me someone who programs a physics engine for a game studio isn't told what the physics engine will be for? You really think real jobs keep workers out of the loop to the final product? Do you think cashiers at the grocery store not know they're selling food out of a building to make the store profitable? You can't be this daft can you?

Nope. You seem to be confused. Maybe you should spend a few more years in the workplace, if you have even yet to be there.

Very little I would imagine.

Compartmentalised - like how the CIA works.

Nearly every government agency uses compartmentalization

My Great Aunt worked in the facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. She had no idea what she was doing, but was told it was for manufacturing. She worked on an inspection line checking parts for faults I believe. She has since died, and by the time I was old enough to have a deeper conversation with her she had fallen deeply into Alzheimer's Disease. She died quite a while back at the age of 98.

There are lots of Soviet jokes about this, here's one - a woman working at a fridge manufacturing plant started stealing parts and taking them home... when she put them all together, it turned out to be a tank instead of the new fridge she wanted.

Stupid joke, I know, but it goes to show that this type of stuff was happening in both the USSR and the US during the cold war.

This tells me the NFL could easily be scripted. The owners and head coaches are the only ones that know

How many of them knew the full extent of what they were involved with?

But that is precisely the point.

WTF are you talking about?! There was a soviet spy in the Manhattan project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

yes, I am sure a Russian spy convinced millions of American's what was really going on and they believed it.

I agree with you. The entire post is not referring to the fact that NO one outside knew of it but that the US population did not have knowledge of it. Two different things.

I swear, some of the ppl are lacking basic comprehension to actually understand what you meant.

jesus. I just woke up and I understood your post better than them

Didn't the Russians know about the Manhattan Project, and in fact get the deepest secrets of it, key technical issues and exact plans for how to build the bomb ? There was more than one spy right in Los Alamos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies#Notable_atomic_spies

Indeed. This piece says, "In fact, Los Alamos was so riddled with Soviet spies that it leaked like a sieve."

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/inv/kgb_inv_ins.htm

Richard Feynman went around pissing people off and breaking the security to show how bad it was.

Also, the Manhattan Project only had to be kept secret for a couple years. If 9/11 was a government conspiracy, it would have to be kept under wraps forever. That would be much more difficult.

[deleted]

And yet twelve and a half years later, no such thing has happened..

With the entire internet and cameras of most of the major action. CTs are insane.

A Russian spy infiltrating the project does not invalidate the claim that it was kept a complete secret from the American public.

Imagine if a Russian spy said today that they infiltrated the US government plot to demolish the Twin Towers.

How much water do you think that would hold to the general public?

And the american public found out about it or at least something was going on. in fact a congressman found out about it

Nah, it's just people making up stuff. No one has given any solid evidence of any conspiracy. Some congressmen are stupid.

letters from scientists saying "the americans must be working on a bomb" doesn't count?

Sorry, thought we were talking about 9/11.

If that Russian spy showed us plans and details of how it was done, obtained before the fact ? And those details led us to evidence we could find after the fact ? Pretty darn convincing.

Also realize we had a common enemy in 1940 and it wasnt us. Today, most people with a conscience would be compelled to report if they, for example, were asked to attach charges to support columns of TWC or falsify reports of casualties at Sandyhook etc. once the incident happpened.

Pre internet/cellphone/google earth/google maps.

/it wasn't really a secret.

Not so air tight that the USSR didn't have all our blueprints. They built their bomb with our plans many years before they should have.

Specious reasoning, huh? So the Manhatten Project proves 9/11 was an inside job and we never landed on the moon. I knew it!

Huh? Are you making up your own false conclusions to start an argument?

Whenever I've talked with anyone about any events in world history that have questions surrounding them, the one point we always come back to is that it would be very, very hard to keep that many people quiet. I'd not considered it like this before.

Yeah and some of this work was done under a football field at the university of Chicago and a forrest preserve are about 30-40 mins southwest of Chicago.

I remember stumbling across the area where they buried some sort of nuclear waste or something. It is a huge grass field with a large stone in the middle telling you not to dig and stuff.

Red Gate Woods! It's pretty near to my house.

Small world!

I am about 20-30 mins away from it.

There's a preserve for an all-American football player, war hero, and owner of the best shrimping business in the world?

yes yes there is...

The issue is those people involved didn't know what they were doing, and after it happened it all came out. When people talk about something like chemtrails, it gets even more unbelievable because there is no doubt that it would have come out. Same thing with a lot of other theories that would need to involve the complete compliance of hundreds of thousands of people and their families. The American government couldn't keep Clinton getting a blowjob out, and like two people knew. In this day and age, these things would be out in the open by now - and by out in the open I don't mean a Youtube video done in Windows Movie Maker with a title in all caps telling me to WAKE UP!!11

The only major conspiracy that I truly believe in wholeheartedly is that many of those terribly designed videos and websites are made by the US government to try and make people who question the official story look crazy. Lol.

