"Why the Israeli government decided not to
share with us all the critical information they had, and
the extent of that information, is a subject for the public
inquiry. They may have thought some sort of warning
prudent in the event their surveillance activities later
became a matter of public knowledge. But any energetic
Israeli effort to assist the United States in preventing
the attacks would not have served their strategic interest,
in view of the disastrous effect those attacks were likely
to have on the relationships between the United States and
the Arab world."
Keep in mind that Gerald Shea was a lawyer (DA in California at the time he wrote this) without access to any official information this isn’t an official document, it’s something that a person wrote on their own and submitted it.
This is very much bordering on conspiracy theories…
Thanks for the info on Gerald Shea!
Though if you'd like to comment on the "Shea Memorandum" / Gerald Shea I think that would be more appropriate on the parent comment?
A question was asked, I answered with the relevant quote from the paper, you replied "conspiracy theory" on that specific quote & ad-hominem'ed the author?
Calling "conspiracy theory" is not good-faith discussion and employs a number of logical fallacies like appeal to ridicule & poisoning the well.
What parts of the "Shea Memorandum" do you think are likely non-factual? The Israeli art students?
Nothing in that “memorandum” is actually backed by any evidence, it’s the unofficial work of a single individual who neither has had intelligence experience nor access to any intelligence material.
It is fan fiction not an official document, hence why it was rejected at its time for the nonsense it is, but I guess the daily stormer is cool these days.
You did not answer the question. Its irrelevant who Shea is or what you assume about his circumstances, if the evidence discussed is well-sourced. Which reported evidence in the Shea report are you contending is false (or not asserted in contemporaneous sources cited in the document), and why?
I have not created dozen accounts and the 3 parent comments are not me.
Someone posted a broken link, claimed it was HN censorship (which I found surprising & concerning), I got curious & re-posted it to test. I found it was actually not censored by HN and edited my comment to disclose that to others in the thread.
Well, the security of Bitcoin == amount of transaction fees + block rewards. The cost to 51% attack the network is opportunity cost of mining valid transactions
So you either get secure wasteful bitcoin, or insecure bitcoin. Not really any other options with PoW
> The cost to 51% attack the network is opportunity cost of mining valid transactions
Which, after the block rewards run out and the price of Bitcoin probably looks different, will still be difficult to attack. But, the mining will have stopped then. Although it's pretty far in the future presumably.
Tons of other solutions than PoW as well, Algorand's PPoS is just one example.
