Why do otherwise smart people believe conspiracy theories?
I’m writing this as a follow-up to the posting “Charlie Sheen Says 9/11 is a Fraud so it Must Be.” I thought that post would get 3 or 4 comments and that would be it. I’d go back to writing about things like Melissa Theuriau and making fun of France. However the post got over 200 comments (most not agreeing with my assessment) so it piqued my interest in the subject.
You can tell by title of this posting where I stand on the issue of conspiracy theories, a term is often used pejoratively with regard to such things. To be clear, I generally don’t believe them and find them to be generally silly. I believe that OJ was guilty of murder and not the victim of a multi-person police frame-up while the real killers (Colombian drug lords I hear) run free. I believe that Scott Peterson was similarly guilty and not the victim small town cops too lazy to go after the Satanic biker gangs roaming the Central Valley. [Okay, the Scott Petersen case wasn’t a conspiracy theory as the term is commonly applied and it’s a cheap shot to include it here, however if you read the comments that Petersen supporters left on our blog you’ll see a lot of similarities in the arguments taken.] I also believe that crop circles are fake and Area 51 is for testing aircraft and not for hiding downed alien airships. I also believe that 9/11 was the result of Islamic terrorists intent on attacking the West for a variety of reasons–some real (they are really mad at us) and some imagined (getting access to 40+ virgins in their version of heaven) and that we really did go to the moon in the 60’s.
I believe that good questions can be raised about most anything and also believe in the right of smart people to put forth those questions, whether as intellectual exercises or otherwise. To me, one unanswered question does not outweigh thousands of answered questions but I understand intelligent people will think otherwise and seek answers and truth beyond what they feel the common wisdom is holding.
In fact, a common thread of most conspiracy theories is that a few smart and rational people are behind them (though I would argue any one person who believes them all of them is neither smart nor rational). An exceptionally intelligent executive who I worked for a brief time and I argued one night on extraterrestrial visits to earth. He kept asking me how I could be so sure about my position and what proof did I have that we hadn’t had alien visits. My attitude is that since this would be the biggest story of all time, I’d think we’d know if they were amongst us and that when it comes to interstellar travel the burden was on him. But across from me sat a very smart man who obviously felt otherwise. Similarly, a neighbor of OJ Simpson said that it was “common knowledge” that the LAPD framed OJ and check out the comments by the Scott-Petersen-Is-Innocent-Crowd on our Scott Petersen posting. She too was a highly-paid executive at a PR firm and evidence be damned, in her little world OJ was innocent. (She’s the one who told me about the drug cartels too.)
Of course I understand that there are indeed untruths in the world. Likewise innocent people are sometimes charged with crimes they did not commit and that people in power (e.g., Presidents of the United States) can do bad things that they later deny. So just because a person is arrested or a President denies it doesn’t mean that there isn’t more to the story. However, when overwhelming evidence suggests something happened (as in a famed football player knifing two people or a successfully completed mission to the moon) and the only way for it to be otherwise is a massive conspiracy/cover-up and a compliant media, that’s where I draw the line.
But if it is so easy to rationally draw a line why do these theories exist and why do otherwise-rational people continue to believe in and further stories such as:
Black helicopters and the one-world conspiracy
The Illuminati or New World Order
Roswell UFO Incident
Area 51
and of course the 9/11 attacks?
It’s easy for non-believers to laugh at the things on the list above that they do not subscribe to just as it’s easy for believers to laugh back back at us as naive. The Idaho congresswomen to went public with the “black helicopter” claim would probably cringe at being included with the New World Order folks and visa-versa. However they are really very similar. Namely, otherwise smart, rational people promoting unsupported views, well outside the mainstream. Why does this happen? [Note: I’m going to continue to borrow extensively from Wikipedia as well as sources that it points me to so in order to save myself from excessive linking, I’ll do it here but unless I say otherwise it’s probably from there.]
A writer in Wikipedia noted that “Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms. Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction.” This makes sense. Something as significant has 9/11 or a presidential assassination happens and people will dig deep to find an answer that satisfies them emotionally. That can get the idea going but how does a conspiracy theory gain strength?