Nah. I know way too many poor basement dwellers who do these kinds of videos etc to know that to be false. They all wish the government would pay them.

Have you considered that in 1939 there was no internet, or even a very connected network of phones? Or TVs in every house. Or that this example is talking about a 3 year window where a secret group was operating isolated from everyone else, and how radically different that is from the notion of keeping a secret like masterminding 9/11 for over a decade? And also even this "secret" wasn't actually kept secret from the Russians as many have pointed out in this thread? I think you were right in questioning the ability to keep the number of people necessary for you 'standard' false flag conspiracy these days a secret.

Part of the problem with a conspiracy theory on 9/11 is that it would have to cover many different levels and agencies of govt, plus academic experts, foreign consultants. Even what foreign intel agencies and law enforcement knew would be relevant. FBI, CIA, NSA, State, DOD, NTSB, NYPD, Wash DC PD, etc.

And since we weren't at war, there was no unified public sentiment to keep D's from ratting out R's, and vice-versa. Or officials in FBI from ratting out those in CIA, and vice-versa. Some of those guys HATE each other. They're in competition for positions, jurisdiction, budget, PR.

Don't forget the EPA and the trial lawyers.

The EPA was testing and publishing analyses of the wtc dust nearly every day for over 8 years. Yet conspiracy theorists will still claim that there was no testing for explosives.

Yet, even if the EPA were lying, what about the trial bar? 9-11 was a multi-billion dollar event that caused health complications for hundreds of thousands of people in the NYC metropolitan area. If the attacks that day were carried out or sanctioned by non-judgement-proof individuals (e.g., the US government), then trial lawyers would have a field day recovering. Billions of dollars of incentives on the table. And many of the best plaintiffs' firms are located in Manhattan, with no few downtown.

So you're telling me best plaintiffs lawyers in the country were walking through and breathing the wtc dust on the way to work--dust that conspiracy theorists insist obviously came from those within the US government attacking its citizens--and they would not even try to assemble a class and state a claim for billions of dollars? Seriously?

At a minimum, conspiracy theorists have obviously never worked closely with the plaintiffs' bar.

EDIT: I should also point out that the plaintiffs' bar has, in fact, vigorously argued and apparently won cases on behalf of those with respiratory ailments stemming from the wtc collapse. Those cases doubtlessly involved sophisticated analysis of the composition of the WTC dust. See, e.g., http://www.post911attorneys.com/#top

Good point. Also the insurance companies. I'm sure whoever paid off on the damages would have LOVED to have the attackers turn out to be wealthy US conspirators, or the US govt, instead of 19 dead Arabs and some guy hiding in Pakistan.

Good point. Everyone points to Silverstein's victory over Swiss Re on certain insurance policies as evidence of his obvious complicity in the attacks. Well, if it were so obvious, don't you think the insurance companies, using the best lawyers in the world, would have pointed it out? There was billions on the line and a drawn-out fight in the courts for over five years. The insurance companies were represented by Simpson Thatcher. It's not like they would have missed a provable contributory negligence claim.

it would have to cover many different levels and agencies

That's called "compartmentalization". It makes conspiracies possible regardless of numbers.

D's from ratting out R's; FBI from ratting out those in CIA

You really think they actually compete against each other? Please.

Edit: link

OF COURSE THEY DO

They may be slaves to the same corporate overlords, but THEY still want that corporate money, not some other bloke

Forget about R's and D's, there are plenty of D's who loath other D's and R's who loathe other R's. It is about money and power and they are in each others way.

That's not my understanding of what "compartmentalization" means. In fact, it's sort of the opposite of compartmentalization. You want as few people as possible, in as few agencies as possible, to know a secret.

Numbers have nothing to do with it.

Also, this. TYL.

The people that orchestrated 9/11 were way higher than the normal branches of government.

where

then

Seriously?

Pre-Coffee comment. So sorry.

It is no different. You are changing the bar and continually making it higher so that no amount of logic or proof will ever change your mind.

Pot... Kettle...

Hebejebe.

How is keeping secret the development of nuclear weapons a "conspiracy?" Every business in the world that develops new products keeps it under wraps until it's released to the public. Are those conspiracies?

I think you are misinterpreting his statement. It is not that the nuclear weapon manufacturing and development were the conspiracy but that it was kept secret. So saying that something is too large to be covered up is a poor misdirection.

The key point you're missing is that the United States didn't try to blame another country after we dropped the bomb. They aren't the same thing. They kept it a secret (sort of) UNTIL the drop. This is a far cry from a situation like 9/11, where even after the event the US would still be denying responsibility.

If the US had dropped the atomic bomb and then said, "I'm pretty sure it was China that did it.", and kept it under wraps for more than a decade, you might have a point.

