Conspiracy theorists

72 posts / 0 new
Last post


kodowdus's picture
Gotitdone wrote: When you

Gotitdone wrote:

When you consider the 9/11 commission, the NIST investigation, the FBI etc, there were countless people looking at all aspects of the attack...

For any of these far fetched theories to hold water you have to ignore all the contradictory evidence that points in another direction and that countless experts investigating it willfully ignored the points you raise.

As I've noted elsewhere in this message board, the U.S. government ultimately settled for an investigation that even its Republican leadership considered to be inadequate. To quote Peter Tatchell of the Guardian:

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges. - 9/11 - the big cover-up?


I know this is a bit off

I know this is a bit off topic... ...but I had to add it.

Let's look at the term "conspiracy theorist"... ...why is this "bad"? Why does it make the majority cringe? 

For just a moment let's throw out all the dumb as 9th grade IQ BS. Then, let's break the term down... ...what truly is a conspiracy theorist? In my not so humble opinion it is nothing more than:

1. One who attempts to theorize on the conspiring, (manipulative), nature of man.   

Whether there is validity to any of these theories is yet to be seen.... ...but, let all be honest for a moment: I think we all agree it is in one group or another's best interest to conspire and/or manipulative. Isn't that the way the current  "world" works?

So - question is... ...what does one do with someone who questions the conspiring and manipulating side of mankind?

Hmmmm... ...I don't know - label them perhaps?



meljomur's picture
Leave it to Bonnie, to make

Leave it to Bonnie, to make such an intelligent observation.

Thanks Bonnie.  You are correct, we allow the media to dictate far too much how we think about words, labels and meanings...

Choco's picture
Let's break out two camps

Let's break out two camps here. There are the "wild eyed conspiracy theorists," and I've known a few, who believe almost every conspiracy theory that comes along without due critical evaluation. These folks get some things right and many things wrong, but do a lot of damage by ascribing blame to people or groups that are largely blameless.

Then there are the well educated conspiracy theorists. The better known ones are Carroll Quigley, Antony C. Sutton, Steve Kangas, etc, many are scholars of the highest academic repute. These types are akin to the physical scientists. Physical scientists, whether we are talking about microcosm, macrocosm, biology, neurobiology etc, follow their curiosity and probe the limits of the known universe. This is why we know more about the vastness of space and the minuteness of particles. These people continually look deeper and farther and push the boundaries of knowledge and discover new properties and connections in the material worlds. For instance scientists discovered that the world is made up of molecules. They didn’t stop there and found out that molecules are made up of atoms; they didn’t stop there and found out that atoms were made up of subatomic particles and they didn’t stop there and now believe that below that layer are strings of vibrating energy. They are scientists and thus have no reason to stop probing.

Conspiracy theorists are like these scientists in that they are historians that continually probe for cause and effect connections within the arcane levels of history. Conspiracy theorists are deep historians, anthropologists and sociologists. They continually probe for the source of historical, political, economic and sociological stimuli. Their deep research reveals particular patterns and personalities that appear and reappear much like the base atomic elements appear and reappear in various molecular formations. As these personalities and groups appear and re-appear throughout history, conspiracy theorists develop theories as to why this is and how these individuals and their group structures affect and interact with others.

To oppose conspiracy theory and theorists is being opposed to deep history and science.




mattnapa's picture
 Actually I find the truthers

 Actually I find the truthers in general to have no better capacity for objective reasoning than any other group. In fact the majority of them tend to be rather glib and unwilling to consider both sides. I should say I am referring to the everyday truther and not the experts. But the facts remain what they are no matter what personality types are drawn to the conversation.

DRC's picture
Mattnapa, that strikes me as

Mattnapa, that strikes me as "way too glib."  Once we concentrate on 9/11 rather than vapor trails, etc., I do not find a "personality type" defining those who ask questions about the official version.  Other than not being a cult member and not being dedicated to denying everything that gets in the way of the official narrative, what is it that defines "truthers" that makes them anything like the "birthers?"  