One way is from confirmation bias (searching for or interpreting information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions) and avoidance of cognitive dissonance (a conflict between observations) may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. I believe such reinforcement is a big motivator for people like Steve Jones and Charlie Sheen coming forth with their views on 9/11. When Sheen is in the news it is usually about his many personal troubles. Not that many people are going to call Mr. Sheen “brave” for admitting that he cheated on Denise Richards (again) but the accolades flew for speaking up so “bravely.” (No doubt making his dad Martin proud too.) Similarly Mr. Jones is an otherwise insignificant and unknown member of the BYU staff, he raises a few questions (considered by many to be outside his field of expertise) and all of a sudden he’s an “expert” and gaining national recognition. I don’t think this makes either of them liars but it does help fan the flames on a line of thought that might otherwise be existing soley on the fringe.
Other things pointed out in Wikipedia that are consistent with conspiracy theories:
-
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence. Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact. Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions. Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators. Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the ‘impossibility’ that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators. May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning. Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
7. Appeals to ‘common sense’. Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies. Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
9. Is produced and circulated by ‘outsiders’, often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review. Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science. At least some of the story’s believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities. Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative. When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.’
Another concept at play in conspiracy theories is called cui bono? (who stands to gain?) which can produce a falsely conspiratorial account. The supposed Apollo hoax pointed at the U.S. government’s need to match the Soviets at a time when it was impossible to go to the moon. Similarly people have pointed at the gains and actions by Bush, neo-cons, oil companies, etc., subsequent to 9/11 as evidence pointing toward involvement with the attacks. No one would say that roofers are responsible for tornadoes even though they benefit from their occurance but the very existence of the Patriot Act is seen by some as evidence that 9/11 was planned by those who’ve politically or financially gained from it.
People will read whatever they want into things. For proof go no farther than this video that I found by following a link from one of the pro-conspiracy commenters on the Sheen post. Visual art is open to many interpretations and I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people who believe in the Illuminati and the New World Order are able to look at murals at the Denver Airport and see what they see. But I was surprised nonetheless and I think they are serious. I’m no fan of the Denver Airport but these guys have taken it to a new level.
Another post that I somewhat question their seriousness was the following taken from a comment on the Sheen post.
This Orwellian Police State is the result of government sponsored terrorism and the Illuminati’s work to build their New World Order. Due to editorial and political censorship our voices are often stifled, but there is an enormous underground movement against the New World Order.
If they are serious, I question whether there is really anything ‘enormous’ that believes in the “New World Order,” but maybe I am wrong on this as well. A large number of Arabs to this day believe that it was the U.S. and not Israel that beat them in the Six Day War; so much for the “wisdom of crowds.”
While on the subject of the Sheen posting, this excerpt was also part of a comment:
John Conner is the author of The Resistance Manifesto which is available exclusively at www.TheResistanceManifesto.com, is a shocking analysis of the Satanic influences and practices in every facet of society from the main stream media, to the private practices of the American Illuminati elite. It is a blueprint of the institutions, people, and powers at work within the New World Order.
Unless I’m mistaken John Conner is the same name (different spelling) as the freedom fighter in the Terminator movies. “John” was nice enough to contribute a comment to the blog so I do not want to be dismissive of his work but I’m having a hard time not doing so. Check out the site if you are interested, it appears to contain every urban legend in this area including several I hadn’t been familiar with including U.S. government concentration camps in America and mock human sacrifices by our ruling elite. (I bet Barbara Boxer is the leader of that coven!).
We invite all who want to participate in a discussion via comments to this post and as those who’ve contributed before know we have very few rules. We only ask that you be civil and attack the position not the person. (I actually don’t mind if you attack me, Insider, or Senior Administration Official but do request that you be civil with other commenters). We also request you avoid using 4-letter words (hurts us with Google). Finally, I hope that we can get some discussion on things other than 9/11. If you do talk about 9/11, please be clear not only with what you think happened but who was the mastermind. I will leave the first comment so that you get the idea. (Also note that for some reason certain comments were flagged by our spam filter, I’m keeping an eye on it and will pull them out when I find them–unless you are a spammer of course.)
As said in Wikipedia “…the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory’s truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents.” In other words, we should not expect to settle 9/11 or any other conspiracy theory in this forum. So let’s have a dialogue and perhaps even a little fun.