You are so quick to try to discredit someone. These two situations may be very different from one another. My statement made no claims one way or another. It simply pointed out that the OP was not trying to say that the development of nuclear weapons was a "conspiracy".

He's making a leap of faith argument that because the Manhattan project was relatively secret, one could assume false flag operations have been made without anyone blowing the whistle.

Yeah he's that stupid

Could be, the definition goes over illegal/harmful.

A government shouldn't operate like a business though...

How is keeping secret the development of nuclear weapons a "conspiracy?

Do you even hear yourself?

[deleted]

130,000 people didn't actually know what they were working on. Only a handful of individuals knew what the atomic bomb was and could do. From the Wikipedia page:

"[P]robably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved." The magazine wrote that the more than 100,000 other employed with the project "worked like moles in the dark."

As far as these workers were concerned, they were just working on another weapon in a period of chaos. And this isn't mentioning the fact that the project was crawling with Soviet spies. Basically, this is a /r/badhistory field day.

Comparing the Manhattan Project to whatever conspiracy OP thinks happened on 9/11 is comparing apples to hand grenades.

Edit: just leaving this here so that maybe one of you will read it.

Not to mention the surviving population of southern Japan that probably noticed something...

I cannot tell if your comment is supposed to be funny, or you are missing the point entirely.

It wasn't kept a secret. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies#Notable_atomic_spies

Some of the researchers themselves were selling the discoveries to the Russians.

Now now don't let silly things like historical facts get in the way of their conspiracy

This was also done in the time when the people could not so easily communicate as they can now.

For this to be analogous to 9/11, then the fact that a nuclear bomb was used on Hiroshima would have to remain a secret after the bombing.

Except there were spies, and leaks and the U.S was broadly expected to be developing nukes in some capacity anyway, so it wasn't news. And there wasn't the ubiquity of telecommunications and social networks that there are today. But hey, it's a trite headline so upvotes away!

Pretty similar to the FBI agent coming forward and walking into congress to personally hand them her complaint about 9/11 and her superior intentionally rewriting her search warrant for musari's laptop? Not to mention it was the sole denial by that court in 22,000 cases.

Or the numerous people who have come forward about the suspicious direct personal scheduling of the NORAD drill, FEMA drill and Canadian joint Air Force drill to mimic the hijacking and attack of the twin towers by Vice President Cheney? responsibilities that he demanded 90 days prior to 9-11, then surrendered quietly 90 days after 9-11, both by presidential order.

Leaks do no good when people refuse to investigate the paper trail of proof and witnesses that's handed to them.

What do you mean announced 3 years later that it had been bombed where is that part in the article?

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p5s14.shtml

History.

edit: Yes, downvote me for supplying a source to answer someone's question. Thanks for proving yourselves to be a downvote mob who don't even read what you are voting on. You assholes are ruining this subreddit. But that is probably the point.

Ah, I misunderstood your headline, by 3 years you still mean the announcement was made about right after the bomb was used on Japan.

Yes, it was rather poorly written.

Or maybe you are just a slow learner.

no, it's your poorly written, misleading headline.

Yeah, the one that got almost 2000 upvotes.

But yeah, I am sure that you are right.

Glad your upvotes make you feel better.

Thanks. They certainly let me know that people understood the point I was making, despite the idiots who flooded the thread trying to derail it.

It's wrong to equate upvotes with understanding there is no truth in that. And also your headline is WRONG. It was NOT a complete secret. The germans were well aware of our weapons programs just as we were theres. Sure they didn't know everything but using the word "complete" as you have is misleading. And stupid.

Nope, it is a stupid semantic argument. By definition, almost nothing will ever be "complete". You would assume that people would be smart enough to realize that and understand your point.

Except it didn't. Ask Joe Stalin

You may be sure certain overseas agencies well know what really happened...

[deleted]

I'm pretty certain I was texting everyone in 2001. As for a lack of social networking, I guess you never heard about people using a BBS to share ideas and content.

The internet didn't start with facebook, it might be getting easier to share, but the process started well before 9/11.

BBS in 2001?! It was ancient technology.

Let's start this comment by saying I'm a huge skeptic. I think you make a good point. It was a large scale project that was kept under wraps and I've never actually thought about it that way. I just wonder, would this even be possible with the internet now? I mean, this was in the 40s. I've always felt that the reason the government seems to oppose net neutrality is so they can control us again.

Internet has been around for 20 years now with the NSA running in secret the whole time.

The Internet was a government creation from the start, based off the DOD ARPANET.

According to Bloomberg, an analyst warned the US about the NSA over 17 years before Snowden went on his shitshow.

And zero fucks were given, despite the presence of the Internet. I doubt the Manhattan project would have been any different, if Internet was around then.

Just pointing out that they weren't at all running in secret just because you and a bunch of other people were too apathetic to know about it.

And I think more people would care about a doomsday weapon than some NSA jerkoff collecting all of your metadata.

I did know about it. Doesn't change my point that no one cared.

