Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah
If you're persuaded by one conspiracy theory are you likely to be persuaded by others? In which case are you possessed of a conspiracy-friendly mindset? Or is the world just very strange on the quiet?
I did this before (but in a different thread) and I shall do it again:Conspiracy
"a plan or agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act".Theory
: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact".
When the 'conspiracy theory' bullet is fired, it is usually aimed to discredit the notion of crime being committed by officials in high places.. such as in government, corporate, military, law enforcement etc, namely those in positions of authority. It seldom happens the other way around. It is usually those of a conservative mindset (either politically or socially) who invoke the "discredit via C.T. accusation" tactic; conservatives tend to hold "authority" in higher esteem than "non-conservatives" and those who try to discredit authority are defiling conservatives' most hallowed ground. Woe betide....
Judging by the way some folk attack "alternative explanations" of (controversial) events with such extreme rage and anger, one would think that they believe that people who get into positions of authority are incapable of putting a foot wrong, committing a crime, or doing anything unlawful, immoral or unethical. Why is it that so many are obsessed with the idea that authority figures always, by default, behave in a lilywhite, halo-shrouded 100% unimpeachable fashion, as if they have some weird element of divinity about them? It is far more likely that people who arrive at positions of power within society will exploit the "basement" aspects of human nature, and band together to commit criminal acts, especially knowing that the well-connected and wealthy in authority are far more likely to "get away with it", purely on the fact that they are "well-connected and wealthy"! Once in positions of power, the temptation to commit criminal acts with ones' peers is constantly present, far more so than for "ordinarily connected folk", especially if such acts enrich the perpetrators politically and materially, and the risk of being prosecuted is less than it is for "ordinarily connected" folk. There IS
a lot of reality to the notion that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Millennia of human history shows this to be the case time and time again. To deny "conspiracy" by people in authority is to deny the very part of human nature that allows people to submit to the temptations to easily enrich oneself with a minimum of effort, and with a minimum chance of being caught.
I believe that the moon landings were not faked
Same here. Theres is precious little (read virtually zero) evidence that the Moon landings were faked. One of the people who "popularized" this little item of wackiness was one Eric Hufschmid. Mr. Hufschmid was, without his immediate knowledge, set up as a pawn to discredit alternate explantions of the 9/11 attacks, by material association with notions that are totally ridiculous and easily debunkable, including 'holocaust denial. This made him a prime target for spreading deliberately non-believable disinformation about the 9/11 attacks, most especially the idea that 'no plane hit the Pentagon".
I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.
I do also, but to believe that Bacon (or another) wrote those works is not ascribing to a "conspiracy theory", since there is no criminal intent, and only one person is involved.
I believe that Diana Princess of Wales died because her driver was drunk and drove too fast.
problems with the official story. I think we all know what they are, and as of yet, there has *not* been a satisfactory
resolution to Diana's death. You can either digest the BBC, or do the research.
I believe that terrorists crashed jets in the Twin Towers.
When something of such magnitude happens, like the 9/11 attacks for example, then the inquiry into how it happened should be absolute, thorough, no expenses spared, no punches pulled, and completely transparent and open
. This has happened re. all national tragedies in the past with promptness, for example the inquiry into the death of JFK, and the two Space Shuttle accidents. Inexplicably and sadly, we broke with tradition re. 9/11. The report we finally got was a sick joke, a vicious insult towards those who were murdered. The Bush administration flatly refused to conduct *any*
form of inquiry or investigation into the attacks for 411 days afterwards
, (!!!!!!) and when they finally, reluctantly quit sidestepping, and grudgingly gave the go ahead to the request for an investigation (to avoid much potentially damagingly bad PR had the balking continued for much longer), the resulting inquiry was starved of both funding, staff and time. Then Bush insulted the American peoples' intelligence by appointing Henry Kissinger (!!!!!) to head the inquiry... even he had the savvy to bow out of that one. The final executive director, former White House adviser and arch NeoCon Philip Zelikow could not have been any less impartial... and all the material (10s of thousands of pages of evidence) that contradicted the obviously preordained conclusion of the "Commission" was summarily excluded from the Commission's final report. Even vital testimony on the radio from firefighters
in the WTC Towers just before the collapses, were disallowed. When Bush was summoned to testify, he invoked "executive privilege": he literally sat on Cheney's lap, his testimony was in closed session, the media were not allowed in, no transcripts of the procedings were permitted and the questions were all pre-screened. Much of the Commission's final Report has been widely criticized as being inaccurate or improbable, or riddled with half truths, lies and misrepresentations, for example the text re. the internal structure of the Twin Towers themselves. Then theres the issue of tampering of both sites (Pentagon and WTC) where evidence was removed wholesale from crime scenes and rapidly disposed of.... it goes on and on.
Clearly, the conduct of the powers that be has not been "thorough and scientific" when it came to the much delayed "investigation" into the 9/11 attacks. Who needs "the other stuff" (such as explosives in the Twin Towers, alive hijackers, disappearing planes, conflicting FDR data etc etc etc), when the conduct of the people running the investigation into the worst crime ever committed on American soil is so damned suspect, cagey and......
? When it comes to raising red flags, we don't even need to invoke the "other stuff"!
I get the impression that many people are happier to just 'let this one go', on the grounds that the "possibility that a few people within hallowed institutions" could have either "allowed the attacks to happen" or "worse", is too disturbing for many people to bear. It is definitely easier for many just to "believe and have faith" in the authorities, rather than "upturning rocks", for fear of finding ugliness lurking beneath. And in general, the more conservative the mindset, the harder it is to publicly acknowledge that "problems exist" with the official story (not just 9/11, but most other controversial incidents which havent been adequately explained by government or authority. Just look at Bill O'Reilly's frothing-at-the-mouth rantings and ravings towards anyone who expresses any element of doubt or suspicion re. what the Bush Administration (etc) told us about 9/11. His recent ad hominem
attacks on Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Kevin Barrett (for example) are quite the eye opener, and probably do more to discredit the "official story" than had his response been "measured and factual". [quote]
The depressing aspect of the current landscape of "conspiracy theory" (mongering), is that the "powers-that-be" and the mainstream media own
the term, as well as mischaracterizing it of course, and use it to "discredit amongst the masses" anything that portrays the "powers that be" in a less than favorable (or criminal) light. To illustrate: the term "conspiracy theory" (when using dictionary definitions), can be just as easily applied to the "official explanation" of 9/11, the theory being that 19 Arabs conspired to slam 4 hijacked planes into US landmarks and kill lots of people. QED. But that isn't an acceptable or valid use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", as it is exclusively employed to make non-authority parties appear the crazies, not the authorities! And since the authorities/powers-that-be tend to own the lines of communication to the public, they are in a virtually invincible position.
We're all doomed! :P