And so we don’t end on too serious of a note, here is a most excellent photo of a bikini carwash.
We at Independent Sources may be in denial, but at least we are in a happy state of denial.
tags: charlie sheen conspiracy theory area 51 roswell UFO Aliens ????? ????
Similar Independent Sources posts:
- 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Alert: Next Week (Sunday 18 Feb 2007) the BBC will air an hour long documentary examining 9/11 conspiracies. It will be interesting to see their conclusion ...
- Charlie Sheen Says 9/11 is a fraud so it must be so: It appears that some in the left are so upset about the war on terror being a Republican issue that instead of making the Dems strong on domestic de ...
- Another Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust: While certainly not as widely-held as the nutty beliefs revolving 9/11, fluoride in the water, or the Illuminati, there has been a belief in certain c ...
- 9/11 Pentagon Attack (video): The video below is one of the two newly released videos of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon released today by the DoD. Conspiracy theorists have b ...
- Conspiracy Theory’s Charlie Sheen Tells Ex to “Die of Cancer”; Wife responds “I don’t want Charlie’s prostitute-tranny-infested sperm”: 9/11 conspiracy theory advocate Charlie Sheen is in the news again, this time for telling his ex-wife, Denise Richards, to "die of cancer". Richard ...
March 28th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
this was done in ref to the 9/11 piece the majority of which contains facts backed up by reputable sources which we have already mentiioned. we are no longer dealing with conspiracy theories if this went to trial many of our dear leaders would do more than ten in the pen. those who are reading this page for the first time i reccomend the previous thread on sheen.
March 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
My beliefs:
9/11 was not a hoax, planes piloted by terrorists really did fly into buildings at the behest of al-Quada.
We did go to the moon during Apollo missions.
Aliens are not among us and we’ve never found a dead one.
There is no secret community that rules the world and OJ is both a jerk and a murderer.
Bonus belief: Barbara Boxer is one of the most annoying people in the world.
As promised in the posting above, I’m leaving the first comment. I think it’d be interesting if others noted their beliefs at the top of their comments (not mandatory of course) which will help differentiate the people who believe that Bush planned 9/11 by faking a plane flying into the pentagon versus those who believe that Bush planned 9/11 by having a plane fly into the pentagon. It’s clear to me that between the people who don’t believe the official version of what happened there is great dissension between their theories and I’d be interested in discourse between those.
Similarly I’m interested in a discussion between those who think that Bush planned it to those who think he is a dupe for the New World Order. At best, only one of you is going to be right.
And it’d be great to hear about things not related to 9/11. The concentration camp issue really has me piqued. When I think of my tax dollars going to building concentration camps instead of paying off the deficit I could just scream. Anyway, you get the idea and please be civil as I believe most of you were on the previous Sheen post that got this whole thread started.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
[…] going to be turning off comments (at 205!) and ask that the debate be moved over to here: Why do otherwise smart people believe conspiracy theories? — h/t: […]
March 28th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I wuz gonna say “paranoia”…but….that….wouldn’tberight…
R Nixon
March 28th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
well God Bless you insider for looking into the gulags keep digging so you dont have to try and dig out from one one day.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:30 am
I think I brushed on it earlier. Bigger assumption on my part is something I’ve seen brewing for a while, especially of late. Regarding the 9/11 type theories, people are replacing the helplessness of someone else attacking us and replacing it with a US based politically motivated stunt. In essence, all they have to do is vote the source of the evil out and it’s all over. That puts them in control as opposed to having something completely out of their control in charge. In psychological terms, it’s called displacement. Along the same lines, the “New World Order” IMO makes more sense to people with isolationist philosophies than the fact most people are accepting globalization which makes those theorists the odd ones out in their own community. If it’s a true conspiracy, rather than just being the odd one out, they are suddenly smarter than the average person in that they recognized the conspiracy and everyone else didn’t. It’s their minds protecting their values. The average theorist posting bizarre rants on boards is harmless. However, it’s the exact process that leads to cults and the disasters those cults often bring with them. Jonestown thrived on conspiracy theories. Branch Davidian thrived on conspiracy theories. Keep your people scared so that they only trust the source of “the truth” and they’ll not think clearly enough to ask questions somewhere else.