I could give a shit less about some jerkoff collecting my metadata. But them collecting the metadata of judges, politicians, lawyers and every national leader on the planet is a doomsday weapon.

And that doesn't change my point that the NSA wasn't a secret until Snowden.

And please, you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to compare the NSA to nuclear weaponry.

If you don't see the potential damage that could be done by collecting the data of every powerful person on the planet, then we are very far apart in this conversation. As for the special kind of stupid remark... Well, fuck you a little. Have a good night.

I see the danger of spying, but I also see the fact that nuclear weapons can actually wipe humankind off the face of the earth. If you don't see the danger of, I don't know, the Tsar Bomb, then we are very far apart in this conversation. So yea, I'll take the NSA over a hundred of those going off any day.

they all knew they were working on a big-ass bomb. There are secret military projects going on all the time. Only, the individuals had no idea on what the other guys were doing, it was compartmentalized.

That is OPs point.

I think his point was that 100,000 people had no idea what they were building.

They probably didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Secrecy

There's also different levels of knowledge. Some may have no idea, other knew it was some kind of bomb, but probably only very few people knew it was specifically an atomic bomb.

But I think the point is that just because a project is big it doesn't mean a lot of people know what's going on and hence easier to be leaked. It is still possible that only very few people know due compartmentalization

There weren't 130,000 people 'employed' on the Manhattan Project. That's the figure of people who were in any sense peripherally touched by the project, probably including the people who supplied the cups from which the coffee was drunk.

Take away the military personnel who make up the majority of the rest and the point is completely knee-capped.

Much easier done in the 1940's. Also, in a time of war, research done to promote the war effort would be more easily controlled and would probably have the cooperation of the media if necessary.

The "too big to keep it a secret" argument is usually used when those involved at the higher levels (those who would need to have full clearance) would have a moral objection. It is unlikely that this would happen in a time of war when the goal is to defend against an immediate threat to American lives. I don't think the same standards can be applied to something like a false flag conspiracy where you would have a greater chance of someone finding a moral objection.

Its a whole new ball game now that this thing called the internet exists.

It's the same with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. A whole ship full of sailors saw what really happened. Even if they did question it who would have listened?

The project was completely compromised before the Trinity testing. Soviet spies knew about and worked on the Manhattan Project. The only people in the dark were as usual; the American people.

The Soviets knew. That's not semantics - it's disproof of your premise. We couldn't keep the Norden bombsight secret from the Nazis, either. Information this important is nearly impossible to keep quiet for any significant length of time. Even Snowden is talking about spying from within the last decade... and he wasn't the first. We knew about Room 614A just three years after it was installed.

And as people have noted here, all that compartmentalized work became obviously related once the bomb fell. So the idea that someone could unwittingly, for example, rig the WTC with explosives and then not put 2+2 together when the buildings collapsed, is still pretty goddamn implausible. Detcord isn't something you can mistake for wiring, and it's not exactly easy to cram plastique into support beams and believe you're doing something else entirely. Truther meetings would be full of people comparing notes about contract work related to the towers instead of collecting signatures from random electrical engineers.

And even then, none of this would address the root problem: huge conspiracies are inherently kind of ridiculous. Little conspiracies, even among big names, are manageable, plausible, and potentially effective. Getting twenty people to pretend to be al-Qaeda and plow airliners into buildings is a thing that could happen. Getting thousands of people to produce the world's most impractical pyrotechnics show, without any of them knowing they're involved, strains credulity beyond reason.

And even then - the goddamn Russians would've called us out on it by now.

"Complete secret" LOL.

Even back then it was impossible for them to hide the project.

Some secrets are kept better than others but this can be a dangerous line of thought.

If whistle-blowers got more protections then we wouldn't have to seek questionable news sources for a critical opinion on what's happening in our country/the world.

Each lazy journalist who does more to whitewash public opinion than to inform is lending more credibility to even the worst of conspiracy theorists. We've advanced to the age of linkbait and it's only gotten worse.

We may never reach the truth, whatever it may be.

The system is very organized and the punishment for true patriotism is treason. Both politicians and the media are more beholden to sponsors than the public which the politicians and the media supposedly represent and inform. They continue to operate in this fashion without any fear of backlash because everyone has accepted that this is the way things are.

Public discourse consists of a group of like minded people who have all been taken advantage of. Rather than rally together people argue different talking points that were disseminated through their preferred brand of corporate media.

In my lifetime I've seen the fabric of the American community wither and die under foreclosure, student debt, medical bills, divorce, and isolation. Corporate profits are at an all time high but across the board many generations are struggling to make ends meet.

I hope that someday we can stop bickering about chem trails and moon landings and acknowledge the fact that there has been a major consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of the few.

There are bigger things to address and as a populous, our lack of organization guarantees the victory of any conspiracy, no matter how viable or far fetched.

