What follows are six responses to a recent hit piece in The Guardian regarding 9/11 truth and conspiracy theories in general. The first comes from yours truly and doesn't cover 9/11 as this is the main focus of most of the others. The second is a letter to the editor from Barrie Zwicker, author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11. The third response is courtesy of Evan Ravitz, wilderness guide and editor of EvanRavitz.com. The fourth reply is via James Hufferd, PhD., coordinator at 911grassroots.org. The fifth retort is from Chris Sarns, a writer for the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The final reply is from Ian Henshall of Reinvestigate911.org. None of these authors necessarily agree with each other, least of all me. The most important thing is that they all disagree with David Shariatmadari's article, "The truth is rushing out there: why conspiracy theories spread faster than ever."
My two cents is that there is an intellectual argument for a conspiracist worldview, that conspiracy is the norm and not an aberration. This is not a fun view of things and explains quite well why a man profiled in the article feels "happy" and "free" to no longer hold this type of worldview. The idea put forth in the article immediately after this, that the former conspiracy theorist's views "had all the appeal of a spy drama" is contradicted by the relief he felt from the alternative of viewing the world through more rose-tinted glasses. So how about a few of the other things the article mentions in passing...
Were the Paris attacks a false flag operation?
Does the medical-industrial complex hide cures to cancer?
Are chemtrails real?
These 33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true and 42 admitted false flag attacks might offer a clue. The oft repeated meme that this material is psychologically comforting needs to be put to rest once and for all. Again, it's scary and I can't blame the guy in the article for wanting to not feel the way this type of information makes you feel or not wanting to have the strained relationships with his family that he mentions.
Conspiracy theories usually have evidence to support them or else they wouldn't exist, prime example being that there are no popular conspiracy theories about the Unabomber because there is no evidence of a conspiracy. Evidence doesn't constitute proof, but it does make things at least worth talking about. Conspiracy theories with decent enough evidence abound and are a laughing stock because the idea of so many conspiracies is disconcerting and it's easier to laugh it all off than investigate.
But as disconcerting as this all is, the idea of remaining silent on these issues, is more so to me. Do whatever you have to do, for me it was strengthening my spirituality. Whatever you do, don't convince yourself that you're crazy just to try to feel sane! It's the world that's crazy. Instead, face facts and fear and move forward with truth and love. The world isn't all bad, but it's very far from all good and we need good help to sway the pendulum.
Recommended Reading:
Psychology Experts Speak Out: “Why is the 9/11 Evidence Difficult for Some to Accept?”
GateCreepers.com: Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
Quotes on Conspiracy Theories - Updated Version February 28, 2014
Recommended Viewing:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
The Best Of George Carlin Exposing The American Government
Conspiracy Theory in America by by Lance deHaven-Smith
Reply Two:
In the 1,995 words in this article the word evidence appears once, in the phrase “anecdotal evidence.” Yet evidence—of many kinds including documents, still photos, videos, audio, seismic charts, eyewitness and circumstantial—is key in determining if an account of an event is strictly theoretical or essentially factual. This article itself is typical of scores I’ve read, especially since 9/11, that over-psychologize people who question official accounts of politically relevant events and indeed vilify people who study great amounts of factual material directly pertaining to those events.
This article itself is evidence of the slighting of evidence in an area where evidence should be front and centre. But it’s so much easier to appear wise by writing off those who practice Bertrand Russell’s “critical receptiveness” with the eye-rolling put-down “conspiracy theorist” label.
Have your man tackle just a reasonable study of the facts about 9/11, that includes the fact that Osama bin Laden was never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11 as can be seen on the FBI’s own website (https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/
Reply Three:
1. The general federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371. People are convicted of conspiracy every day. Every day investigators and prosecutors engage in "conspiracy theorizing" in order to solve crimes. Sometimes amateurs help them. Some conspiracies are real, some are not.
2. Some famous conspiracies involving parts of the government during my life that history say are true include the Watergate Coverup, the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra Affair and revelations by Edward Snowden which were described in 2002 by NSA employee William Binney, but ridiculed by snide authors and guilty NSA officials: https://reason.com/blog/2014/
3. Juries and judges decide which conspiracies are real, not Guardian writers, and especially not ones who infer that conspiracies are all false and that those who look into them are wackos or deluded young guys infected temporarily with the "paranoid style" [he mentions without crediting "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," an essay by historian Richard J. Hofstadter, first published in 1964.]
4. The author gives special mention to: "the notorious “truther” movement, a current of opinion that lays blame for the atrocities at the door of the US government." Actually, people also blame Saudi Arabia, Israel and others. Since there have been NO 9/11 trials, and the government is hiding so much evidence, like the aircraft black boxes which must have survived along with hijacker passports the US says they found in the WTC wreckage, and many security videos the government seized from gas stations etc near the Pentagon event, I'm withholding judgement.
5. There have been NO trials of any 9/11 conspirators, like the hundreds of people we tortured and mistreated in Guantanamo. You can bet keeping it that way is why America's best young Special Forces apparently killed an elderly, ill and unarmed bin Laden, and dumped his body at sea. The US has also failed to prosecute post-9/11 torturers and war criminals, and has promoted many of them. Why do you think they don't, and withhold or destroy evidence that might be used for that?
