Dorothy and the Wizard of Bunk

By: FaithMichaels and John-Michael P. Talboo

Recently Dorothy Robinson of the Metro newspaper in NYC informed us that "Life is not a ‘24’ episode," she states:

Pearl Harbor. 9/11. The assassination of John F. Kennedy. Many people don’t believe what’s recounted in the history books. In 'Voodoo Histories,' British author David Aaronovitch takes on those conspiracy theorists.

Well Ms. Robinson, an article entitled "Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories" published on the website GateCreepers.com:

Redresses a number of general myths concerning so-called 'conspiracy theories', repeated by media organisations and other self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy, as well as people who have been erroneously convinced that conspiracy theories are intellectual aberrations rather the acknowledgment of a common historical and social phenomenon.

Dorothy asks the Wizard: "Why do smart people believe things that are so far-fetched?"

The Wizard replies:

The thing about conspiracy theories is they are more satisfying than real life. They take all of the messiness and accident and coincidence out and replace it with something planned. So even if it’s bad, it’s still more reassuring that someone has planned something rather than it being so messy and awful.

This would be:

DEBUNKED MYTH #1: CONSPIRACY THEORIES SHOW A SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF HOW THE WORLD IS RUN

This claim is made about theories that involve elite organisations and secret societies. Academics claim that such theories are simplistic because they offer certainty and knowledge of hidden affairs, that secret activities are easily understood, only obscured. In other words, the actual claim is that real world is confusing and random. The claim that conspiracy theories are too simple really says that conspiracy theories are too clear and well defined.

However, such dismissals are often used as a pretext to trivialise the roles played by secretive elite groups. Theories that rule out the importance of elite organisations that wield dominant power offer a view of the world that is not only simplistic, but that distorts the reality of power relations and hides the inequities and democratic deficits of the world.

Another purpose behind this claim is to take a political, military or national security disaster and revise it to fit the image of the familiar stressful day to day world, with all it's accompanying incompetencies. Yet, it is precisely this picture that is simplified. There are no conspiracies, only mistakes. There are no unseemly activities except for those named in the statutes of the state. Lying on the witness stand is illegal, yet lying to the people is a misunderstanding.

In either case, there is little grounds for the claim that conspiracy theories simplify the world. Below the surface, they require people to understand complex concepts including propaganda mechanisms, manufacturing of consent, and how elites gain and maintain their positions of power. Such concepts are not readily accessible to the general public because they are usually ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media.

On the other hand, theories that rule out the existence of elite organisations are appealing because they give people the illusion that they have power and are living in an open society. Therefore, the absence of the concept of a destructive elite will mean that the people never take action to defend against the activities of that elite.

Dorothy says the Wizard also informed her that:

Next time a conspiracy theorist tries to sell you on something that isn’t true... repeat the philosophical principle of Occam’s razor. "It’s as simple as this: If you have two explanations, one simple and one complex, the one that is simple is most always true." Basically, don’t introduce any unnecessary plots points.

This would be:

DEBUNKED MYTH #3: CONSPIRACY THEORIES VIOLATE OCCAM'S RAZOR

Many people use the phrase as a slick way of dismissing an argument without confronting its supporting evidence, sometimes assuming that the evidence is speculation without having looked at it at all. Often, those people miss the fact that the official theory is questioned partly because it violates Occam's Razor.

Many conspiracy theorists accept Occam's Razor as a useful technique to refine their theories and eliminate those that rest on too many unproven assertions. However, its premises have been challenged, not least by Occam's contemporaries. Walter of Chatton, for example, formulated his own anti-razor: ('If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on').

Thus, the theory of parsimony only applies insofar as the simplest theory sufficiently explains how the events occur. It must therefore be discarded in favour of a more complex theory if the previous one has holes. The misconception that only simple theories are acceptable flies in the face of the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof', because it makes it impossible to prove theories that rely on complex evidence.

Furthermore, Occam's razor is a scientific theory, and thus applies to scientific principles. When two scientific theories make the same prediction, and both predictions appear to be correct then the one that is most simple is accepted.