The news would have you believe there is more outrage about Justin Bieber than any social, economic, or climate issue. The cult of personality has failed us.

This is not comparable at all. First off, the manhattan project was not successfully kept a secret. But more importantly, a secluded research project in the middle of the desert is not even remotely similar to a multi-location attack in an urban center. When the goal of the manhattan project was accomplished, it wasn't a secret anymore!

This would be comparable only if they had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and THEN people STILL didn't know about the project. That's the level of absurdity that is being claimed with 9-11 conspiracy theories.

^ What they said.

?

I agree, what you said there is dead on.

Oh, gotcha. Thanks.

From the very Wikipedia article you posted:

A 1945 Life article estimated that before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings "[p]robably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved." The magazine wrote that the more than 100,000 others employed with the project "worked like moles in the dark".

More here.

Honestly even if they knew how many would say anything? When ppl have something to lose its easy to keep them quiet

Right, like it was easy to keep Manning and Snowden quiet. Like it was easy to keep Aldrich Ames from selling some of our top secrets, names of agents in Russia, for $1M or so.

I didnt say everyone. I said most. Most ppl are ok with conformity. Then there r ppl like snowden and the wikileaks guy. I mean there r definitely ppl who will speak out for a reason but the majority will say nothing or be ok with it. Conformity is a killer man

All it would take is a couple of insiders with clear evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. Hasn't happened.

Thanks for posting this, since I just cited to someone that although I research Sandy Hook, I don't think that so many family members (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc) from around the country could/would be offered even the chance to be in on such a lie. That someone would say NO WAY! or say SOMETHING.....right? It is so hard to believe that so many people would have such a weak moral fiber. ?

The pre-Internet world was a very different place. Why do you think certain groups wish to curtail the free flow of information?

This is such a complete trash argument. Those 130,000 people had a very patriotic reason to keep quiet to anyone, and 99% of the people who could have found out by accident, or likely DID find out, had a very good moral (not to mention the fear reason) reason to keep their mouth shut and not spread it further. 9/11 is the complete fucking opposite of that situation. I'll probably get down voted by the cospiretard brigade, but it changes nothing, and I hope no-one who reads this uses this completely idiotic argument. And yes, I'm someone who down votes any and all trash like this, it's no conspiracy by the big evil government.

And D-Day involved 150,000 troops; Germans seem to have been caught by surprise. Not all the troops knew the details--but only a very few would have to know the truth about most conspiracies, the rest would be unwitting accomplices.

Whether or not the Russians knew about Manhattan Project, the American people did not.

The truth is whistle blowers have come forward about 911, the controlled media won't allow the information to get a fair hearing.

The truth is whistle blowers have come forward about 911

...without evidence of anything, and so...

, the "controlled" media won't allow the information to get a fair hearing.

I for one would like to hear Sibel Edmonds among others state their first-hand testimony on the mainstream media. You may not.

Only because she's hot. The fact that she had "information" about the fact that Bin Laden planned to attack cities in the US using airplanes was exactly big news to her superiors.

Then she pissed and moaned about her report being buried or ignored, when in fact it's more like "we already have a department of Bin Laden, thank you for your time".

Besides, why do 9/11 conspiracy theorist's get all wet between their legs about the Sibel Edmonds story, when her testimony defies most of the kooky horseshit about nanothermite and remote controlled airplanes or other circumstances that couldn't be pulled off by arabs in caves?

There was also no internet or anything during The Manhattan Project...

And announced 3 years later, in a time of no social media

We were in the middle of a bloody war during the Manhattan Project with a common sense of purpose and "Loose Lips Sink Ships" style propaganda. The circumstances were very different.

Yeah, Snowden would like a word with you.

There also wasn't the amount of 24 hour news coverage/access back then either.

Heck, nobody knew Roosevelt was in a wheelchair or that JFK fooled around as much as he did.

Different worlds altogether, OP; different worlds.

A lot of them didn't knew what they were working on.

Just a fancy part for something is all they needed to know.

That was in the times before the internet. Also, when ppl actually respected national security.

Must of been nice right?

I have no real frame of reference.

Have you ever tried talking about GMOs on reddit? People will destroy you. I have no doubt this bs is real.

Edit: thank you to all the voices of reason here. I feel better in a discussion when people deliberate rather than call each other liars.

Snowden's leak has 4000 points and is at the very top on /r/worldnews.

There was also no secret ops organization within the US at this point either.

With 9-11, not everyone involved would need to know everything about the plan. I'm not even saying it was a government conspiracy, but the notion that too many people would have had to "keep the whole plan secret" is based on some of the stupidest logic involved in the discussion. Certain people trained to follow orders without question could be given specific tasks, with no need to understand the purpose. It could have been pulled off with as few as 30 people. Time and planning could eliminate a lot of curiosity of those participants.

Or bring the NSA....

