Minimal Involvement 'Conspiracy Theory' Example
9/11: a 7-Man Job - George Washington's Blog
A common objection to the argument that 9/11 was an inside job is that the conspiracy would be too big to keep quiet. In other words, the argument is that it is impossible that so many people could have kept quiet for so long. SOMEONE would have talked or made a mistake, so that the conspiracy would have been discovered.
Is that true? Maybe.
But anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum movie, or even watched enough Stargate, Star Trek or Alias, knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies, especially when they've got a high-level military or government person on board.
Moreover, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a "need-to-know basis", along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won't even know the big picture.
A common statement to 9/11 skeptics is that 9/11 couldn't have been a criminal conspiracy because someone would've talked by now. George does a good job showing a simple example of how as little as 7 people would have had to be in the 'know', while some others have shown fewer than that in more simplified explanations of 9/11 complicity such as in Michael Ruppert's book.
Now, the question I have is how many figured it out afterwards and just kept their mouths shut - that number would have to be a good bit larger.