Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist

Over the past few decades, the CIA controlled mainstream media in America has achieved a significant PR objective: they have made it socially unacceptable to believe that there is a conspiracy operating at the highest levels of our government. This puts those of us who do know about the plot at high levels in an awkward position: either we pretend that we don’t know what we know, or we risk being ridiculed and marginalized as a pathetic joke.

He who defines the language defines the parameters of the debate, and so far the conspirators are winning. They have succeeded in imbuing the moniker “conspiracy theorist” with such intensely negative connotations that even most conspiracy theorists—such as 9/11 truth activists—tie themselves in knots to avoid earning that label.

Is there anything wrong with having theories? Of course not. Knowledge progresses through scientists proposing a certain hypothesis (or theory) and then testing to see if it holds up. It doesn’t mean they are flying blind, untethered by facts. They use the facts they already know to create theories about things that are still unknown.

Is there anything wrong with having theories about a conspiracy? Is it akin to having theories about leprechauns, poltergeists or Bigfoot? Do conspiracies exist only in the realm of fantasy or the occult?

Definitely not. There are dozens of vast conspiracies that have been validated by historians. Wikipedia lists 27 “proven conspiracies, some of which were not the subject of any widespread speculation until they were exposed.”

That is, they used to. The list of 27 proven conspiracies is in my article on the back page of the June issue of the Rock Creek Free Press, exactly as copied from Wikipedia in May 2008. That list of “proven historical conspiracies” was removed from Wikipedia on June 7, 2008, just a few days after the June issue of the Creek hit the streets of DC.

But I digress.

High level government conspiracies definitely happen. So what exactly is wrong with having a theory about a vast plot to deceive us?

From the point of view of the conspirators, plenty. They cannot succeed unless their under-handed dealings remain well out of sight. If the details of Operation Mockingbird became widely known, no one would read or watch any news from the mainstream media anymore, and their effort to control public opinion would fail.

Those in charge of the cover-ups had very good reasons for launching an all out attack on conspiracy theorists, and due to Operation Mockingbird, they are able to insert their memes into TV shows, news articles, books, movies, songs, greeting cards and comic books. Without quite realizing how it happened, the population adopts the belief desired by the conspirators: that those who suspect conspiracies are deficient human beings in every respect. Based on my own exposure to the MSM, I could easily conclude that conspiracy theorists are:

  • lonely, socially inept losers
  • intellectually bankrupt, oblivious to evidence
  • immature, still living at home with their parents
  • unattractive to the opposite sex, unable to find love or sex
  • don’t bathe or change clothes regularly
  • have a tenuous grip on sanity, may be mentally ill
  • paranoid

No wonder no one wants to be considered a conspiracy theorist!

Many truth activists have reacted to this demonization by avoiding discussing theories, and insisting they are just asking questions. Fomer Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura gave a lengthy news conference in Arizona on 9/11/08 about the anomalies in the government’s story about 9/11, and he used this tactic. When asked his opinion about what was going on, he insisted he was just asking questions.

This approach is dishonest and ultimately unproductive. It is disingenuous to pretend you don’t have any theories just to avoid the dreaded “CT” label. It is also nearly impossible not to have theories about something you have studied extensively; I don’t know a single 9/11 truth activist who doesn’t.

It is also unproductive because we hold back from saying the things we know to be true. Why should we only ask questions when we know some of the answers? Questions require a lot of our audience. They require listeners to come up with the answers themselves, something not everyone has the time or inclination to do. We should state what we know with confidence.

Another defensive measure employed by some in the truth movement (such as author David Ray Griffin) is to point out that the government’s story is also a conspiracy theory. But that dog won’t hunt.

For although it is technically true that any crime involving more than one person is a conspiracy, in general vernacular a “conspiracy theorist” is someone who has a theory about a very specific kind of conspiracy: one operating at the highest levels of our government, or above and outside our government. No one would use the term about someone who suspects their neighbors of planning a bank heist. For all the symmetry and beauty of Griffin’s arguments, they are not persuasive to the man on the street.

The more destructive effect of Griffin’s efforts is that it gives tacit assent to the meme that to be a conspiracy theorist is a bad thing, something we want to paint our enemies as being. By trying to squirm away from the label, we only create the perception that we agree that it is a shameful thing to be, and can be hurt by that label.

