So whom will be pleased by the success of these (9-11, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon) conspiracies? And who would be displeased if the conspiracy was discovered. Where is there more to gain for the countless people that would have to know that the events were not as we have been led to believe?
In the "Conspiratorial Press", as some might term the online and radio "conservatives" who link these events somehow, of course, the benefactors of these successes are the statists who needed to overcome a resistance believed to exist in the American public, to gun control, state surveillance of citizens, and other more or less traditional ideas of what our constitutional rights may be. We need to be made pliable to the managerial need for more tools for use in managing the public.
My own opinion might not run exactly like Alex Jones or John B. Wells.
Obviously, the flaw in your reasoning is the belief that it takes "countless people" who are "in the know" that these conspiracies are not as we have been led to believe by the establishment media. Machiavelli writes before the advent of modern psychological science and the development of scientific methods of public persuasion or mind control. The maintenance of a dominant line of indoctrination or of propaganda constantly bombarding the sensibilities of a harried if not misdirected mind would be an essential component to any modern scheme for securing changes in a nominative democratic nation. . . .
You have not read my previous comments very carefully because you missed references to techniques that Machiavelli probably never saw in operation. . . . organization of teams using compartmentalized information, even of two opposing teams each being guided from a single unseen point of management. . . . .
As I outlined above, with a public populated by persons who reflexively respond to authoritative instruction is rich in candidates for manipulation by a few authority figures. A whole fire department controlled by one chief, a whole police department managed by one chief. It is easy enough to explain that our national security depends on training done under realistic settings, and that if the public really knew it was "just an exercise", so would our enemies, and the values achieved in the exercise would be compromised to the possible loss of many many lives in some future event. . . .
In the cases of 9-11, Sandy Hook, and the Boston Marathon, there were specific plans referenced in the press for a training exercise on the day of the actual event. It does not take a thousand news reporters to create such a cover story, it only takes one "source" with credentials requesting such a notice, and instructing that it not be the most prominent news item of the day. . . . as was the case.
When it became "obvious" later that a real event happened, and there were lives lost in fact, it only takes a chief or two to comment that obviously, something real had happened coincidentally. It is a case of "plausible deniability" and of patriotic trustworthy professionalism in the ranks. You just don't go out and blab unless you're told to. You're a good American.
A third consideration is the possible development of a "professional" troupe consisting of compromised personnel who can be effectively handled if anyone steps out of line, of course well-paid. Such a troupe would be utilized sequentially in various "events". With the further consideration that these "professionals" receive psychological "management" as well. . . . with the most modern techniques and expertise of course. . . .
So, in my model "theory", the number of informed independent persons who could give enough fact to reveal the plan and how it was carried out is kept at an absolute minimum, by pinching the information both above and below the point of implementation. This makes a scheme like this possible with only a few who must have a reason like Machiavelli describes for keeping faith with the plan.
