I want to elaborate somewhat on the idea of transparent conspiracy (see part 3), lest the idea seem too big to chew. It is chewable, but it takes a little work. Even though I have been chewing on it for some time, I am only now arriving at the conclusion, as I pointed out in part 4, that the theory is correct.
First of all, let's give it a name that will itself be more transpaent: MITOP. We are familiar with LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). Now we have "Made It Transparent On Purpose."
What do so many people now think 9/11 was an inside job? Because there are so many reasons to think so? Yes--for all of those reasons, and for one more that not so many people may have thought of: we are supposed to think so. The perpetrators, the people on the inside (Orwell's "Inner Party") want us to think so.
http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/logical6.htm">Full article
I like his theory. That said there are a couple of obvious objections:
1. If a key goal of false sponsorship attacks is to convince the public that the false sponsor was responsible, then why detract from that goal by way of "showing their cards?"
2. How could they know that MITOP wouldn't get out of hand? Wouldn't the lower level operatives be worried that if things (for example the real cover up afterwards) didn't go as planned that they would be sacrificed?
The answer appears to be that the benefits of transparent conspiracy (intimidation, inducing double think, demoralizing the public) outweigh the benefits of concealment. I don't pretend to have any definitive answers.
Naomi Wolf has an interesting take on psychological manipulation:
I have a section in the book about how lies in a fascist shift serve a different purpose than they do in a democracy. In a democracy, people lie to deceive. In a fascist shift, lies serve to disorient. Lies in the service of a fascist shift make it hard for citizens to trust their own judgment about what's real and what's not. Once citizens don't know what's real and what's not real, they are profoundly disempowered. The Bush administration seems to have learned that lesson, and they regularly name things the opposite. And there's a long historical precedent for making people feel that there is no such thing as truth.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/077">Link
The Bush administration has used three extremely effective traditional propaganda themes:
Shared nationalism: For example when a politician says something like "We are winning in Iraq." The use of such a phrase implies that all Americans are on the same team and share the same goals. This simplification is effective because it suggests that political leaders do not have agendas contrary to those of the public.
Conflation: Supporting the civilian command is the same thing as supporting soldiers. Thus, failure to support the civilian command is the same thing as failure to support soldiers. Another example in a different context is the conflation of Bin Laden and Hussein.
Authoritarianism: Failure to support the policies of the leaders is indicative of flawed citizenship and/or lack of patriotism.
I would guess when it comes to manipulating the public, all options are on the table.