| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Plausible Deniability In Clandestine Operations; successful operations depend upon it | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 17 2008, 05:02 PM (353 Views) | |
| Ferric Oxide | Dec 17 2008, 05:02 PM Post #1 |
|
September 11, 2001 It unfortunately appears that the information released through mainstream sources regarding these tragic events is inaccurate at best, and purposefully deceptive at worst. Through the use of Church Committee-styled plausible deniability, it seems that half- truths regarding the events of 911 have been published through mainstream sources to promote the concept of “plausible deniability.” The goal is to see through the point of plausible deniability and work to publish the related information. Plausible Deniability: “Poised to Collapse” For example, NIST has studied the collapses of the towers up to the point that the towers were “poised” to collapse. Leslie Robertson (in an interview with Professor Jones) failed to see the benefit of studying the collapse to its completion. This is the point of plausible deniability. If NIST studied the collapse all the way to the ground, then the official account becomes implausible (from an official standpoint). The laws of physics would naturally have led them to the mass problem and the speed of collapse problem. By not studying the collapse beyond the "poised" position, NIST plausibly denied virtually any other version of events. In fact, because the explosives theory could be denied through use of emotional arguments, many sound alternative theories were ignored. The only way to cut through plausible deniability in this case would be to demand that the government study the collapse of the towers beyond the “poised to fall” point. Plausible Deniability: Withholding Evidence (Photos and Video) and Planting Physical Evidence Another example of the use of plausible deniability is through use of withholding of evidence. Photos of the south side of building 7 have been purportedly withheld, photos and video of molten metal pools have been withheld, photos of the New Baltimore area debris field have been withheld, and photos and video of the Pentagon collision and explosions have been withheld. These are points of plausible deniability. In other words, if the photographic data were released, then the present official accounts would not be plausible, and therefore, the government could not “plausibly deny” alternative scientifically sound theories. There are theories that evidence (such as passports and paperwork) may have been planted by certain parties in an attempt to bolster the culpability of a sheep-dipped subject. Such operations involve more careful consideration, as there are no legal arguments to rationalize the planting of evidence. However, withholding evidence can be explained by using terms such as “national security” and “pending investigation”. The point of plausible deniability for planted evidence must lay at the feet of the investigating officer. The investigating officer must find the evidence independently from the rogue sponsor who planted it. Emotional arguments can be utilized through a later press operation to reinforce this plausible deniability. Plausible Deniability: Sheep-Dipping and Cover Plausible deniability has been used by the clandestine services for many years, and there are many examples of how the concept can be properly utilized. To further illustrate the concept of plausible deniability we can examine the OKC tragedy. In the case of the OKC bombing it appears that both “sheep dipping”, and explosions to cover interior explosions may have been used to plausibly deny certain aspects of initial press stories, and to “pin” the job on the target. Although, in the case of the OKC, it appears that, fortunately, some interior ordnance did not detonate, and authorities were able to successfully remove certain materials. In any case, it appears that an already disturbed and criminal-minded McVeigh character may have been recruited and “sheep-dipped” to perform a certain horrendous duty. It appears that the truck explosion was meant to mask the explosions of ordnance inside the structure. In fact, the local press reported the presence of additional explosions at that time. “Sheep-dipping” can take many forms. Some individuals might be totally unaware of “handling”, where others are fully aware of some kind of mischievous involvement at some compartmentalized level. In either case, the concept of sheep dipping can be of use in building plausible deniability. There may be a combination of methods used to sheep- dip a suspect. For example, a suspect may be surreptitiously videotaped making certain statements against his interest, and may be goaded into doing so by an agent of the sponsor. That video can then be edited and later used to prosecute the target along with other manufactured or actual evidence, depending on the involvement of the sheep- dipped suspect. All of this data is used for the purpose of building “plausible deniability.” Plausible Deniability: Compartmentalization, Gaming, and Mirror Projects The use of compartmentalization is also used to build plausible deniability in certain projects. For example, innocent but technically “sheep-dipped” parties may take part in an actual operation without their direct knowledge, because they are working on a mock project that mirrors the actual operation. Furthermore, the innocent parties would be working under a classified status for the mock project that would mask them from legal culpability for the actual operation. They would have actual deniability, which then may alter into “plausible deniability” once they understood their actual part in the project. Their classified status may prevent them from divulging information even after the mischievous nature of the operation has been revealed to them. This ensures plausible deniability at several operational levels. Gag orders and other legal tools (such as classified status and national security exemptions) can be used to dissuade a knowledgeable party from voluntarily divulging information by a compartmentalized unit of the operation. In fact, a vast number of technically sheep-dipped but initially innocent compartmentalized parties can be dissuaded from divulging knowledge through use of even the lowest of classified status. The Press and “True Source” Much has been said about the press and their inability to report alternative theories in a balanced manner, but this only speaks to a symptom, and not to the actual utilization of the press for “plausible deniability”. Remember that one must look through the point of plausible deniability in order to find the actual information. For example, a reporter on television is simply reading from a teleprompter. The producer prepares the teleprompter (among others in the studio). The source of the news for the teleprompter might be AP, Reuters, or another well-known source. AP or Reuters may have received their information from a local news station. The local news station may have received their information from a “source.” The source could be a person on the street (in the case of the infamous Harley Guy), a phone source, or a statement indicating that “officials” are claiming something. However, the point where one must look to for the actual information and the truth behind it would be the “True Source”(often the specific Pentagon source). There are also other well known and lower level COINTELLPRO type projects which utilize methods to antagonize and discredit certain viewpoints. However, there must not be too much credit given to any lower level press related project. There is already a built in demographic which aptly fills these shoes, without the exorbitant expenditures required for a higher-level press related project. Press related projects are usually used for the finalization stage of a given project, and the necessity and length of their use depends upon the size and success of a given operation. |
 |
 
|
| JackD | Dec 18 2008, 01:20 AM Post #2 |
|
good post! |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic » |
4:08 PM Nov 28