I think the nuttiness of conspiracy theorists depends upon the conspiracy involved.  When the official version requires more blind faith than the conspiracy, I'll leave room for the latter and question the former.

mattnapa's picture
 DRC- I am going on what I

 DRC- I am going on what I have seen and heard first hand. I have been to a fair amount of 9/11 truth presentations, and have been on a number of conference calls for 9/11 truth .org. I have found the great majority of folks much more interested in hearing themselves talk than any serious consideration of getting to the heaart of the controversies. This group is completely dysfunctional. Though I will admitt it may just be the typical progressive dysfunctionalism at play as opposed something particular to conspiracy types. Further the average truther may be a little better off than the average official story supporter in terms of objectivity, but that degree of difference is not a source of pride for me in my fellow truthers. Perhaps subjects such as this simply cause folks to take a stand with some minimal amount of evidence, and then decide principles of rational discussion become a hinderence to the righteousness of their viewpoint. I am not saying the average truther is less objective than the average OSS theorist, but I am saying neither side seems very good

 So DRC maybe you have a different context to have viewed this group? Or is your disagreement just a generalization about generalizations?

captbebops's picture
I may have mentioned it

I may have mentioned it before but I've been enjoying "Rubicon" on AMCTV.  Next week is the final episode of the season (it's been renewed).  The final episodes have led us down a road to the lead character who works at an intelligence agency discovering an "inside job."   This is one of the smartest shows on television and demonstrates well how such conspiracies work.


DRC's picture
Mattnapa.  I have not been to

Mattnapa.  I have not been to the conventions, and as I have posted in a number of threads, I am not deeply interested in the engineering discussions because I have no expertise to bring there and find it less crucial than the questions about official conduct, planning and response.

I have no doubt that a bunch of people who gather to discuss a forbidden topic will exhibit some cult characteristics.  There will be some counter-authoritarian types who will be drawn to the oppositional identity and community of doubters.  My point is just that the comparison with the birthers was hyperbolic and the case for something rotten in 9/11 real compared to the issues of Obama's nationality.

Choco's picture
Even Fox Business News seems

Even Fox Business News seems to be curious about the real 9/11 story and the 9/11 Whitewash Commission of Ommissions and Distortions. Me thinks the public rejection of the official 9/11 theory is gaining ground.

mattnapa's picture
 Reality these days will make

 Reality these days will make the otherwise sane behave strangely.

Quote:I should say I am

I should say I am referring to the everyday truther and not the experts.

What exactly is an "expert"?

The definition might surprise you. ;)



mattnapa's picture
 That is a good question

 That is a good question Bonnie. The usual suspects include Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan,  Ruppert, and Peter Dale Scott. The architect's name is escaping me at the moment. If you have others in mind, or a different take on expert, I am interested Bonnie

ProudPrimate's picture
Is Thom A Gatekeeper?     As

Is Thom A Gatekeeper?    

As a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program, I listen to more or less every podcast, and I am often rewarded abundantly for it, as in Thom's pungent diatribe against Christopher Columbus in the second hour of the 10/11 program, and the excellent, textbook quality discourse on the practice of manipulating commodity prices in the first hour of the 10/12 show. Then again, there are times when listening to Thom is so frustrating that I begin to wonder if he's intentionally throwing softballs, or does he really not know these things?

Like today at work, I'm listening to the 10/13 show, the start of the second hour, the chat with Dan Gainor about "the roots of rage". I transcribed the segment, but rather than choke the thread with that text, I have posted it here at my website, for those that wish to read it as they listen. The audio, for subscribers is here. Thom makes very good points, the same points that Ward Churchill made in his essay "Chickens coming home to roost", essentially saying that we have engendered what is now known as terrorism as a form of blowback, because of our abusive treatment of the rest of the world, particularly Muslim countries. But the slow balls that Gainor throws back at him, that should be hit out of the park, are merely fouled off. Sure, he's "protecting the plate".