6. Into this vacuum has stepped the 9/11 Consensus Panel, composed of 23 professional researchers, who through a rigorous scientific process lasting years have agreed on these 46 points: http://www.consensus911.org/
7. Until the writer looks at what evidence is available, and addresses these 46 points, he is a willfully ignorant child calling names like "notorious truthers." Does he prefer falsers?
Ultimately, historians will decide which conspiracies are true and which are false, not content stylists -paranoid, gullible, somewhere in between, or condescending.
The best film to inform yourself about 9/11 is the multi-part The New Pearl Harbor, free online.
Evan Ravitz, guide and editor
http://EvanRavitz.com
Reply Four:
An Answer to The Guardian
James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization (www.911grassroots.org)
#
Human activity, including today’s edition of The Guardian, involves practically by definition a measure of organized planning and coordination, which is the essence of a conspiracy. My own conspiracy theory suggests to me that today’s Guardian was, in other words, not the result of random or unplanned activity, any more than yesterday’s; and that little other human activity and precious few fruits of same are results of sheer randomness, either. Collaborations to produce what you would consider beneficial results, I might well interpret as detrimental over all, and vice-versa. Hence, to label collaborations of thought and action as “conspiracies”, as some do, only when they collaboratively produce results they consider detrimental fails as a labeling device as well.
The habit of labeling people you may not care for “conspiracy theorists” merely because their interpretations of occurrences – including, but not limited to 9/11, 7/7, or any single or sets of occurrences – dispute those spread by particular governments (which often differ even among themselves) or blocs of informative media is actually arrogant madness, because access to evidence and reasoning is in no way limited to government or media organizations. And its practice raises a crucial question: are you suggesting to the rest of us that we cannot think?
In response to your other point: To conclude that central banks and the large multinational business that they, for the most part, fund and control, endowed as they are with most of the world’s concentrated wealth (well beyond the relative pittances held by individual governments) do not in fact wield enormous influence and controlling power over events and policies of nations seems absurd, naïve if you’re serious about it, and most untenable. If you wish to label the view that such do wield extraordinary controlling power as belief in a “New World Order”, recognizing that such power was formerly shared much more pluralistically, or democratically, then I’m with you and let’s conspire to recover the former state of things.
Reply Five:
1. They never define what they mean by a conspiracy theory
The term "conspiracy theorist" has become a pejorative despite the fact that the "official story" is a "conspiracy theory".
The government and the news media have sold the public a conspiracy theory about Osama bin Laden while at the same time convincing people that only "nut jobs" believe conspiracy theories.
The government and the news media have sold the public a conspiracy theory about Osama bin Laden while at the same time convincing people that only "nut jobs" believe conspiracy theories.
Thru relentless repetition of this "big lie", Americans have come to equate "conspiracy theorist" with "nut-job" while at the same time believing a conspiracy theory about 19 crazy guys getting by the most sophisticated military defense system in the world.
Just stop and think about that for a moment.
In Great Brittan, the people responsible for this colossal failure would have resigned.
In France they would have been fired.
In Russia they would have been shot.
But in America, they got promoted.
People get promoted for getting the job done, not for screwing up.
Just stop and think about that for a moment.
In Great Brittan, the people responsible for this colossal failure would have resigned.
In France they would have been fired.
In Russia they would have been shot.
But in America, they got promoted.
People get promoted for getting the job done, not for screwing up.
The FBI charged bin Laden with CONSPIRACY to murder Americans outside the United States, but they never charged him with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. That's just a CONSPIRACY THEORY. So if you believe that bin Laden was behind the attack then you are a conspiracy theorist by definition. When you take the time to look at the evidence, you will see that it does not support the official conspiracy theory.
I believed the official conspiracy theory about bin Laden and his 19 hijackers until I saw this video of WTC 7 imploding. The implosion of WTC 7 is the mother of all smoking guns. It was obviously and indisputably a controlled demolition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and building implosions are as easy to recognize as a rocket. Getting a building to implode is a fine art and it just can't happen by chance. Furthermore, we now have scientific proof of controlled demolition. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet[1]. Free fall acceleration means no resistance, falling thru air. That means that all the supporting structure on 8 floors was removed in a precisely timed manner. That can only be done with some form of explosives and/or incendiaries. The NIST computer model shows the external frame bending and twisting well into the free fall portion of the collapse[2]. Bending steel columns provide resistance and preclude free fall. The NIST model is not falling at free fall.
It is not necessary to prove "Who, how, when, and why", only "what".
It is not necessary to prove "Who, how, when, and why", only "what".
[2] "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible* support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)" NCSTAR 1A p. 45
*Negligible: too small to be worth considering
"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" NCSTAR 1A p. 55
Reply Six:2. There are plenty of official conspiracy theories that are not recognised as such eg Iraq'a alleged WMDs
3. Inevitable if questions are not answered there will be wild speculation especially from people who already doubt the official line on other issues
4. The conspiracy theory slur is a copout by overworked (to put it politely) journalists who don't have time to investigate
5. Interestingly, the key 911 so-called conspiracy theories all originated with the MSM ie Dan Rather said the buildings looked like a controlled demolition and the CNN guy said he could see no sign of aircraft debris at the Pentagon, while FBI agents said they had been blocked by the CIA from investigating the alleged hijackers.
Ian Henshall
