This topic is conspiracy theory. First question. What is a conspiracy?
Theory of Conspiracy
(44 posts) (9 voices)-
a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
[url]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/url]Posted 2 years ago # -
hmmm... url thing failed. anyone can tell me how to do it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Usually alt D followed by ctrl C works. Lessee:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conspiracy&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=Posted 2 years ago # -
oh ok thanks. should have known that
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ty
Moderator1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.Posted 2 years ago # -
From the Wiki:
Conspiracy theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Conspiracy theory (disambiguation).
For a list of conspiracy theories see: List of conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]
Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.[1][2]
The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.[3]
According to political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media. He argues that this has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.[1] According to anthropologists Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today…gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories."[4] Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.Posted 2 years ago # -
Professor Marvel
Member"They believe in this conspiracy theory, as they will believe in the next one, because conspiracy theories bring order to a chaotic universe. The hundreds of pages of patiently collected witness statements will make no difference to those who are too frightened to accept the messiness of life."
Nick Cohen
Sunday December 17, 2006
The ObserverPosted 2 years ago # -
Kodie
MemberConspiracies are anything where 2 or more people plan an event, and I think in law, conspiracy refers to a plan that is a crime. A conspiracy doesn't have to be secretive, but it usually is secretive until it is revealed, otherwise just called a plan. Planning a wedding is a plan. Planning a surprise party is a conspiracy. Planning an art heist is a criminal conspiracy.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are when someone doesn't feel we are being told the truth, and suspect there was some conspiracy (plan) that eludes or evades recognition. Al-Qaida operatives conspired (criminal; secretive) to attack the USA by hijacking airplanes at a particular date and time and flying those planes into buildings (revelation or realization of the plan). A conspiracy theory suggests by looking at all the footage, and creating a thin line from A to B to C, that Al-Qaida was actually not the conspirators, but the scapegoat to another theoretical conspiracy (criminal; secretive; diverting blame) by the US government.
A conspiracy theory is an alternate version of what we're told happened. We are told A, conspiracy theorists suggest A was merely a hoax put on by a band of conspirators. I'm not sure lying about putting men on the moon would constitute a criminal conspiracy if true. We are told F, and all signs point to F for most people, conspiracy theorists "dig up" an alternate set of details or evidence that "clearly" suggests F is just what they want you to believe - they being the conspirators. Coordinating 9/11 from internal US operatives, the long list of details not obvious enough unless you slow them down and draw circles around them in all the footage, etc., is an alternate course of events that were made to look like a believable Muslim attack. If you believe the "truth," it seems easy enough for the theoretical conspirators (US gov't) to misdirect the public's attention to Muslims and let them take credit/blame, while they go smoke cigars and celebrate getting one over on Americans.
Conspiracy theorists don't let it rest that easy, they do not want to be victims of believing a lie told by the government. The government is suspicious, they are up to something, it's a mysterious machinery capable of corruption and we've seen it (for real and in movies). The government has secrets and secretive agencies, and these are almost always portrayed in movies as being cooler and more interesting and organized than I think they probably are. Fictional accounts of agents, agencies, investigators, crimes, and computer programs make organizing a conspiracy to use a scapegoat to carry off a major event look way too easy.
And then they may have a real problem with the system of government or particular politicians. Since corrupt politicians exist, many intricate working parts of the plan do not necessarily have to be in the know or speak up. Part A of the plan to misdirect the general public is to misdirect people who carry out parts of the conspiracy. I bet we've all had a boss who asked us to do something in the course of a day that seemed ordinary and not thought to ask, is this for your secretive criminal conspiracy? Sneaky conspirators delegate to dupes all the time, right? Is your boss corrupt or have you ever worked for a boss you knew wasn't "right" about everything, or have any idea what he did in his spare time? Or done a task not directly oriented to the company, you know, what's it to you, you still get paid for your time, and you probably won't get fired because the boss asked you to spend some time on his side project. Whether you realize it or not, you've also been lied to, especially when something doesn't seem normal, what it's for or the 'just do what I asked you to' line, and then it's over and forgotten.
When something happens, like a moon landing or a terrorist attack, could even be smaller like the death of Marilyn Monroe or some other celebrity, a story can be invented that differs from what we're told, it can usually be traced back to our government artificially, then we can accuse the government of creating this event secretly and criminally, rather than what we're told to believe, the scapegoat.