But what else is he protecting? Economics professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa recently published a piece at his awesome, 9-foot-tall website,, the voice of his Center for Research on Globalization, called "Manufacturing Dissent: the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites The People's Movement has been Hijacked". In this piece, Chossudovsky makes the point that, while many on the Left are aware of the process and practice of "manufacturing consent" on the part of the Powers that Be, something that is often overlooked is the practice of manufacturing dissent, or rather an attenuated version of the same, as a relief valve for public frustration. It is necessary, says the professor, for governments to foster their own watered down protest movement, to give the masses the mistaken belief that they are making progress against the monolithic power structure. Having subscribed to Thom's show for two years now, I must confess I sometimes get an eerie feeling that maybe he is part of that. Let me point out a couple of glaring facts about the Gainor interview. Consider this exchange:

THOM HARTMANN: . . . . Before we invaded Afghanistan there had never, ever in the history of that country been a suicide bomber. Tell me there's not a connection.

DAN GAINOR: Uh, Thom, then — I mean, in war — this suicide bombing, actually, if you're trying to — I think, to spin this in a particularly kind of strange way, the war — people were trying to use whatever tools were available to them. Suicide bombing becomes a big tool for — uh, particularly for al-Qaeda, and similar groups. Uh, but you can go back before we invaded Iraq, uh, we still had attack on the World Trade Center. It wasn't just 9/11, it was the first attack on the World Trade Center, where people tried to blow it up from beneath as opposed to blow it up from the sky.




Thom, can you have been at the top of this game all these years, and never read the Ralph Blumenthal article in the New York Times, published Oct 28, 1993, entitled "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast", in which it is made plain that the FBI employed former Egyptian army officer Emad Salem to shepherd the bomb-making process through, promising him that inert powder would be supplied, then at the last minute reneging on that promise and going ahead with live powder? To quote the Blumenthal article, "The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said." Mr. Salem was no fool, and he taped many minutes of phone calls after the fact with his FBI handlers, and the tapes provide solid proof that this claim is accurate.

So, all you can say to Gainor, is "Sure, the terrorists bombed the WTC in '93, but how can you blame them?" Did you see the more recent exposé of entrapment on Democracy Now, a piece which deserves a lot of credit, even though many suggest that Amy Goodman is another bit of manufactured dissent, a "Left Gatekeeper" meant to limit popular acknowledgement of the depths of government depravity. Entrapment, provocateuring, and False Flag are the lifeblood of Empire, and manufactured dissent are the white corpuscles.

Another issue that crops up in the Gainor interview is the business of the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Brigades. As I said in a post I left here on New Year's Day last, Thom was schooled by a caller named Brian from Washington state at 33:40 in the podcast of hour 2 on 12-30-09. The exchange went like this:

Brian: Good morning. I — love your passion, Thom. You mentioned Belgium didn't experience terrorist attacks, but actually they did.

TH: Well, yeah, Patrice Lumumba was assassinated by... was..."

Brian: Oh, OK. I'm not talking about that aspect. I'm talking about the terrorist attacks that were state sponsored. The BBC did a great show called Operation Gladio.

TH: Uh-huh

Brian: Are you familiar with it?

TH: I'm not.

Brian: Oh. Powerful. There's a book written by Daniele Ganser 2005 titled Nato's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe.

At this time Thom promised to check out the matter, but clearly he has not. I have to say, this is an egregious oversight. To hear him continually promulgating the fiction that the Brigate Rossi were behind the kidnapping and murder of Prime Minister Aldo Moro and the many bombings in Italy, including the Bologna train station, or that Baader-Meinhof were "criminals" when in fact they were, for the most part, framed by CIA and MI6, frankly gives me the willies. Am I investing in a Potemkin Village with my subscription to Thom Hartmann? Or is he just a brilliant guy in some areas, with big blind spots in others (like foreign names)? In either case, I am forced after about a year now to raise the level of banging the saucepan with the spoon, out here in the Plaza de Mayo.