And oh yeah, lhampton, there were a MULTITUDE of lawsuits filed after 9/11. Bunches. Some of them trying to prove what you claim. Not one single lawsuit panned out. Why would that be?
There’s the lawsuit claiming EXACTLY what you are claiming:
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf
It was filed in November 2004. To date, I can’t find where it’s gone anywhere.
There’s been a whole slew of lawsuits, in the 10’s of thousands:
http://www2.gsu.edu/~rmipzb/9-11.htm
Now, wouldn’t one suppose that if any of this conspiracy theory had ANY merit to it at all, that ONE of those lawsuits would have gone somewhere with those claims? Just ONE? And if it had, lhampton, you would have one leg to stand on in your claim. As it is, the lawsuits based on fact are getting somewhere. Those lawsuits based on this conspiracy theory are going nowhere and never will. The lawyers are using Rodriguez to make money. That’s all.
So, like I said, in order to buy this stuff, you have to focus like a laser on one or two sources of information and ignore everything else. In essence, you displace your common sense to protect your values. Nevermind that thousands of lawsuits have been filed and none have gone anywhere, we have to believe that if a lawsuit were filed, our dear leaders would go to jail. That folks, is displacement.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:43 am
mel i hope you return and read this at least. i think i can speak for everyone in that we do support our military. none of us want a repeat of nam where the boys came home to be spit on. we do love and pray for all of our troops. i am sorry that they are overseas being exposed to depleted uranium im sorry that they are being charged for body armor stolen from them while they were being operated on for wounds that leave them crippled for life im sorry that the usgovt has been testing on troops for years without concern for their safety and the safety of their families im sorry that we have seen spikes in birth defects of troops returning from iraq. God bless our troops they signed up to serve under our flag and ended up getting cannibalized. i encourage all military or prospective military to research govt testing on troops here is a great start
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm
and as any researcher needs to do find one that really speaks to you and determine the veracity of the claim
also look at the “29 palms survey” which has the following scenario
46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: [SD D A SA NO]
“I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”
the full survey can be read at
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7745d72529.htm
what kinds of things would you be asked to do as a soldier???? what you sign up for is not always what you get.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:48 am
I haven’t ever really made a huge study of the various components of conspiracy theories, but here is one thing I have noticed. In almost every case, the supposed conspiracy is much more complex and requires much more involvement from many more people and groups, all of whom must keep silent, than the offical explanation. That is covered to an extent in your 12 steps above. Number 9 and 12 are especially evident in the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If you follow the thread with the exception of Steven Young, almost all the evidence was attributed to three sources Alex Jones, prisonplanet.com and infowars.com. In fact those three sources are the same source. In addition a combination of 1 and 12 can be noted in that
sources who make an initial uninformed observation which they later retract are dismissed as having been “gotten too.”
That’s all I have for the moment. I don’t know how engaged I will be on this thread as this is the busy period at work. I usually try and make a post or too during breaks but my calendar is packed solid. I hope I can be an active participant as this thread looks fun.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:01 am
hey moon here is a lawsuit you can research: former senator decamp vs. lawrence king
check out the franklin coverup.
one of the reasons lawsuits cant go thru is due to roadblocks good fbi and cia are not permitted to do their job
research all that david schippers has said he is the gent who impeached clinton and now reps. some of these agents also look at sibel edmonds and how she has been gagged also look at how ashcroft gagged the congress also look at how bush’s threats to journalists and their informants leaks will be dealt with under this regime so is it really any wonder?????
