I like his analysis of security lapses and failures, but I wouldn't conjecture conspiracy theories (or false flag events) based on that analysis (like he alludes to in his video).
People often over-estimate the competence level of experts, academics, intellectuals, organizations, corporations, people in power, oligarchs, etc.. People often seem to believe that "if so-and-so person/organization is one of the best in the world" then they must be competent 'always'. The reality is that failures happen all the time. Mistakes happen all the time (sometimes even by the most qualified and experienced people). Add in the element of randomness and unpredictability - and you have multiple points of possible failure in any scenario/event (even high profile ones).
Unfortunately, most people are unable to come to grips with "normal human folly and stupidity", "inadequate preparedness", and "hubris that leads to complacency, shortsightedness, negligence, and errors in judgement" (especially for high profile/intensity events) - and often go in the direction of conspiracy theories to try to resolve the cognitive dissonance between what they observe/experience and their interpretation /conception of how the world works (or should).
In a sense, many conspiracy theories are an attempt to explain the reality in a way so as to "fit-in" with an already believed/ingrained world-view and system - i.e. making unexplainable observations fit/conform to existing belief systems. If narratives have to change for that to happen, then so be it - whatever resolves the discomfort. (Revisionist histories are a good example of changing narratives to fit dominant/socially-acceptable belief systems).
I like his analysis of security lapses and failures, but I wouldn't conjecture conspiracy theories (or false flag events) based on that analysis (like he alludes to in his video).
People often over-estimate the competence level of experts, academics, intellectuals, organizations, corporations, people in power, oligarchs, etc.. People often seem to believe that "if so-and-so person/organization is one of the best in the world" then they must be competent 'always'. The reality is that failures happen all the time. Mistakes happen all the time (sometimes even by the most qualified and experienced people). Add in the element of randomness and unpredictability - and you have multiple points of possible failure in any scenario/event (even high profile ones).
Unfortunately, most people are unable to come to grips with "normal human folly and stupidity", "inadequate preparedness", and "hubris that leads to complacency, shortsightedness, negligence, and errors in judgement" (especially for high profile/intensity events) - and often go in the direction of conspiracy theories to try to resolve the cognitive dissonance between what they observe/experience and their interpretation /conception of how the world works (or should).
In a sense, many conspiracy theories are an attempt to explain the reality in a way so as to "fit-in" with an already believed/ingrained world-view and system - i.e. making unexplainable observations fit/conform to existing belief systems. If narratives have to change for that to happen, then so be it - whatever resolves the discomfort. (Revisionist histories are a good example of changing narratives to fit dominant/socially-acceptable belief systems).