Let’s look at how two other groups, who were victims of vicious stereotypes, reclaimed the words used to attack them. Those words are “nigger” and “queer,” and today those words no longer carry the punch they once did. African Americans reclaimed “nigger” by using it to refer to each other, as did homosexuals, who took back the epithet “queer.”

Borrowing from their example, I hereby announce: I AM A CONSPIRACY THEORIST! I’m proud to be one of the clear-eyed Americans who have woken up and see how badly we’ve been lied to. I’m part of a group that includes the smartest, most courageous, selfless, free-thinking and hard working people I’ve ever met. I reject those CIA engineered stereotypes that say that I and my fellow truthers are not the bold, brave, cutting edge change agents that we are.

Put it on a bumper sticker and shout it from the rooftops. Say it loud and say it proud.

There is a conspiracy and I have a theory about it!

Sheila Casey is a DC-based journalist. Her work has appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, Reuters, The Denver Post, Buzz Flash, Common Dreams and the Rock Creek Free Press. She blogs at blog. Read other articles by Sheila, or visit Sheila's website.

24 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Hassan A. said on October 24th, 2008 at 8:29am #

    I have no problem with Conspiracy Theorists in general. But the people that I know that come up with the theories are typically lazy, fatalistic people that won’t get off their duff and do something to change it. That is why I don’t want that label. I would much rather be known as an activist.

    If you want to change the image of conspiracy theorists, then an effort to educate the theorists on how to induce change and proclaim the truth is required. A united effort.

  2. simon said on October 24th, 2008 at 8:59am #

    Yay; Truthers With Attitude

    9/11 = Inside Job

    Get used to it!

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/get-used-to-it.html

  3. Eric said on October 24th, 2008 at 10:49am #

    People shout the mantra ‘conspiracy theory’ in the same manner they shout invectives when angry. It’s a gut reaction, in this case a reaction to having one’s belief in the system and faith in one’s heroes challenged. But if one asks enough of the right questions, just as Socrates did, then people — especially young people — will turn the questions inward to to doubt their beliefs and their heroes.

    That being said, bear in mind the fate of Socrates. Will you drink the poison hemlock — forced on you by the very people whom you seek to enlighten — merely to gain the benefit of the doubt from those who will be powerless to save you? Socrates became a martyr, but is the world any better for it? Modern democracy, just as its ancient forebears in Athens and Rome, has been corrupted from within.

    I am a cynical Cynic. I see neither honor nor sensible purpose in martyring myself to serve as an example for future generations of martyrs. Let the tyrants have their warrior legions, titles, luxuries, and toadies. My life is but a finite series of moments, but those moments are completely mine. I would take my life — having enjoyed each moment up to the last — before surrendering unto Caesar or sacrificing myself for the world.

  4. Sheila Casey said on October 24th, 2008 at 1:01pm #

    Hassan, you make a good point. I consider myself a truth activist, in that I’m trying to get the truth out about a whole litany of things we are being lied to about: 9/11, OKC, the 60s assassinations.

    However I have to disagree with you that theorists are lazy. All the people I know who are hip to the conspiracy are also doing something to try to change it. Operative word there is “try,” because this is an uphill task. As long as the vast majority of people still think they are getting the truth from the mainstream media, they won’t give a fair hearing to any other perspectives.

    Eric, I recognize the danger in speaking out, but I won’t let that stop me. The main reason we are in the fix we are in is due to a deficit of courage in our population. Everyone values their own individual life more than the fate of the entire planet. We are all going to die sooner or later anywhere, I want my life to count for something while I’m here.

    Sheila

  5. John Hatch said on October 24th, 2008 at 1:49pm #

    Nietzsche said that in order to deceive onself, one first needs to know which truth to conceal.

    I think a lot of people need to attempt to conceal the truth about 9/11 (and other things) because they don’t know how to live in a world in which their illusions are shattered.

    Regarding 9/11 I have noticed that people just ignore evidence and logical argument and instead revert to meaningless put-downs and name-calling. Examine the evidence, that will be sufficient.

    It’s like a form of grief. You know that poor old sweet Aund Esmerelda has died, but you can’t quite take it in.

    To many Americans (the rest of the world has much less of a problem with the truth regarding 9/11) regard government, and especially the Presidency as somewhat deified. So the notion that 9/11 was concocted at high levels (PNAC and VP offices) is akin to saying that Jesus can’t walk on water. I prefer to think that the laws of physics apply to everyone, and that they were suspended neither for Jesus nor for 9/11.