It starts with wanting to believe it and being willing to believe it. I generally look at it, I wouldn't want to be one who dismisses things on the basis they are another "conspiracy theory" wolf-crying incident when this time there's something to it. There might be something to it, you have to look at it first.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think individual theories should be judged on their individual merits or lack thereof. You have to go to the root. Where did the theory start? How did it first reach the public? What reasons do people give for believing the theory? What do they cite as evidence for the conspiracy? Is the theory based on information being denied to the public, or is the theory based on denying information that is publicly available? Of course these are tricky questions. And conspiratorial beliefs, like religious beliefs can take many different forms. But most theories have an original theorist. And most theorists will be happy to tell you what evidence they have or think they have if given a chance. The theories which are complete bullsh*t will reveal themselves accordingly.
Here’s the thing. I am a conspiracy theorist. I try to avoid the label as it is a bad description of my beliefs and has a lot of unfortunate stigma associated with it (like atheist). And I don’t believe the vast majority of things that fall under the heading of “conspiracy theories”. But I think we could all agree on the fairly uncontroversial premise that our government has not always been entirely honest with us.
The start of most conspiracy theories is a vacuum of information surrounding a real event in which the public is given extremely limited or verifiably false information (JFK, 9/11, WMDs, Gulf of Tonkin, that sort of thing). Something happens. People want to know what happened. They turn to the media sources that should be giving them reliable information and they find only the flagrant manufacture of consent by complicit media outlets. They turn to the government and are told that releasing evidence would compromise security and instead we should simply take their word for it. What else would you expect people to do but theorize?
I just wanna disclaim real quick that I am not talking about the “birther” type conspiracies. Many conspiracy theories started with a organized smear campaign from fox news or one of their 18th century counterparts (or the Jesuits). Many conspiracy theories are still widely believed despite having been absolutely debunked several times. So please don’t think I’m trying to issue a blanket endorsement of every theory on the internet. A lot of them are bullsh*t. I believe we did land on the moon (I wouldn’t put it past NASA to edit footage so the Russians wouldn’t see some randomass moon rock that no one would give a sh*t about now anyway, and then wait another 40 years to release the footage, even if there was a conspiracy theory about a fake moon landing). I believe that the Obama-Kenyan-Muslim theory is based entirely on a false claim made by republicans during the 2008 presidential election that just caught on because of the inherent racism of the conservative base (of course the original liars in this case are still actively fanning the flames). And I believe that if 9/11 was an inside job, then people like Alex Jones, have done more harm than good to the cause of raising awareness and bringing about a proper investigation.
Unfortunately, just like every other aspect of our political spectrum, the conspiracy theorist movement is dominated by the loudest, dumbest, and most obnoxious (and for quite a few theories you can include racist) voices within the movement. Right now, the group which calls itself the tea party is co-opting the ideas of distrust of authority, civil disobedience, greater personal liberty and a less intrusive more efficient government (all theories I’ve spent most of my life advocating for) to distract people from the fact that its real goal is to bring back George Bush. In the current climate you can not even begin to address any conspiracy theory without some *ssh*le jumping on your arguments and trying to use them to support a blatantly fascist agenda (if I thought the tea party was about raging against the machine instead of protecting the worst aspects of said machine I would be right there with Glenn Beck).
And in the time I’ve been investigating conspiracies, one of the most consistent and annoying issues I’ve encountered is the citing of weak evidence or non evidence by people advocating theories that there often is strong credible evidence for. The culprit in this case is simply that the dumbest possible variant of any belief will always have the most appeal to the masses (I bet an informal poll of UF or the internet would show that almost everyone here has seen "Loose Change" and almost no one here has read "Crossing The Rubicon").
Once a conspiracy theory is introduced to the public it becomes subject to oral tradition. Different theorists come up with different (and often conflicting) theories to explain the same event. They make books or videos to express these theories. Of the people who see these, obviously some will be convinced and some will not. But some of those who are convinced will be more convinced than others (or will remember more details than others). Some of the second generation of theorists will repeat what they heard in its entirety. Some will leave out bits that they forget or do not find as convincing. Some will add bits of their own that they think explain things better or add support for some other theory. Since conspiracy theories are largely decentralized and there is no academic framework for reaching consensus, the inevitable result is that a theory (even one with one original source) will branch off into multiple theories. Any conspiracy theory that has caught on with a significant portion of the public will exist in at least two almost completely different forms within a few years.