March 29th, 2006 at 7:32 am
hey moon,
Sibel Edmonds - Official Web Site - www.JustaCitizen.org
March 29th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Chad, I like Alex Jones so i’ll cite my information mainly from infowars, but The Power Hour, Jack Blood, 911 Blogger, Morgan Reynolds, Dylan Avery, whatreallyhappened…. the list goes on.. all have much of the same information. In addition, Alex Jones gets all of his information from news articles, reports, interviews and documentaries. Almost all of this information is gathered from the media and then compiled in one small group so that I don’t have to search all over the entire world for my own facts. He makes it really easy for anyone with a brain to see it. Most mainstream articles in the newpaper and on television may be reported one time and then that is all you get. You better remember it because you won’t see it again. It has been hushed up. It wasn’t really supposed to be reported in the first place. That’s when the coverup starts. Alex finds that one time (one hit wonder) article and exposes it.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:18 am
i too will go to bat for alex jones and agree with mikes comments i mean he does not just make these huge claims w/out backing it up and really go to redpillaudio and see the archived shows they have where he interviews these govt officials and everyones else. he also tells folks to make copies of his films for non profit dist. all the same he tells us not to believe him but to look for yourself which i do and encourage others to do.
is there any real reason to bash him, gents?
March 29th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Do you believe that Satan worship and mock (or real) human sacrifices are prevalent among our country’s elite?
No there is no reason to knock him (Alex Jones) for building a nice little cottage industry selling books and DVDs to those who want to listen to him unless one of his followers takes it too far and decides to blow up a government building (a la Timothy McVeigh) to fight the New World Order.
He really isn’t doing anything different than what televanglists do all of the time. Selling fear (and a little hope) via his products. As for giving away his films for non-profit, that’s called “marketing and promotion,” something he is quite adept at.
What I find interesting about all of this is the similarities between the extreme left and extreme right on several issues–even though you’d think they hate each other. Left: anti-guns, anti-religion. Right: pro-guns, pro-religion. But both seem to hate government (regardless of who’s in power) and believe that secret forces rule the world. So both groups are fueling the 9/11 Truth movement. I find the whole thing fascinating and long as neither group is blowing people up to prove their point don’t see much danger in it. After protesting for a day the little anarchists in San Francisco presumably go back to their jobs in coffee houses or as Berkeley students and I assume their counterparts on the right go back to whatever day jobs they have.
One other thing that I’d like to bring up is the racism that appears on some of these NWO sites. Playing on that level of racist fear is really the lowest common denominator of hate and is simply disgusting. I trust that no one in this discussion is going to try to defend that. Right?
March 29th, 2006 at 8:53 am
The reason people don’t like Alex Jones or Michael Moore is because they tell the truth. People don’t want to hear that. It scares them. I call it the “Ostrich Syndrome.” They stick their heads in the ground and feel safe. I have to go to work. But when I return, I’m going to post a letter I wrote to my friend up North. He thought I was crazy, when I first mentioned this to him. After I wrote him, he started to research this on his own. Almost everyday he sends me something(pictures,articles) about the bogus official story. The main arguement I always get is people can’t accept that our gov’t would kill their own people. Really? Unless it’s war. Then Americans are programmed to accept as many deaths as possible. 30,40,50 thousand, but that’s different, that was war. See how they have us trained. Why do you think they didn’t show anything on T.V. for five days after 9/11 except, 9/11 footage. Granted that was a terrible, horrific event. But they wanted us to know that 19 hijackers and Osoma Bin Laden were responsible. They pounded that into our heads. And it’s amazing how by the end of the day, they basically had all the details worked out about the whole incident. They couldn’t of stopped it, even though this was being planned for 5, 8, 12 years. But they knew all of the details real fast after it happened. I gotta go, just, I’ll talk to you later.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:15 am
This is off topic Insider, but it’s funny that you mentioned Timothy McVeigh. There are several films that i’ve watched that have news reporters the day of the bombing talking about multiple bombs found inside the building that were not detonated and were bigger than the first explosion. Most of the evidence suggests that this attack was another 911. If Timothy McVeigh was a lone conspirator with a bomb in a truck, then how did he get the bombs inside the building and why does nobody remember these reports? Also, the building was blown out… not in. This is off topic, but ties right into 911.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Oh this one sounds fun..
Well let me just say that most theories are entertaining at the least. But, when there is a question raised that might hold some ground, a bunch of nuts come out, start spewing off at the mouth ridiculous crap trying to prove they are right, thus discrediting what could possibly be a valid point. Then the hard-core skeptics jump out saying, “look what these idiots are up to now!” Paying no mind to the actual question but focusing only on the idiots. Now buy this time the people that are creditable can no longer get a word in edge wise for fear of being chastised buy the all of the skeptics. Kind of a catch 22 if you ask me.