    Maybe the truth will out, but then there is still the odd fool who thinks Oswald killed Kennedy.

  6. Sheila Casey said on October 24th, 2008 at 2:11pm #

    John, it’s interesting that you mention grief. I was thinking earlier today about the stages of grief (denial, anger, sadness, blame, guilt, acceptance) and realizing that I’m now at the stage of acceptance. Not that I like it, just that I no longer react emotionally.

    I didn’t believe our govt walks on water — far from it — but I also didn’t believe that they are as evil as they are. To come to terms with the truth about 9/11, or JFK, MLK, or RFK, is to experience loss, shock and grief. Perhaps people get angry at conspiracy theorists because they doubt whether they are strong enough to bear those feelings.

    Unfortunately, their denial can only last so long, cause we are sliding rapidly into fascism and soon the truth will be painfuly evident to all.

  7. John Hatch said on October 24th, 2008 at 4:13pm #

    Thanks, Sheila. There are otherwise seemingly respectable websites (The Smirking Chimp is one example) which actually censor any talk about 9/11 that does not adhere to the patently absurd government line.

    I admire people who have the courage to speak the truth and news sources such as DV who give them a platform. Good work!

  8. Randy Dujour said on October 24th, 2008 at 4:29pm #

    David Ray Griffin
    http://www.davidraygriffin.com

  9. Randy Dujour said on October 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm #

    William Pepper (Sirhan Sirhan’s Attorney)
    http://www.actofstate.org

  10. Randy Dujour said on October 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm #

    Richard Gage, AIA (architect who designs steel framed buildings)
    http://www.radiodujour.com/people/gage_richard

  11. Jonathan said on October 25th, 2008 at 8:46am #

    Eric, it may be beside the point but Socrates was actually very critical of democracy.

  12. JR said on October 25th, 2008 at 10:32am #

    Reposted here:
    http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=21057&sid=4bdad43bb0766a9c756d6e632df6ca7b

    Garnered the following response:

    .

    I think there is a fallacy here that’s clear in the examples chosen at the end. “Nigger” and “queer” were insults, but they were also denotationally synonymous with the persons thus described, i.e., in their basic definition they refer generally to all African-Americans and homosexuals, respectively, two groups that in some grander sense of social theory may be constructed, but both of which can be identified with clarity in a consensus of observers. Thus the persons slapped with these derogatory terms have the (perhaps questionable) freedom to turn them around and force a positive connotation.

    Any consensus on what constitutes a “CT,” however, is strictly in the minds of those who are using the term as a weapon. The term is applied selectively to refer only to those who hypothesize a socially unacceptable conspiracy. There are many socially acceptable hypotheses involving conspiracy, in which case the word conspiracy is usually not even used. Those in the US who attribute bad things to the covert and concerted actions of Muslim terrorists, communists or Russians, the “liberal media,” or Europeans afraid of Iranians, to take a few examples, are almost never called conspiracy theorists. The CT anti-brand is reserved for those who see crimes by actors in government, corporations and banks, and the military.

    “Conspiracy theory” is also often applied to straight-up sociological observation, class or institutional analysis (Chomsky gets called one by right-wingers all the time), or criticism of reigning mythologies (such as the collusive nature of the two-party system). In practice, even the observation that an announced, overt policy of the US government is criminal can qualify one for the CT label.

    In addition, but crucially, the term creates a false dichotomy, as though we are forced into mutually exclusive choices between “conspiracy” and “institution,” or “conspiracy” and social forces, or “conspiracy” and random agglomeration of motives in a chaotic universe, or whatever. Of course all of these elements can operate in a given situation. So whereas turning around “nigger” may have been a liberating experience for an actual black person, accepting the “conspiracy theorist” label freezes the thinking person who has been so branded into a single mode. Thought ends.

    I submit that in the ideal case of empirical apprehension of the world, one analyzes sets of facts carefully, trying to take all relevant matters including context and history into account, and should be free to conclude that a given set of facts shows a conspiracy (secret criminal action by a concert of given actors), assuming that conclusion can indeed be made plausible or compelling. That doesn’t make one a conspiracy theorist, or even necessarily a theorist. That makes one an observer, and an analyst of what is observed.