Let’s take for example the assassination of John F. Kennedy. One incident which has spawned dozens (maybe hundreds) of theories. At the root you have two options. You can believe (A) the conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, or you can believe (B) he wasn’t. Now if you go with A, you’re pretty much concluded. There are still some questions about Oswald’s motivations, but Jack Ruby cut that debate a little short, and those questions are inherently unanswerable but ultimately not important if you have already concluded that Oswald was the only shooter and was acting only on his own behalf. But if you go with B, then you immediately face a dilemma. A vacuum of evidence with more questions than answers. Was Oswald one of numerous shooters or was he just a patsy? You know that a bullet does not enter the back of a person’s head causing it to snap backward and spray brain matter in a cone over the back of their car. But what else do you know? Not much since there is only one available video of the shot in question (and Kennedy was off camera during the first shot). So people come up with guesses to fill the vacuum of information. Some guess he was killed by the mafia. Some guess he was killed by Cubans. Some guess he was killed by aliens. I’ve also heard arguments for Russians, Nixon, and one of Marilyn Monroe’s other lovers. Me, I’m of the opinion that he was killed by the CIA. Of course I am under no illusions that such a thing can be conclusively proven (there is rather strong circumstantial evidence). Not in a vacuum of information. In the end, what it comes down to is whether you take the word of the person giving you the word, or look for some other explanation.
Which brings us to the crown jewel of conspiracy theories.
On September 11th 2001…
(To be continued; I’m breaking up this post so it doesn’t set off the spam alarm)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just thought I'd mention this:
I was looking at the blazing sun this morning, in the midst of this incredible heat wave we’re having. The sun was enveloped in a thin layer of wispy clouds. I have seen this phenomenon often. The sun behind a thin layer of clouds. I have, in fact, observed those kind of clouds being made, over the past several years. I have seen them enough, watched their pattern of dispersement, to recognize them as man-made clouds. I have watched the planes, little dots high in the stratosphere, leaving what would have to be gigantic billowing plumes behind, judging by their size relative to the speck from which they issue. There is little doubt that these planes are spraying something. These chemtrails linger in the air long after the aircraft making the mark is gone. These trails gradually become wider and thinner until, along with many other chem trails they dissolve into a thin hazy cloud. Usually these clouds somehow end up being in front of the sun. The frequency with which they block the sun suggests that that is their purpose. It is no accident. The clouds are likely designed to shield urban areas, to some degree or another from some aspect of solar radiation. Is there something our government is not telling us? Man-made clouds? An international conspiracy in plain sight just above our heads? I wouldn’t believe it either (yes I would because I know the kinds of things governments do in secret) if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes. Though I have pointed the phenomenon out to several people, almost no one is convinced. Even when they see it.Posted 2 years ago # -
Everyone has a story about where they were when Flight 11 hit the North Tower. I was asleep. I had worked a graveyard shift at Circus Circus on 9/10, and passed out around an hour before the defining event of an era. My roommate woke me up in time to catch the second plane hitting WTC2. As I sat there watching the carnage and watched everyone freaking out, I was oddly not freaked out. At the time there didn’t seem to be anything surreal, or even that scary about what was happening. The media was clearly ejaculating all over themselves with ratings frenzy while trying to look deeply concerned over a tragedy, but then that’s what they always do. The government was issuing vague and unhelpful assurances that everything was under control without giving us any useful information, but then that’s what they always do. And then something happened that I did find incredibly odd for some reason. While the towers were still burning, before the Pentagon had even been hit, they had a suspect. Wait, what? They have a suspect? Already? They must have known something like this was gonna happen. Of course this original question has long since been answered. But this inspired me to be suspicious. I started watching and listening a little closer. And while everyone else was sh*tting themselves over anthrax I was watching and listening. And as the story continued to unfold I kept seeing details that were just not right. The reason I’m sharing my 9/11 story is to clarify that I did not begin questioning the official story because I saw “Loose Change” or “Zeitgeist”. I began questioning the official story while the buildings were burning. I am patient zero of my own conspiracy theory, and I think that is an important distinction from being convinced by some video on youtube.