Funny thing is I heard someone say earlier that all of the 9/11 theories point back to only a couple of web sites. Well that’s correct they do but so does the “so called truth”, FOX (I hate), CNN (which I like buy the way), ABC, NBC, ect… well they all say the exact same crap, flip from one to the other they’re all telling the same stories they all commercial break at the same time, to me they all are one entity. What makes them so credible, its not like there out doing investigative journalism. Because if they had there would be different stories on different views, in other words, they would not be mirroring off of each other.
But most of us out there accept the media of today. Partly due to the fact that when we were young kids our parents had the 6 pm news on with Dan Rather, Bill Beutel, Peter Jennings, and Mike Wallace, just to name a few. Well back in the seventies and all the way up till they died (RIP), these guys were like preachers letting us have the truth, just the sound of there voices, would make me feel at ease like I was getting the whole truth and nothing but. Well the media has changed today, Research has be limited to only open sources, no one can risk talking about something because if they do there source has to known, therefore the sources aren’t coming forward anymore. So now the network only reports what there told to report and when to report it. So the public hears and sees only what its supposed to see and when. We take it as gospel just like we did for the last 3 or so decades, I mean why question it now. I’ll tell you why, They have bosses too, they have expensive homes, luxury cars, big bills and most importantly a reputation, all at risk. They can’t afford to loose any of it. So they do as they’re told.
The public is the jury. There is approximately 350 million people in this country, that’s 350 million possibilities. I would guess that at least 300 million watch the networks and all hear the same news day in day out. Those 350 million possibilities just got a lot smaller. I mean why do your own thinking when you can just put FOX news on and Bill O’rielly will tell you all the “right” answers. Well a lot of people are starting to turn to the independent new sources, i.e. the internet. Sure most of it is just some fat clown sitting in his underwear sweating and stinking trying to make a buck or two. Well there are some out there that are actually in the field doing investigations, trying to provide a service for the public. They give you links to other mainstream media, which helps you paint a larger picture for yourself. Just as you would if you sitting in a court room on a murder trial. The prosecutor paints the picture with facts as does the defendant. Well only one of the two is right, I mean both can’t be right at the same time. So that’s where to jury steps in and makes the decision. Well I am one of the jurors just like you.
The word conspiracies has now a double meaning these days. It used to mean:
1 : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end
Nowadays it means crazy:
1 : full of cracks or flaws
2 : being out of the ordinary
3 : distracted with desire or excitement
4 : absurdly fond
5 : passionately preoccupied
6 : to an extreme degree
I’m not sure how many of you live in New York City, those of you that do like myself, see the acts of the mafia all the time or maybe even know someone in the mafia. Well they’re a conspiring group, are you crazy for believing that? No. But if you believe in Bigfoot you might be. That’s not even a conspiracy anyhow nor is Aliens, UFO’s or any of that. That stuff doesn’t even fall in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracy. In fact UFO’s to some people are probably more believable then the 9/11 conspiracy. Hey that’s there right as a juror. But I’ll tell you what I hate the most, the people that don’t even listen to some of the facts on 9/11 other then what to heard on the television and I’m not talking about bombs in the trade centers, to me that’s one of those dumb ideas that ruins any other good information after that. So people stop using that one you’ll never convince people of that one. Raise questions to people and try to get them to tell you something other that what they heard on television. It will be hard but much easier then trying to sell the bomb theory that’s for sure. But it will be much easier to then trying to convince people that O.J. really was innocent. That’s another conspiracy too.
Well in closing and sorry this was so long and thanks to whoever actually sat and endured this whole thing of mine, people are going to believe in something based on facts or even possibilities. It doesn’t mean that they are wrong maybe they just see something out of the box that the rest of us jurors are too blind to see. And hell like I said in the beginning some are fun to think about.