    So to sum up, I think the author’s proposal is naive and fatal, a tactic that accepts a term that is both false and variable in definition, and cements the intellectual ghetto position forced on those who refuse to ignore the role of parapolitics and deep politics in shaping events and social realities. To Sheila Casey I would say: You are never going to turn “conspiracy theorist” into something cool, any more than you could do so with the term “moron.” And if you did, you’d have accepted the wrong definition of what you are doing (or should ideally be doing): understanding the world without prior limits on what conclusions you may adopt.

    So I’ll take skeptic and free thinker as my labels, thank you.

    Even though these abstractions also don’t fit perfectly into the actual geography of ideas, it’s worth nothing they have been claimed by the “debunker” class. In secular matters, skeptic has been perverted to mean a doubter of ideas from below, rather than of those from above. Free thinking has been reduced to that which is already within a given bandwidth of acceptable wisdom. It seems to me far more productive for doubters of the official 9/11 narrative to contest the “debunker” ownership of terms that one can wear proudly (and that may be marginally more accurate), and that can never be completely drowned in negative connotations, rather than to carry the burden of an essentially Orwellian anti-brand.

    Tomorrow we can have a discussion about the word patriot.

  13. arabesque said on October 25th, 2008 at 12:42pm #

    “Is there anything wrong with having theories? Of course not. Knowledge progresses through scientists proposing a certain hypothesis (or theory) and then testing to see if it holds up.”

    Opinions are easily manipulated. This is why many (completely) believe the official story of 9/11. This is why the 9/11 truth movement is framed as “theorists”. We have “theories” about 9/11. We don’t have anything we can “prove”. This is the perception that the MSM wishes to reinforce and caricature.

    What about conspiracy facts?

    “[Is] it a “conspiracy theory” that not one single person within the FAA, NORAD, FBI, CIA, etc was fired or reprimanded after the events of 9/11? Is it a “conspiracy theory” that those most responsible for preventing the attacks were promoted? It is a “conspiracy theory” that investigations into the 9/11 attacks were blocked by the Bush administration for more than a year, or that evidence was destroyed or is being withheld? National Post, were the 9/11 war games involving hijacked airliners on 9/11 as reported by credible news sources a “conspiracy theory”? Is it also a “conspiracy theory” that NORAD intercepts aircraft hundreds of times a year, but on 9/11 we are told… well actually we were told three contradictory stories by NORAD! So when NORAD tells us three contradictory stories in an attempt to explain why they couldn’t intercept any planes on 9/11, is that a “conspiracy theory” too? Senator Mark Dayton said in testimony during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that NORAD officials “lied”.”

    If you made a list of things that the MSM virtually never talks about, it would be the facts that:

    1. No one was fired or reprimanded and many got promotions following the 9/11 attacks
    2. War Game Scenarios that NORAD held on 9/11 involving Hijacked airliners
    3. NORAD gave three contradictory timelines for their actions on 9/11. They gave no explanation for why false timelines were given.

    I wonder why the MSM will not discuss these issues? I wonder why they call anyone who questions the official story of 9/11 “theorists”, when there are plenty of facts about 9/11 that obviously show that people in the U.S. government are lying and no one is getting ANY significant scrutiny for any of this.

  14. Sheila Casey said on October 25th, 2008 at 2:07pm #

    For those hungry for some more analysis of the term “conspiracy theory,” there is a lot of impassioned debate on the Wikipedia talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conspiracy_theory#.22Verified_conspiracies.22

    for example, it includes this:
    “Conspiracy theory” is not a slur. It is exactly what it describes: A theory that parties are conspiring; whether that be to achieve a certain goal, suppress some information or technology, or keep a certain activity secret, etc. — NRen2k5, 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

    Well, no, it isn’t a slur in its literal meaning. The denotation is not negative in the least. However, it has successfully been made into a slur. I suspect that if you had some control over people and you were in a conspiracy and people started suspecting it, you would want their theory about your activities to be slurred, so you would use your control to promote whatever they call it as theory attributable to nutcases. And what do they call it? They call it a “conspiracy theory.” I think any reasonable person would assume that some people who have control over others sometimes engage in conspiracies. It would be intellectually negligent to assume that such parties would never attempt to slur those who seek to bring such conspiracies to light. We all know that lots of movies, books, and TV shows provide nutcase characters with “conspiracy theories” so that whether or not it is intentional, the term has taken on negative connotations. An encyclopedia that ignores the connotations of terms is a piece of propaganda. Let’s try to protect WP from that.Dscotese (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

    and here’s another take from the Columbia Journalism Review:
    http://www.cjr.org/politics/those_loopy_conspiracy_theorie.php?page=2