P.S. — for those who want to know the truth, but have limited time, start with the second of the three BBC Timewatch pieces about Gladio, Gladio, Part 2 The Puppeteers

ProudPrimate's picture
mattnapa wrote:  That is a

mattnapa wrote:

 That is a good question Bonnie. The usual suspects include Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan,  Ruppert, and Peter Dale Scott. The architect's name is escaping me at the moment. If you have others in mind, or a different take on expert, I am interested Bonnie

Richard Gage

captbebops's picture
And there are more videos

And there are more videos coming out, especially the suppressed NIST ones, where you can hear the explosions going off as well as more news reports from the day of people saying that they heard explosions too and that the lobby had been blown up by an explosion.  We're closing in.


mattnapa's picture
 Proud Primate- Your post

 Proud Primate- Your post regarding Thom not knowing about Gladdio is kind of off the charts significant. I am rather shocked quite honestly. I get his podcasts, but at times I miss some. So I am really glad, I think, that you brought it to our attention. Thanks

Quote:You are correct, we

You are correct, we allow the media to dictate far too much how we think about words, labels and meanings...

See, this is where my comprehension sometimes gets fuddled by my lack of socialized conditioning. For as long as I can remember I have not been able to seen things as, "So it is said. Therefore it is so."

I think this is why I just could never "do" school. I wasn't necessarily anti-social or anti-authoritarian. All I ever did was question. And more times than not - I didn't disagree. I just wanted to know the whys behind the "truths" I was being taught. Unfortunately, just from our human nature, people do not like to be questioned. 

I guess I've always tended to take the whole of any lesson, story, situation, or chunk of history and break it down by filtering it through my own "Who is dictating the presentation? Why is this being presented this way? What are the dictating individual's/group's pros of presenting it this way? Are there other sides to this and are they being fairly and ethically represented?" psycho-social litmus test.



Quote:The usual suspects

The usual suspects include Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan,  Ruppert, and Peter Dale Scott. The architect's name is escaping me at the moment. If you have others in mind, or a different take on expert, I am interested Bonnie

To be forthright and honest - I do not have a strong knowledge on the 9/11 event. My earlier comments where merely addressing my thoughts on the label "conspiracy theorist" and not on the specific topic of 9/11.



Dusty's picture
Conspiracy is the blood that

Conspiracy is the blood that flows through the black heart of political parties. It is woven into the fabric of governments everywhere as it always has. OTOH, if one believes that government always tells the truth...well, believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy fit neatly into one's world perspective.

New calls for WTC forensic investigation: Delivers the Evidence to the Media: Press Conference - National Press Club – Washington DC

An excellent documentary on the Bush era Sept 11, 2001 conspiracy: Change - 911 An American Conspiracy

Or, watch it on

kodowdus's picture
Common_Man_Jason wrote: I

Common_Man_Jason wrote:

I think 911 demonstrates with out any doubt the power of the media.

Because you know, if just one big media outlet started running stories and documentaries questioning the official 911 story, then people would actually start to take it seriously.

For now, all one has to do is say is "Never Forget" and the conversation is over.

What's particularly important about this observation is that it's not limited to "right-wing" media or even "mainstream" media. As I've noted elsewhere (Is it child abuse to perpetuate the official narrative about how the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001? ), "left-wing" media are possibly the worst offenders when it comes to having a completely subjective attitude towards the events of 9/11:

I despise 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracies. Indeed, one of the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories. And it was stupid of Van to put his name on a very stupid ‘9/11 Truth Statement’… The 9/11 ‘Truthers’ are fringe-dwellers and Van was completely wrong to allow himself to be associated with them. - Arianna Huffington, Thank You Glenn Beck