This is inapplicable to social sciences however because of the unpredictable human element involved. Whilst purely physical or chemical reactions can be held to Occam's razor, activities by conscious beings cannot, as conscious beings can deliberately add complexity to events, or they can behave in irrational ways. As an example: the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so it is known that both government and non-government entities are equally capable of evil acts. The way to determine which is more likely to do the evil task is completely based on subjective opinion.

Theories should be eliminated by the success or failure of experiments to test their predictions, rather than by Occam's razor alone. It should also not be interpreted as excluding speculation. In the presence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, such as conflict of interest, historical precedents and previous incidents of cover-ups, it is acceptable to assume that some evidence is still being covered up and will not be shown to the public.

Finally we are told that:

Sept. 11. [Conspiracist] David Ray Griffin is a top theologian, but he can’t see there isn’t one kernel of evidence to support his theories. He’s arguing for a cast of thousands to be involved who are then sworn to secrecy. And that is more probable than the truth?

First off, we don't agree with all of Griffin's research, but as the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts, pointed out:

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, [official publication date: Mar. 30, 2007] Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

As to the supposed cast of thousands, there is compartmentalization (AKA need-to-know basis). That being said, we do know of Operation Gladio which was a false-flag terror operation that remained secret for decades, and there are 9/11 whistleblowers. Take for instance former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says that more than four months prior to 9/11 the special agent in charge of counterterrorism at the FBI, Thomas Frields, was provided with "specific information" about the attacks, but did nothing.

Quite often we who talk about 9/11 truth and government conspiracies are told we are paranoid and need meds. We are told that our government doesn't do such things this and that we are delusional. Articles that question why Americans like to believe in conspiracy theories usually have the same hoh hum answer.

It generally reads something like this:

We who believe in governmental conspiracies just cannot handle the fact that life has random events that are out of human control and it is easier to think that someone conspired to make it happen.

This is usually an argument that is used when people say that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is a dismissal used to brush off the legitimate questioning of 9/11. As if questioning an event that changed everyone's lives is only done by those who are crazy or irrational.

Fear of social ostracizing is being used to control the masses and dissuade anyone from really looking deep and examining the facts for themselves. Labeling every person who questions anomalies regarding an event such as 9/11 as a conspiracy theorist immediately reduces the questioners to a crack-pot status. No one wants to be labeled as "crazy" as a rule. This labeling of "conspiracy theorist" keeps truth out of the mainstream thought for a longer period of time.

It is difficult for many to believe that the people they support in our government, those elected to office would be so greedy and or corrupt that they would carry out an act of treason as big as 9/11. It is too large a shock for their minds to accept. When something such as this happens in people's personal lives, and people refuse to look at it, psychiatrists call this denial. Their minds cannot accept the facts of the situation, for to do so would mean that they would have to take an action that is uncomfortable for them and their illusion of safety would be shattered. It is a betrayal of the highest order. Much like when a trusted family member betrays another family member. When people look to people to lead and they follow, it is a huge thing for those that trust the leaders to be betrayed in such a fashion as would have had to have happened if 9/11 was an inside job. This is why 9/11 truth gets downgraded to a conspiracy theory. It makes it easier for many to not look at it seriously. Thereby their world view of reality remains safe.

The reason we believe 9/11 was an inside job is because the facts of the case leave no other rational explanation. We may not have all the hows and wherefores figured out yet regarding 9/11, but we are most certainly not living in denial.

Finally, here is a challenge for Dorothy and the Wizard: leave Oz, go back to Kansas, and write a peer-reviewed refutation of the 4 papers and letters regarding explosives in the WTC buildings published in US science journals in 2008 and 2009. The NIST report was not peer-reviewed.

Note to the Cowardly Lion: It's in the spine!

Related Info:

David Aaronovitch tells Salon.com "9/11 conspiracy theory" is "the most baroque," slams David Ray Griffin

Dying Media Desperately Attacks 9/11 Truth