  15. JR said on October 25th, 2008 at 10:06pm #

    What is the denotation of theory? Properly defined it’s not a single hypothesis or even necessarily a set of hypothesis. Theory is also a way of seeing things generally, a methodology of apprehension, a world view. (Examples: social theory, relativity theory, etc.) Even if we accept that conspiracy theory can describe merely a hypothesis of a given conspiracy, a conspiracy theorist is never going to be understood only as the holder of one such hypothesis, but as someone who is predisposed to seeing conspiracy everywhere. In part this is also because there really are generalized conspiracy theories of history, such as those seeing thousand-year cabals or Jews or some other secret society behind everything. One needn’t buy into these to be skeptical about or reject the official story of 9/11, but as soon as the term is used, all that baggage is invoked. And again, if 9/11 skepticism and alternative 9/11 hypotheses are conspiracy theories in the narrowest sense, then so is the official story and so is the bogus Saddam-9/11 propaganda, right? So it ain’t applicable as a neutral term only to one, but not the rest.

    So rather than trying to rescue “conspiracy theorist” from an almost always inaccurately applied denotation and a hopelessly compromised and conditioned connotation of smelly wacko, why not challenge the debunkers on the undeniably positive terms of skepticism and free thinking, which also happen to more accurately describe the reasonable doubt of the official 9/11 story?

  16. simon said on October 26th, 2008 at 3:23am #

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist; I’m a truther. I like the word “truther”. It reminds me that in the grand scheme of things I am just an insignificant speck.

    So why am I a truther? Why do I think we do it?

    We don’t tolerate lies when those lies:

    a) have killed a million people and are threatening to kill millions more

    b) are destroying our constitutional rights and democracy

    c) allow the terrorists to go on with their terrorising

    We know we are right not to tolerate those lies and it is an affront to humanity to leave those lies unchallenged. And that’s the truth in truther.

  17. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 26th, 2008 at 8:35am #

    called it a theory, guess, hunch that christians want to christianize the world by any means, it does not change the fact that christians p
    proselytize.
    and oft forcibly.
    islam and judaism have spread also; it seems mostly by proselytizing.
    number of judaic people is small; perhaps numbers only 10mn.
    do they want to take over the world. i say they do. so does every religion, governance, culture. thnx

  18. Brian Koontz said on October 27th, 2008 at 8:05am #

    This article is foolish.

    Noone dislikes a true conspiracy theory. That is to say, PROVE your theory. People dislike listening to endless conjectures, which is what most “conspiracy theories” are. There are only 24 hours in the day, and I’d rather my ears not be inundated with idle speculation.

    Scientists don’t throw out idle speculation. When they are serious about a theory, they set out to prove it. They either succeed or fail. If they succeed, they publish their data.

    Conspiracy theorists do none of this. Their process is:

    1) Come up with a theory.

    2) Shout this theory out to the world, as frequently and loudly as possible.

    3) When the theory is debunked or even when evidence is mounted against it, ignore it. Repeat step 2.

    Time is a resource. It takes time to debunk theories. This time consideration should be taken up by the conspiracy theorists themselves, not by those who the conspiracy theorists suppose to be “obligated” to debunk their nonsense.

    Just like I don’t have to debunk every scientific theory that hits the road, I don’t have to debunk every conspiracy theory that hits the road. Collect data, do experiments, PROVE your theory and THEN publicize it. Until this happens, conspiracy theorists will continue to get disrespected, as they deserve.

    All theories are theories about reality. Why take some martyred position about being a conspiracy theorist? Just understand what you’re doing as exploring political reality itself – the question of whether or not a political event is a conspiracy (a few guys get in a room and map something out, such as Enron) or an organic event brought about by shared interests.

    Conspiracy theorists aren’t scientists – they are media self-promoters. They are more like Oprah than Einstein. Get SERIOUS and then the world will start taking you seriously.

    The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists. Start accepting that burden.