As I said my original question has long since been answered. The official story has changed from, “We had no idea what was going to happen and no way to stop it” to “Richard Clarke knew this was going to happen but George Bush didn’t read the memo”. We’ve all seen Richard Clarke’s memo to Condoleezza Rice, and read the unredacted portions of the August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. And as more information has come to the public about just how much bin Laden was on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies before 9/11, I have actually become much less suspicious about this particular detail. The fact that they knew something like this was going to happen is now an accepted part of the official story and the question becomes about how much was known by who and when.
Of course there are a whole range of other questions within the scenario where 9/11 was actually carried out by the U.S. government. As this is not the conclusion that is suggested to me by the evidence and not the conclusion I am arguing for, I don’t find it necessary to address any of them and we can just consider that a crazy conspiracy theory.
What if 9/11 was not exactly carried out by the government, but steps were actively taken by factions within the U.S. government (with advance knowledge of these attacks) to increase the likelihood that the attacks would succeed. Inside job? Not quite. Conspiracy? F*ckin A.
It is a well documented well known and uncontroversial premise that the Bush administration capitalized on 9/11 and used the attacks as an excuse to further an agenda that they had been planning at least since these same guys were in the Reagan administration. If the people who profited the most from 9/11 were the same people who were in a position to facilitate 9/11 (and the only primary source for the official story of 9/11), then you have motive and opportunity. And al Qaeda may have brought the means without even realizing they were playing into the hand of the great white American devil.
Of course this doesn’t address all the variations of 9/11 conspiracy theories. But I’m not arguing for all of them (I’m pulling a JonJon here). What I am arguing for is the questioning of official stories, and the application of the principles of skepticism in analyzing things already within the natural realm. I don’t have evidence that “masonic jews planted bombs in the WTC” (as 911 CT’s were recently summarized on “Qotd:Conspiracism” [and this is actually something a significant number of people do believe]). But I do have evidence (and I do actually mean evidence) that many pieces of the official story are absolute bollocks.
I’ll post a summary of my case after I get back from work. But I’ve got a good block of paranoid rambling here. So I’m gonna post it sans evidence (for now) with just one more thought on the subject of conspiracy theories.
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski
-The Grand ChessboardPosted 2 years ago # -
burpy
MemberI don´t think that it was too surprising that they had a suspect almost straight away. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were the first things that I thought about when I heard about the second plane. And I´m just someone who has a passing interest in Islamic Fascism. He was very well known to the intelligence community due to the African embassy bombings amongst other things. This doesn´t negate your position however, I´m just pointing out that its not as much of an anomaly as you think.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Kodie
Member@burpy -- that is a really good thing to point out in any case. Crackpot conspiracy theories generally rely on people not considering that not every odd thing is impossible in the context of what we're told. I'm obviously not into conspiracy theories as much as Nox, but when your gut goes, "that is not right," you want to find out if there are any more pieces that don't seem to fit. There are coincidences, and there are things you just don't know, and maybe you find out later or maybe you don't.
Similarly to religious beliefs, it seems many have found or confirmed deeper faith through an event or "sign" that strikes the person as odd, and attribute it straight to god, miracles, psychic predictions, etc., without accounting for coincidences or things they don't know (even very simple things they were never taught or refuse to believe). A conspiracy theorists decides this thing is absolutely impossible any other way than their conspiracy and go out of their way to construct an elaborate set of circumstances that make the gullible go hmmm.
I would say something like the "End Times" is along the lines of a conspiracy theory; when something happens, it's another sign that it's getting near. People make (copies of) long lists of extremely vague bible predictions scattered throughout the bible in no particular order that may be loosely associated with some trend in our culture or weather or politics, I mean out of their way to scrounge up just about anything, and POOF! followers are amazed. Most of those predictions aren't predictions or they are obvious comments on society in general or they are too vague, etc. It is amazing to me how on one hand, you have reality, and on the other hand, you have an extremely thin veil or loose thread, that if you tug on it, those connections gain strength by being barely noticeable. It's like finding a rusty penny under a rock under an old car inside a dark cave filled with bats. You are rich! Now how are you going to share that penny with the world, they need to know this stuff. Reality is so much more convincing and real, but these pennies people dig up are so rewarding because they prove their hunch, based on the odd thing that is not possible any other way (except that it is).
