Conspiracy Theories -- The Work Of Conspiracists

APA
Associated Press Association
12-2-08 11 minutes ago

A well placed anonymous source has revealed that most conspiracy theories are the work of conspiracists. The highly informed insider went on to state that while it was impossible to prove his or her theory, it was also impossible to disprove it as well, at least to his or her satisfaction.

"Most people believe that 9/11 was the work of Muslim terrorists, that Barack Obama is indeed a citizen of the United States and that aliens from the planet Zorg did not build the Pyramids," said the little known but well respected authority figure. "But," he or she went on, "conspiracists seem to know more than everyone else and, finally, the truth can be told. They are behind the alternate theories to our established beliefs."

"Conspiracists," they continued, "are involved in the largest conspiracy this planet has ever seen. They are behind every single significant conspiracy theory that has ever been proposed since the dawn of mankind and possibly more than that." A new conspiracy theory, who was really behind the Mumbai attacks, was set to be unveiled as we went to press.

While the highly secretive source could not produce any actual evidence to document his or her claims, he or she did say that more would be revealed later. Also, they did provide APA with an internet site that backed up the claims. APA could not find any conspiracists who would confirm the story, though one did question whether we were an actual news source.

Comments

[Janet A]

You know, I have heard rumour that there is a Huffington Triangle Bruce!... I've witnessed 2 impending comments on this very post mysteriously disappear!

Or is it a conspiracy because I am in the UK? LOL. I've not had any problems before... and the content complied with the terms and conditions¦, I just asked if you would run that by me one more time?

Looks over left shoulder, no right! If I disappear call a search party!

I like your take on this ...

[jhNY]

The hardest nut for the conformists and medicre to swallow is the audacity of the present administration to do terrible things that no decent person would contemplate. So mostly they just don't believe that the terrible things happened, or that they happened for a perfectly good reason which comports to the official explanation, or that they're not so terrible after all. And yet....

[Ljoe]

This is just the same old attempt to redefine the word conspiracy to mean something else. The fact that conspiracies do exist and always have, doesn't seem to matter to those who try to suppress the truth. The truth like the US military false flag plan to kill and bomb innocent people, shoot down planes, and blame it on Castro. See the original scanned documents signed by General Lemnitzer that were submitted to the President outlining the declassified plans below. You may need to click on the image to enlarge it for reading:

Here's the page with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Lemnitzer's signature:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/northwoods1.gif

Here is a page outlining specific acts to be committed:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/northwoods11.gif

The organizing page with background info is here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

[TracyBB]

Aha!! I KNEW it!

[RedDogBear]

So I guess this was supposed to be funny. A cheap shot at the tin foil hat wearing people like me that don't simply accept every official story and think that governments and criminal organizations some time engage in behind the scenes conspiracies? I don't actually wear tin foil and I don't accept every bit of speculation that the CIA is behind every bad thing that ever happened. Like most Americans I don't think Oswald was the lone assassin for example. I don't believe in the "controlled demolition" theory regarding 9/11 but I also don't just laugh at people who do because I realize there are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11 and I don't just blindly accept the official story either. My point is that what counts is reason and that to just dismiss all "conspiracy theorists" is as irrational and narrow minded as to accept every conspiracy theory that comes along.

[Bruce Tenenbaum - Huffpost Blogger]

I believe you are confusing actual conspiracy with loony conspiracy theories. There was a conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln. The evidence is clear. There is no clear evidence of a conspiracy to kill JFK. Has the U.S. government been involved in undermining democratically elected governments in Latin America? Yes. The point is, we know this stuff to be true because we have evidence. But there is a difference between looking objectively at evidence and wild speculation that often passes as a conspiracy theory.

I am all for "reason." My point is that there is no "reason" involved when it comes to thinking the U.S. government was behind 9/11. Guests on Jerry Springer who claim to have been abducted by aliens are not "reasonable." The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin is more "reasonable" than any evidence that has ever been put forward that he wasn't. It is "unreasonable" to see photos of a dead Elvis Presley and then claim he is still alive. And, above all, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

[JohnDewey]

At first I took your article to be nonsense, a la Lewis Carroll and, frankly, wondered what your intention was. However, your reply gives the game away.

First, why place the words reason & reasonable in quotation marks in this manner? Both words have standard definitions, so if your implication is that others are using the words in a colloquial or non-standard way, why not say that, rather than call into question for readers your own intention when using the words?

I will suggest that you used the aforementioned quotation marks because what you are really referring to is opinion, not any sort of objective standard of what constitutes reason or a reasonable theory. The second paragraph of your reply is the tell. You cite examples in which your subjective opinion conflicts with that of others, but give no evidence to support the assertion that you are in any way more reasonable or correct than others. You mix topics in which there are enormous amounts of conflicting and unresolved evidence (assassination of JFK & responsibility for Sept. 11), with topics that are almost guaranteed to invite ridicule in the mainstream American media (extraterrestrial visitation of Earth & Elvis' death).

So, you have concluded that other opinions on all of these topics are unreasonable, whilst yours are not. This is neither unique nor substantiated by evidence on your part.

[slarabee]

My point stands. Just because we do not have proof does not mean that a conspiracy does not exist. The media's off hand discounting of the various unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11 is irresponsible.
There are so many inconsistencies and oddities that it defies the imagination.
That of course is why when no one in the government or the mainstream media will address the questions with any realistic answers the public imagination runs away with them.
Even I have a hard time believing that the US government or Corporations took part in planning and carrying out the events of 9/11, however that does not prevent me from listening to the questions and searching for answers.
Stop trying to kill the questions without offering any reasonable answers.

[RedDogBear]

My point is that labeling things "loony conspiracy" is not using reason. Its just dismissing it. I do agree with you that a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are wild speculation. I don't believe in controlled demolitions or missiles. But I came to that conclusion by examining the evidence, not by just dismissing them as loony conspiracy theorists. You say there is no reason to think that the US government was behind 9/11. But have you honestly evaluated the evidence or just bought into the common dogma that virtually everyone in the MSM subscribes to without thinking? If you read Richard Clarke's initial book on the subject or The One Percent Solution its clear that there were many different warnings from the CIA, FBI, and our allies' intelligence services. Was it just gross incompetence or is it possible that some people in the government let it happen? I don't think the latter point has been decisively disproven yet and I think its worth asking the question rather than slandering people who do.

[RedDogBear]

One more example. You include people who don't believe Oswald acted alone in the loony group. I believe there is pretty strong evidence that Oswald could not have acted alone. We know the amount of time that there were shots (due to the Zapruder film). And we know the minimum number of shots (>3 unless we buy the magic bullet theory) due to the injuries and eye witness testimony. And we know how fast even the best experts can fire a bolt action rifle (at most Oswald could have gotten off 3 shots). There is more evidence than that but it won't all fit here and anyway I don't think JFK is all that relevant by now anyway. My point is that its possible to believe Oswald didn't act alone and to be rational about it. Labeling people as loonys is counter productive and just feeds into the MSM narrative that certain discussions are legitimate and others are not.

[KillTheMessenger]

Of course there are unanswered questions about 9/11. But "When did the CIA plant the bombs that collapsed the buildings?" is not one of them.

Agreed?

[RedDogBear]

I agree. Unfortunately, a lot of smart people waste a lot of energy on nonsense speculation such as bringing the towers down with controlled demolition or hitting the pentagon with a missile. This distracts from the very serious unanswered questions such as why were so many warnings ignored? who placed the stock transactions? who really committed the anthrax attacks?