Compartmentalization is the term you are looking for. Things were done in that to such an extreme that Truman didn't know about the bomb until after it was ready.... The army core of engineers were the only ones that knew.

So, so somehow, someone other than the president had the authority to take german scientists (nazis), bring them on us soil, and team them with other scientists to create a new super weapon, all without the knowledge or authority of the supposed commander and chief...

Word cloud out of all the comments.

^{botmaster FAQ sourcecode}

We didn't announce until 3 years after? I've never heard that before. Where does that come from?

Before the internet.

We are just finding out about the everything the NSA has been up to. Internet has been in full swing for 20 years now.

you do realize the manhattan Project was over 70 years ago right?

point?

You retorted to two people's comments that this was before the internet with comments about how the internet has been around for 20 years. I just thought maybe you didn't realize that that number is irrelevant to the point those people were making. So maybe I should ask you :

point?

[deleted]

There was no social networking or any of that shit in 2001. 9/11 may as well have been "before the internet", too.

Lol. Not for people that know what the hell they're doing. I've been using the internet since the time it wasn't called "the internet", but rather "internet", and it was a damn sight better than BITNET.

Glad you're here to give us the historical perspective.

So you weren't on AIM with people halfway around the world in 2001?

News outlets didn't have websites?

More to the point, a few years after 2001 we did have 99% of people walking around with internet capable smartphones and yet still there has been not one iota of a leak.

My point was this. People are saying that the Manhattan Project was easier to keep a secret because the internet didn't exist back then. I'm saying that the NSA has been snooping under our noses for decades despite the fact that the internet has been used heavily for the last 20 years. ergo, the internet argument doesn't fly. 1000's of people have been able to keep NSA spying a secret despite the internet.

case in point

NSA spying isn't a secret.

you're fucking talking about it because someone leaked it

Jesus, you're being dense. Have a nice day.

I'm being dense?

You just disproved whatever point you were trying to make yourself, and I'm dense for pointing it out?

Did I disprove my point, or are you a dense fuck who doesn't understand?

That's a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer.

People are saying that the Manhattan Project was easier to keep a secret because the internet didn't exist back then. I'm saying that the NSA has been snooping under our noses for decades despite the fact that the internet has been used heavily for the last 20 years. ergo, the internet argument doesn't fly. 1000's of people have been able to keep NSA spying a secret despite the internet.

You are saying that the NSA has been snooping under our noses for decades, despite the fact that the internet has been used heavily. And this is the one argument you have put forward to argue that the existence of the internet in 1939 would not have effected the ability of the Manhattan Project to stay secret.

A) What does technology existing have to do with the NSA or any other organization being able to spy? It only increases that ability.

B) This very spying you are talking about has been exposed through the use of modern information technology. Do you not understand how this fact disproves what you are trying to say? Or did I misunderstand the point you are making.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you would care to stop calling me names one for a moment and explain what I'm missing here, I would be glad to find out.

What does technology existing have to do with the NSA or any other organization being able to spy? It only increases that ability.

Not their ability to spy. The fact that they are spying. Thousands of contractors spying on Americans daily and not one bit of it got out to the public until Snowden came along.

This very spying you are talking about has been exposed through the use of modern information technology. Do you not understand how this fact disproves what you are trying to say? Or did I misunderstand the point you are making.

It was exposed by a reporter who worked at a newspaper. The internet took it and ran with it. But the Snowden story broke then same way stories broke in the 30's and 40's

not one bit of it got out to the public until

until

as in it did come out, and the NSA spying program, while deplorable, is less deplorable than fabricating 9/11 by a magnitude of infinity. And yet it took just one of their guys just a small amount of exposure to it to know it was wrong and needed to be leaked. And yet you don't think anyone involved in the far more deplorable 9/11 would have a bit of remourse?

Also you are speaking as tho Snowden was the only government whistleblower. Since 9/11 we've had a spying scandal of some sort be exposed by whistleblowers every few years going back to W.'s 'warrantless wiretapping' scandals.

So many in fact that I forgot for a moment that Snowden went to the guardian, because Manning and so many others have gone through wikileaks.

But more to the core, Snowden was working there because he was a computer specialist. Technology was infused with the very reason why he was brought in in the first place. And why he was able to physically make the leak.

But again, the A#1 key point here is that it did get out, and so did warrantless wiretapping, and everything wikileaks ever put out, and you cannot say that living in the information era did not aid in those processes.

Every single spying program you can point to as an example of their ability to be covert, you only can point to because they have been exposed.

pretty sure ive seen mainstream documentaries that report that the soviets knew what they were building, just didn't have blueprints/know-how.

3 years. I can live with secrets having a lifespan of 3 years. Some things (probably not nearly as many as currently are) do need to be secret for some period of time.

It's in the interest of those in power to "promote" the idea(to the public) that they are only competent to a certain point. You can't argue with the results of that strategy.

A better kept secret was the development of radar proximity shells.