Well thanks for enduring this, but I have to go and finish building this closet I started yesterday for my kid that’s on the way, wonder if it my kid? Maybe it’s a conspiracy, LOL just kidding.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:24 am
insider their is no debate as to if they practice mock sacrifice it is documented and when alex jones infiltrated the grove, the grove itself stated that the footage was genuine in the san fran chronicle see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_grove
again research and cross ref the grove with the franklin cover up
why knock mr. jones he is doing the world a great service and i hope he does profit greatly from his good work he could make more if he didnt allow folks to download his stuff for free on limewire or encourage the copying and distribution. he is not hording and lording over info he wants to get the word out and high profile and credible people are coming to him to do the same
March 29th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Oman - you have made some great points, but I will have to ask you about the bombs in the towers. I have seen many films that show charges going off and witnesses and reporters hearing explosions and the marble blown off the wall in the lobby. Not to mention the fact that Larry Silverstein admitted that they pulled building number 7. If they can pull 7, they can pull 1 and 2. It takes weeks to place the bombs. If we can persuade people to believe the whole 911 inside job, then bombs have to be included since there is no way the steel in the buildings melted. Let’s pretend that the steel was capable of melting. It happened in under one hour. That’s ludicris, That would mean that the entire structure all the way down to the ground got hot enough to melt each and every floor’s steel support beam. Most buildings that have burned since 911 were on fire for hours (one of them 19 hours) and didn’t fall or even weaken enough to slightly bend or sway. One more point, the heat 6 levels under the basement was found over a month later and was steel molten. I thought the plane hit up at the top floors. I know that you want to point out more believable facts, but I don’t see any problem with proving this point.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:49 am
“The reason people don’t like Alex Jones or Michael Moore is because they tell the truth.”
Or is it because they play on people’s fears and weave disparate bits of individual data to tell a story that a certain segment wants to believe while turning off a much larger segment. I haven’t spent too much time listening to Michael Moore but does he really believe in the Illuminati? I thought he blamed Bush for 9/11. It turns out that a number of the same 9/11 Truth Movement sites of the far right accuse Michael Moore of being a shill for the Illuminati by blaming Bush instead of exposing the real culprits…the Illuminati and its Rothschild banking cartel.
http://www.rense.com/general54/mih.htm
http://100777.com/node/853
http://www.savethemales.ca/000489.html
I could list many, many more links. The point is that the 9/11 “Truth” movement is made up of people who can’t even agree what their version of the truth is (other than they have the current government). The sites linked above and many people pushing the 9/11 conspiracy blame Jews yet I seriously doubt Michael Moore subscribes to that. So which “truth” is it?
Do you think that Jews run the world and concocted 9/11?
March 29th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Boy are you guys lucky that my conference call is boring and I have it on mute :-).
I don’t have time to make any real substantial points here other than explaining the Alex Jones comment above. I was not knocking Mr. Jones, I was knocking people who quote him as three separate sources. Unless he is the current incarnation of the Trinity he is just one source no matter how many websites he has.
Going back to point in the 9/11 post. After Moussaui made his confession I made the comment that they got to him too. My point was not really that Moussaui was supposed to hijack a 5th plane on 9/11. I would say the evidence tends to point away from that :
a. One team was short a member
b. Moussaui’s “team” at this point consists of himself and Richard Reid. That leaves them 2.25 to 3 members short of a full team, if you use the pattern from the other planes.
Rather it was to point out the lie and deny technique in operation. Unfortunately I let myself get distracted and didnt really follow up on that in the way I should have. However in today’s paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/national/29moussaoui.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In a brief rebuttal, prosecutors produced evidence that Mr. Moussaoui had offered to testify for them against himself if they would have agreed to see that he spent his time before execution in a more comfortable jail cell.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002896435_mouss29.html
Introduced as part of a brief government rebuttal case, this testimony may be the firmest evidence that the 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent hopes for martyrdom through execution and could provide fodder for the closing arguments of both prosecutors and Moussaoui’s court-appointed defense attorneys.
At the risk of violating the points above, isn’t that a simpler / cleaner explanation of why he testified the way he did, than the electric belt theory? By the way I believe it was lhampton who provided the link to alex jones’s site which had the pete williams transcript making that accusation. Is there a complete transcript or video showing that comment in context I googled it and search the usual places and couldn’t find it. Or is this an example of truth like Michael Moore cutting together multiple Charleton Heston speeches to make it appear he gave an especially insensitive speech in Denver after the Columbine shooting.