That's not to say following your hunch, even if that odd thing isn't impossible, is always terrible. I do believe some people are up to something some of the time, and not just sit back and take what they tell me at face value. I think that's the rejection of religion, rejection of authority lying when it's convenient or advantageous for them to do so, civic duty to keep an eye on the government, etc. Something must be up sometimes, and there's always or nearly always a trace you can follow when you think things don't add up.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. That is I don't necessarily subscribe to a particular theory. I just don't automatically rule out those things that seem impossible. Some things originally deemed impossible in the past actually turned out to be true; though appearances said otherwise. That whole the sun revolving around the earth business for example.
Part of the problem here is dealing with the stigma attached to the idea of conspiracy theory. I found your description of 911 very interesting, Nox. And the reluctance to speak about it. Seems like the first step in disinformation is to declare something a conspiracy theory. Automatically anyone scrutinizing the given incident is a kook. To suggest a conspiracy here, if I may, it's a mind control tactic.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well I am actually surprised that my endorsement of a conspiracy theory that goes against the skeptical consensus did not generate more rebuttals here in the epicenter of skepticism. Perhaps my theory is not stated clearly enough to argue against, or is not controversial enough to bother arguing against (or no one gives a sh*t about my mad ravings [except Kodie and nomad, neither of whom seem exactly opposed to conspiracy theories]), but I did already state that there were some specific things about the 9/11 official story that I don’t buy. So here’s a few more specifics on what I was talking about earlier.
As I said, what I am putting forward here is not conclusive evidence of any particular conspiracy. This is merely evidence that there is more to the story than we have been told. These are just some things that my gut tells me aren’t quite right. If this event happened the way it has been reported then these details should be different. How different and in what way (or whether there even is any validity to what I am saying at all) I leave to you my UF pals to individually determine for yourselves. I present them here only as a thought exercise.
The topic of this thought exercise is not whether conspiracy theories are true but why conspiracy theories exist.
If the events that happened on 09/11/01 were the same as the events reported in the American media and the 9/11 Commission Report, then what the f*ck is up with this...
Posted 2 years ago # -
(1) How is it a possible coincidence that on the morning of September 11th 2001, the Air Force, NORAD, The Northeast Air Defense Sector, FEMA, and the National Reconnaissance Office were all running drills or wargames that overlapped with the terrorist attack scenario?
(2) Why does Usama bin Laden’s official wanted poster on the FBI’s website (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm) list OBL as being “wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 Bombings of the United States embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya”, and that he “is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world” with absolutely no specific mention of the one he is most famous for? This has to be the biggest typo in FBI history.
(3) How is it that in the Commission to Investigate the 9/11 attacks, Condoleezza Rice testified that George Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan a week before 9/11 and was not asked one followup question about this?
Posted 2 years ago # -
(4) And for that matter, why did George Bush and Dick Cheney refuse to testify to the 9/11 Commission and then agree to testify but only under the conditions that they would appear together, no cameras or transcribing would be allowed, anything they said would be classified, and that not all the members of the 9/11 Commission would even be allowed to be present in the room during Bush and Cheney’s testimony? (seriously, try to find any report anywhere [the 9/11 Commission Report, any media outlet, f*cking anywhere] of anything that Bush and Cheney told the commissioners)?
(5) And why would the commission agree to this? Well that one answers itself. And the answer is Philip Zelikow (as in Philip Zelikow the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush senior administration official and co-author of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and of course “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed” by Philip Zelikow and Condoleezza Rice).