This was an enormous project that at one point consumed more resources than the atomic program, and was considered the ultimate weapon as it was extremely effective against aeroplanes and even V1 buzz bombs. Radar proximity shells could be used everywhere, while the atomic bomb was a untried experiment with limited use. They were not allowed to be used in any situation where the enemy might recover and reverse engineer one.

Even today, it is rarely discussed, and most people are not aware that radar triggered shells were used in WW2 at all.

Excuse my comeuppance, but it looks like your posts are being downvoted more as a result of your attitude than their content. Whether you have a point or not is immaterial if you're a dick about how you present it.

the link can still be seen at the top of /r/NSALeaks

I'm not fond of people downvoting someone because they disagree, and it is certainly a reddit sin to downvote stalk, but I'm a bit bothered by the hijacking.

If the nuke was then dropped on a US city I'm sure many of those employees would suddenly break silence, event if the were kept in the dark on much of it. Helping murder others is one thing, your countrymen another.

OK. So you believe the myth propogated by the government that humans developed the atomic bomb and 130,000 people worked on it? Have you never watched Ancient Aliens?

your joking....right??????

Yes.

Just a suggestion. Instead of watching a TV program read as much as you can about the Manhattan Project ... It was not the most secured secret of the war. The fact that they were developed was not a secret... but the fact that the United States only had TWO bombs to drop at the time.... that was a secret that never got out and into Japanese hands. Their military thought that we had an endless supply and the bombings would just continue non stop. Fact is... the second one was the last one we would have been able to construct for at least a year. If the Japanese had learned that they may not have surrendered.

History major. I know all this. I just can't believe people buy into this conspiracy stuff.

Sometimes the most concerning conspiracy thought is.... why do people fall for some of these conspiracy ideas so easily? Its almost as if they have been pre primed for it and thats a worrisome thought.

I agree. I think people can't stand the thought that sometimes events just unfold without planning and purpose or underlying meaning. It's somehow more comforting to think that some cabal or higher power is pulling the strings.

Keeping a secret for 3 years is a lot different than keeping it for 50 years. They always knew the project would be revealed eventually.

Have Blue was built in the middle of Burbank, CA for crying out loud! It was one of the most secret projects the government had. It involved thousands of people, and no outsiders knew until the F-117A was rolled out. It all comes down to compartmentalization.

The snowden leak is #3 on my front page in r/worldnews.

The new snowden leak is currently the top post on my front page and has not been deleted from /r/worldnews (this time)

I am still 70% convinced 9/11 was an inside job. 90% convinced there was no plane at pentagon.

We didn't know we bombed Hiroshima for 3 years??????

compartmentalization and masonic and other oaths work just fine. along with the punishment for treason, of course.

Or that the various spy agencies employ 10's of thousands yet managed to keep a vast spying program under wraps.

Right, NSA's vast cell-phone program was kept under wraps for what, 6 or 8 years before someone dumped irrefutable evidence of the whole thing in our laps ? When that was a legally authorized program, not some supposed false-flag operation against the whole country.

Huge difference: there was no Internet then

[deleted]

Cell phones have nothing to do with it.

The infrastructure of the internet wasn't tiny back then. Most Everyone from the middle class on up had the internet at home, and everyone who worked in an office or in government had access to the web.

You are right that somethings were in their infancy. Internet security wasn't remotely the issue that it is now. If an expert now went back revisited what was under the hood even for most e-commerce (back when it was still called that) websites they'd laugh. It would have been absurdly easy for a knowledgeable and careful person to leak information back then.

The internet was still an infant in 2001

No it wasn't. Far from it.

They were in the middle of a desert on a military base with monitored communications including all letters and the threat of execution if they revealed the project.

if it was such a secret how come Russians knew all about it? Rofl

Which conspiracy are we even talking about?

Uhm. Except that it actually wasn't that well kept of a secret.

Holey Shit, Alex Jones works for the NSA?!

Omg this proves lizard people!

Another good one to remind people of is Operation Northwoods. That one cannot even be considered theory, it's conspiracy fact. The CIA planned a false flag attack using hijacked aircraft to be blamed on Cuba/Communist Terrorists. Our great president JFK shot that one down and declassified it for the public. I personally believe this played a significant role among the reasons why he himself was eventually shot down. Just goes to show that the intention by our shadow government to use conspired false flag attacks on the unsuspecting American public was absolutely there, and clearly there was no concern by them of not being able to conceal it properly and get away with it. If we know they were prepared to do this in the past, what makes anyone think for one second that the same doesn't still hold true?