  19. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 27th, 2008 at 4:53pm #

    brian,
    please, there is nothing wrong w. guessing. that includes thinking/guessing that the towers may have collapsed because they were undermined at base.
    for me, i do not know. but if conspiracy guessers think that the towers were brought dwn by some kind of explosives and ask/demand ground or dirt be examined for residues, i say it’s OK.
    let’s not stifle inquiry.
    when one takes into account some facts, one does conclude that the buildings were brough dwn by explosives as well.
    but when i gather some other facts, my doubts increase that the govt had brought dwn the towers .
    it seems to me that US did not have to dinamite the buildings in order to invade afgh’n and iraq.
    thus i say no conspiracy to bring dwn two towers. but i’m waiting to hear more ab it.
    respectfully. thnx

  20. JR said on October 30th, 2008 at 12:04pm #

    Ah, Brian Koontz now rises to complement Sheila Casey’s flawed defense of the meaningless “conspiracy theory” term with a vigorous attack adopting the tropes, if not the substance, of scientific discourse. Now don’t let me disrupt this rhetorical merry-go-round. However, I’d like to take up Brian Koontz’s challenge of empirically proving claims counter to the government’s story of 9/11, or rather reveal the fallacy that this can in any way be a “scientific” debate.

    In the name of scientific inquiry I hereby call on the NSA, CIA, FBI, Bush administration and subcontractors, allied or front organizations to make available all documents and all members for vigorous public questioning under subpoena on anomalies in the official story of Sept. 11th, specifically with regard to surveillance prior to 9/11 of the alleged hijackers in Germany, Malaysia, the US and elsewhere; all warnings and signs of foreknowledge that the Sept. 11 events would take place; funding of the alleged hijackers and financial transactions relating to possible foreknowledge; behavior of the chain of command and air defense response on the day; wargames and military or other homeland defense and justice exercises planned for the day; omissions and distortions in the statements and official reports presented since; destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice relating to Sept. 11 evidence; use of infiltrators within Islamist jihad groups to encourage and plan attacks; relations since 1989 between the Bin Ladin network and US and allied intelligence agencies; and planning, preparation and intent prior to 9/11 to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Oops, they’re not playing along to provide evidence that might allow falsification of hypothesis. Nothing suspicious in that, is there?

  21. JR said on October 30th, 2008 at 12:07pm #

    Ah, Brian Koontz now rises to complement Sheila Casey’s flawed defense of the meaningless “conspiracy theory” term with a vigorous attack adopting the tropes, if not the substance, of scientific discourse. Now don’t let me disrupt this rhetorical merry-go-round. However, I’d like to take up Brian Koontz’s challenge of empirically proving claims counter to the government’s story of 9/11, or rather reveal the fallacy that this can in any way be a “scientific” debate.

    In the name of scientific inquiry I hereby call on the NSA, CIA, FBI, Bush administration and subcontractors, allied or front organizations to make available all documents and all members for vigorous public questioning under subpoena on anomalies in the official story of Sept. 11th, specifically with regard to surveillance prior to 9/11 of the alleged hijackers in Germany, Malaysia, the US and elsewhere; all warnings and signs of foreknowledge that the Sept. 11 events would take place; funding of the alleged hijackers and financial transactions relating to possible foreknowledge; behavior of the chain of command and air defense response on the day; wargames and military or other homeland defense and justice exercises planned for the day; omissions and distortions in the statements and official reports presented since; destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice relating to Sept. 11 evidence; use of infiltrators within Islamist jihad groups to encourage and plan attacks; relations since 1989 between the Bin Ladin network and US and allied intelligence agencies; and planning, preparation and intent prior to 9/11 to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Oops, they’re not playing along to provide evidence that might allow falsification of hypothesis. Nothing suspicious in that, is there?

    This is not a question of science. It is a matter of probable cause standards having been met for criminal investigation of complicity and orchestration of the Sept. 11th events by actors within or associated with the US state and covert services, and of the failure of investigative bodies and media to address the issues in an honest and substantive way.

  22. JR said on October 30th, 2008 at 12:08pm #

    MODS – SORRY. ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE POST.

    Can you remove the first version and leave the second? Thank you!

  23. JR said on October 30th, 2008 at 12:13pm #

    Addendum:

    Then there was the use of torture to extract confessions from the alleged 9/11 masterminds held at “undisclosed locations,” which became the basis for the story of the plot as told by the 9/11 Commission, with one-quarter of its citations leading back to said “testimony.” Curiously, even the 9/11 Commission heads have in the meantime have hedged and backed off from their own acceptance of this form of “scientific method.”

  24. JR said on October 30th, 2008 at 5:46pm #

    Finally:

    “The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists. Start accepting that burden.”

    The conspiracy theorists, that would be the US government, no?