(6) And while we’re on the 9/11 Commission, Henry Kissinger? F*cking Henry Kissinger? Are you f*cking kidding me? Yeah, I know, I know, “Doctor Kissinger is a respected elder statesman”. Whatever. Henry Kissinger is *the* name most rightly associated with whitewashes, fixed investigations, and political cover-ups. Trying to appoint the mastermind behind Nixon, the Vietnam War, and the overthrow of the elected government in Chile (leading to one of the bloodiest dictatorships in Latin America’s bloody history) to head the investigation should be a big red flag to any student of history. And if any of you remember why HK stepped down as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission then you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Posted 2 years ago # -
(7) And why was there a “commission” for this instead of an “investigation” by law enforcement or the release of evidence to the public? Remember the commission came about as a result of a branch of the 9/11 truth movement. The original stance of the Bush administration was that “investigating these attacks would detract resources from the war on terror”, but after a group of 9/11 widows brought a class action suit against the Bush administration a settlement was reached wherein an “impartial commission” would investigate what happened (one important clause of the settlement was that whether this commission was impartial or not, their determinations would be binding [ie no further investigation would ever happen]). And the only parts of the investigation that would be available to the public would be the staged Q&A sessions (sorry “Public Hearings”) and the published findings of the Commission. We have no way to know what evidence the “investigation” looked at in drawing it’s conclusions. We have only the final conclusions, the trail of how they worked backward from their predetermined final conclusions, and of course we have the chairman and co-chairman admitting on the record that they intentionally ignored evidence because it did not support their conclusion.
(8) Then we have Michael Scheurer, the CIA’s bin Laden man. The guy who was personally in charge of Alec Station (The CIA’s operation to keep tabs on bin Laden) telling us in his book “Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq” (an excellent book which has some amazingly insightful analysis of foreign policy only slightly marred by Scheurer’s hardcore reaganite views) that the commission refused to allow him to testify? Why would they not want the one guy who knows the most about bin Laden to testify at the 9/11 Commission when he claims to have been calling them repeatedly and begging to testify?
Posted 2 years ago # -
(9) And we have a Taliban spokesman in the aftermath of 9/11 telling reporters that they are willing to extradite bin Laden if America is willing to produce its evidence, followed by the Bush administration (specifically Ari Fleischer) stating that it wasn’t safe to release evidence, followed by the longest war in U.S. history as an alternative to extradition, and now almost 9 years later, all the “evidence” we have available to us is (A) the unredacted portions of the findings (the hearings are still classified) of the Joint Inquiry chaired by Bob Graham and Porter Goss, (B) The results of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (who may or may not have been guilty but whose trial was a violation of every principle of due process), (C) The “confession” of Khalid Sheik Mohammed who has never yet had a civilian trial (and might not) and was waterboarded over 180 times in the process of confessing, (D) the findings of the 9/11 Commission which was based primarily on these things and on (E) The credibility of the same guys who told us Saddam had WMDs.
(10) Why so many things reported and then later unreported? The chaos of the moment can account for some minor discrepancies. But Dan Rather announcing that the FBI had found a truck full of explosives on the George Washington Bridge, then announcing technical difficulties, then announcing “Oh sorry, I wasn’t supposed to report that”? Giuliani announcing they had found the flight recorder only to immediately lose it? NORAD’s initial timeline standing for two years and then just getting unceremoniously changed to reflect a new official story? That’s just a little too much like Orwell’s “memory hole” for my taste (or trust).
Posted 2 years ago # -
And a couple things that are not exactly central but are certainly odd.
(11) On September 23rd 2001, BBC News ran a story titled “Hijack 'suspects' alive and well”. Among other oddities in this article we get: “Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up
alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out
the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco”.Posted 2 years ago # -
(12) In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 several news agencies and congressional offices were sent envelopes with anthrax spores through the US Postal Service. At the time it was widely reported that this was a terrorist attack by 'al qaeda'. The primary targets of these anthrax attacks were News Agencies and Democratic Senators. ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Post, and National Enquirer received Anthrax packages, along with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Daschle and Leahy had both been vocal opponents of HR3162 (the patriot act). And Daschle had been told by Bush not to conduct an investigation into 9/11, because "It would take resources from the war on terror". Leahy had sent AG John Ashcroft a letter condemning Ashcroft's unilateral order for the FBI to wiretap attorney client conversations. These attacks effectively silenced those in congress and the media who might have opposed the patriot act. And if that was the primary motive it certainly worked. In the immediate aftermath of these attacks the patriot act passed in the senate by a vote of 99-1. The one senator who voted no said he was not opposed but just wanted a chance to read the bill before voting on it. Calling attention to the fact that the Senate could not possibly have read the entire 342 page bill in the 15 minutes between it's introduction and passing. In addition to playing perfectly into the hands of the Bush administration these attacks were clearly planned well before 9/11, implying previous knowledge or possibly some involvement in 9/11. This idea came in handy the following year when the White house was blowing the trumpet against Iraq. Numerous pretend 'leaks' from various government agencies suggested that the anthrax had come from Saddam's WMD stores. Making the now laughable idea of Iraqi WMD's be taken very seriously and unquestioningly by the media. If one were to total up the press coverage of the initial attacks with the statements that these were orchestrated by al qaeda. And total up the press coverage from the following year stating that these attacks had been orchestrated by the Iraqi government in conjunction with al qaeda. You might notice that each category has over 200 articles from every major news source. Comparing that to the media coverage of the FBI's July 2008 announcement that it was not Iraq or al qaeda, but the US Army that carried out these terrorist attacks that killed 7 american civilians and infected another 15 with anthrax, one notices that this final, and arguably most important of the 3 stories receives almost no mention. The LA Times, the Associated Press & MSNBC briefly reported that the FBI had identified Dr. Bruce E. Ivins as the primary suspect in the AMERITHRAX case. Dr. Ivins was a chemical weapons developer at the Fort Detrick Chemical Weapons Research Facility in Frederick, Maryland. In the Bureau's statement they identified his motive as creating a climate of fear which would motivate congress to devote more money to chemical weapons research. Sound familiar? Unfortunately the FBI chose not to make this information public until 2 days after Ivins' death by apparent suicide. Forever denying the world any chance to ask Ivins what if any his involvement or pre knowledge of 9/11 was.
(13) Do a google image search for “Zbigniew Brzezinski Osama Bin Laden”. F*ckin trippy huh?
Like I said. None of this is proof of a specific conspiracy. But everything I have said here is verifiably true (I can provide documentation for anything anyone is not sure of), and taken together it is at least grounds to start looking closer at some things. There are other things I find iffy, but I think I've made my point, and these points (most but not necessarily all) would need to be addressed before I personally could have faith in what we have been told regarding this crucial event in our national history.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"The start of most conspiracy theories is a vacuum of information surrounding a real event"
That is an important statement in distinguishing between conspiracy theories that are worthy of serious consideration and those deserving of ridicule. The 911 conspiracy theory is not in the same category as the birther theory. One tries to answer a genuine mystery, the other is a manufactured issue.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Kodie
MemberA conspiracy theory is a desperate attempt by frightened people to gain a sense of control in their world. Bottom-line.
The government says it, that settles it, I believe it.
Um, no. I'm willing to keep an open mind should something stink of fish and someone manages to pull up the evidence. 99% of the success rate of a conspiracy is that a lot of people will dismiss them because they're usually asserted by crackpots. I don't say I willingly fall for a crackpot conspiracy theory, but that's boy who cried wolf for you, maybe we should just dismiss anyone who points out the pieces that don't fit the way they should, or we should dismiss the ones who are simply crazy after we examine what they have brought.
Nox's ideas are interesting, I'm in no position to discredit them or credit them presently. I certainly do feel (and that's not evidence) that our government is capable of striking gold with something like 9/11 and fudge just enough truth to scare the public and get support for a war we didn't need to go into. I mean, sure, the truthers are full of shit, maybe they just have the wrong set of evidence because it was manufactured by an amateur movie-maker. I believe on both sides of this, 9/11 official-story believers have gone super-Christian nutso paranoid xenophobic with a side order of shred up the Constitution to serve this singular issue, and send our young soldiers to fight a righteous holy war, and on the truther side, you have just super-nutso paranoid, but way off-track. Back on the 9/11 official-story believers' side, you got your birthers, super-nutso paranoid oh my god the president's black, and also Hitler Nazi fascist socializt communist, god's going to abandon us if we don't shout louder and sound even crazier. Heaven forfend, we try to be reasonable about gun control at all, that's the only part of the Constitution they won't allow desecrated for mislaid patriotic causes. They're going to need those for the revolution, you see, and they're crazy, so they need guns to shoot at their imaginary ghosts whenever they feel tense.
The official story might be completely true, but I think there are also parts of it that might be more convenient for some players than honestly terrorizing. It's convenient if we get the public terrorized and in support of the war without question. I don't like that "no questions asked" part. I mean, here, I smell fish, am I crazy? I just want to see what has created that smell, is it my imagination or is there a fish? I wouldn't insist there's a fish without a fish to see myself or show you, but I would stay interested in finding out.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.