I'd be remiss in my duties if I didn't also mention Building 7. That has to be the single biggest piece of evidence we have for government malfeasance on 9/11. We know that bulding was brought down by controlled detonation. We know it. So, the question is, how did they get that building rigged with explosives while concealing this operation from the thousands of employees that worked inside? Why were people allowed to go to work inside of a building that was fully prepared for demolition? (Can you say OSHA violation?) So we know they were able to lace the building with thermate with no one being the wiser, we know they allowed people to continue to work inside the building that could have potentially exploded at any moment, and we know they brought that building down in controlled demolition fashion at 5:45pm on 9/11. Now, what makes anyone think for one second that they weren't able to do that to Buildings 1 & 2?

You'd have to be delusional to not draw a pretty frightening conclusion from those two facts alone.

Thermite is so 5 years ago, I really can't believe folks still post things like this.

Nice but you got a few typos. "Controlled debt".

Eh, it happens. Ironically, controlled debt is another issue entirely.

hehe yup. I don't find many typo's...but when I do...I pounce!

LOL at your edit. So, do tell: what is your point, now the "complete secret" aspect has been proven to be BS?

I'd bet not even a tenth of that could pull off 9/11.

Hardly;13,000 people is too many. I'd say less than 100.

[deleted]

audience laughs

You should write sitcoms.

Looks like the downvote mob has turned on you now. Sigh...

Its sad what this sub has become.

Hahaha... I take it in stride. No harm done. Those who are not easily swayed by meaningless karma but facts are what matter to me.

And a caveman.

I smell a Geico commercial.

I agree.

Nice but you got a few typos. "Controlled debt".

Right, shills spreading disinformation is nothing like censorship.

Its not like they both achieve the exact same goal.

Pre-Coffee comment. So sorry.

Ah, I see: karma whoring at its very finest!

it wasn't a secret.. people knew. i think you are the one who are misinformed. just because everyone in the US didn't know doesn't mean people didn't know.

Eh, it happens. Ironically, controlled debt is another issue entirely.

Pot... Kettle...

It's also getting harder and harder to see you over the steadily increasing number of these:

qwerteafortwo[S] comment score below threshold

That would certainly seem more reasonable. So, by parallel, you could plan something like 9/11 in secret, but once the towers came down, everybody involved would presumably also "pretty much figure out what they had been contributing to." But here we are, 12 years later, and no-one credible has claimed involvement in any aspect. That'd be like America keeping its involvement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki secret through 1957.

Thermite is so 5 years ago, I really can't believe folks still post things like this.

That is OPs point.

Look girlfriend, the original post that I responded to here was how the Manhattan Project was a great example of how really huge secrets can be kept.

I pointed out many reasons why that was not a fair comparison.

There was no "compartmentalization" in the OP's post and no mention of any specific conspiracy by me or OP.

So you tell me, how did "compartmentalization" keep the entire country from knowing that FDR was confined to a wheelchair if the world wasn't just a very different place in 1945 than it is today.

So I'll repeat once again my original point. Comparing the secrecy of the Manhattan project to modern conspiracies (whether real OR imagined) is simply an invalid exercise.

The only major conspiracy that I truly believe in wholeheartedly is that many of those terribly designed videos and websites are made by the US government to try and make people who question the official story look crazy. Lol.

Hence why Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA. Everyone assumed bad things were going on, but a lot of things were just not said or kept quiet.

I said "in my original post I never once mentioned the 9/11 conspiracy theories".

Reading, do you do it?

That's only evidence that everyone except the American people are aware of NSA spying. Pretty much every government knows.

Your brain is a mothafuckin' fortress, dude. I don't give a shit anymore. I've given you more of my time than you deserve. Carry on, automaton.

Glad your upvotes make you feel better.

Are you actually reading my posts? If you can independently produce those conclusions, then you can verify them. If their model is an accurate description of what happened, then a trained structural engineer should have no trouble reproducing it with reasonable assumptions as to any data he cannot glean from either NIST's report or their subsequently released data. If he cannot arrive at a substantially similar conclusion as to the collapse sequence given all reasonable parameters and scenarios, then he has a basis to challenge the NIST report's conclusions. He does not need NIST's data or exact calculations to see whether he can independently arrive at NIST's conclusions.

?

If you don't have the skills to verify the data, you have to rely upon a structural engineer's assessment of that data, anyhow. But if you are relying on the work of a structural engineers, you don't need to data because a structural engineer would be able to verify NIST's conclusions without NISTs data, as I've explained like ten times now.

Also, I should note that its very odd to respond by quoting your own arbitrary rule against personalizing the issue in response to my answer to your own personalized inquiry.

a structural engineer would be able to verify NIST's conclusions without NISTs data

How does one verify NIST's science without the science NIST used?

Edit: NIST's computer input data 'variables' are hidden so NO ONE can replicate this experiment except for the good fraud 'dr' shyam sunder and co.

Dude you never had a chance to convince me that the MP has any similarity to anything going on today.

1945 is not 2001 no matter how hard you squint your eyes.

Did you finally realize that since you can't provide NIST's computer simulation data you and NIST have no science to back your conspiracy theory up?

Now you're ignoring my statements...