I'm dumbfounded when I hear: "I don't believe in conspiracy theories."

[TruthIsAll]

Isn't that just another way of saying: I believe in the conventional wisdom (i.e. the establishment) explanation for everything?

And that's true even when a conspiracy is later revealed as fact. Like Watergate or Iran Contra or Abu Ghraib. Then it's no longer a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. Even for the coincidence buff. Such tortured logic.

I's like saying: I don't believe in scientific theories. Because they are not proven as fact to 100% certainty. Yet we use these "theories" in our everyday lives. Like atomic theory. Like Darwinian Theory. Like Chaos Theory. Like the Theory of Probability.
Everything is theory.

Even some who are innocent are executed when the weight of the so-called "evidence" says they are guilty. Bush has no problem with that. He believes the "evidence" presented must be true, why review? Don't bother him with shades of grey. With him, it's either all black or white. Usually black. Of course, Bush will tell you Oswald did it all by himself. But even he knows better.

Look at 9/11. Do you still not believe in LIHOP?
How about Florida 2000 and Georgia 2002. Do you still believe in fair elections?
What about CNNFOXNBCABC. Still believe they are telling you the unadulterated news?
And the NY Times. All the News That's Fit to Misprint. Did they really expect us to believe that Bush would have won the recount? Were they so amateurish as to believe Judith Miller's WMD stories were factual?

And of course, the greatest one of all: JFK in 1963.
And Lincoln in 1865. There was a conspiracy before each event, while it unfolded and ther is one still going on today to keep the truth hidden. It just changes its form. But it is always a secret.

They think we can't handle the truth. Or is it that they can't handle the consequences of our reaction? Just like with 9/11, the truth can be surmised with the application of common sense and analysis of the facts, but it will never be officially told by those who must keep the truth hidden forever. Or at least until we are all long gone. Maybe in 2101.

Saying "I don't believe in conspiracies" is the knee-jerk equivalent of:
"Everything changed on 9/11"
"They hate us for our freedoms"
"Gore is a serial liar"
"Bush is a very popular War President"
"Bush won Florida"
"Clinton lied under oath"
"Vote for Bush. He'll cut your taxes"

Accept it. Conspiracies are everywhere. Always have been. Always will be. It's in our nature to conspire with others if necessary to get what we want.

Very few go it alone. Its not what you know. Its who you know. And who knows you.

[Straight Shooter]

1. The definition of conspiracy:

1. a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

2. a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

3. a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

(PNAC comes to mind with definition number 3.)

It only takes 2 to make a conspiracy. There you are. And for those who accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, I always say, "Well, call it a scheme, then, or call it culpable negligence." And there is no law which defines conspiracy as being shrouded in secrecy. It can be hiding in plain sight.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. All of the above apply to the Maw Bush Gang!

I wouldn't put anything past the crooks!

[progressivebydesign]

5. Every evil deed now discovered, was once someone's conspiracy theory..

Gosh, it's as if no one has ever seen or read a detective story. Two people plotting to commit a crime is a consiracy.. and the detective who imagines the scenario and stops it, or solves the case is a conspiracy theorist.

[Octafish]

33. The original Latin means "to breathe together."

Con-spirare. People don't have to be connected physically to breathe in unison in regards to certain outcomes. But I like yours when it comes to the Bush Organized Crime Family. They plot together.



"Whuddaya starin' at?"

[mopaul]

2. it suggests all theories are nutty, & the believers deluded

and the theories themselves too silly to investigate. they often dismiss theories outright, with the lable 'conspiracy theory'.

all this will soon change i think

[snoochie]

15. It's been a very effective tool for a very long time.

When speculation threatens to expose a scam that powerful interests have set up, they just label them as a CT and voila! Lots of the more easily fooled people will instantly disregard just about all of it. Even sometimes going so far as to rationalize around anything that does support the theory, which I find bizarre.

I really hope you're right about it changing soon.

[the Kelly Gang]

4. it reminds me of my radical shrink friend who said when I was very young

"if you think you are paranoid, let me tell you how they are really trying to get at you"

those that have been involved in genuine conspiracies just love the spread of 'conspiracy theories'..it gives them a cloak to hide under.

[flewellyn]

6. Well, to be fair...

Oftentimes, conspiracy theories are a bit out there. See, for example, the JFK assassination stuff. It's not hard to see that there was something a bit fishy about the shooting, but the lengths that, for example, Oliver Stone will go to are a bit ridiculous. This is only the most famous example, of course; look up Wilhelm Reich and the "Orgone" stuff for some choice conspiracy theories, along with the whole Roswell mess, and other fun examples. Given these examples of conspiracy theory, it's not hard to see "conspiracy theorist" as a derogatory title, given in dismissal by people who find such wild conjectures rightly ridiculous.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a "conspiracy theorist" to see evidence of a conspiracy at work in the Bush Malversation*. They operated, and continue to operate, in public; we even know their name, the Project for a New American Century. Their papers are accessible on the web, their goals and methods outlined beforehand, and their membership is well-known. For a conspiracy, it's a remarkably unsecretive one.

I chalk this up to their arrogance; they are so certain of the "rightness" of their cause, so confident of their power, so sure that nobody can possibly stand up to them, that they don't even bother to hide very well. Oh, they hide some things, to be sure, but enough of their plans are out in the open that their nature is plain to anyone paying attention. So one has to wonder: if this is what they'll talk about openly, what do they say behind closed doors? What do they do when nobody is around to see?

* malversation, n. Misconduct in public office.

[Eloriel]

84. I fianlly saw Stone's "JFK" after a coupla years here at DU

And after what I'd learned here, I thought Stone had it exactly right. Of course, those who really know their JFK "conspiracy" stuff had a lot of complaints about details -- but in broad overview, it's exactly on target. IMO.

You need to read up on the CIA, the Bush Crime Family going all the way back to Prescott and the Nazis, etc.

There was a time I eschewed basically ALL "conspiracy theories." I'd heard about Prescott Bush and the Nazis for years and quite simply refused to look into it. I also thought, "Well, and if it is true, so what? That was then this is now."

But I also used to ask myself when GHWB was President, "What does it mean that a former director of the CIA is President?" Wish to hell I'd have followed through on that line of thinking at the time. I'd have been a lot smarter a lot sooner.

Here are some links about conspiracies in general:
CONSPIRACIES
Conspiracies: Self-interest, fear, inertia, values
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5535&forum=DCForumID70&archive=yes

Also see Information Architecture of Evil (rd dn) at http://www.zpluspartners.com/zblog/

Paranoid Shift
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

[Beam Me Up]

7. I am AMAZED when . . .

people who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" PARROT the dismissive "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" bull shit. It is completely reactionary knee-jerk anti-think double talk.

The fact is, conspiracies exist. Powerful people make decisions IN SECRET all the time that effect the lives of every one of us. Do some who become interested in these machinations go off the deep end with them (mostly for lack of reliable information sources)? Of course that does happen. Does that mean that conspiracies don't exist or that they shouldn't be investigated with what data we can gather in our mostly lay-person roles? Of course not.

All we have to do is look at the many and varied inconsistencies regarding 9/11. 3000 people, most of them Americans, DIED that day and we STILL have not had an objective, transparent investigation into the many questions surrounding this event. Over and over and over again we've been told WHO and WHY -- even though there is very little evidence to back up those oft repeated asertions. The majority of the American people have believed the "conspiracy theory" that was fed to them -- with shocking images -- day after day after 9/11. This was used to launch two wars and would be used today to boost a failed presidency if it weren't for the "conspiracy theorists" who have vocally and repeatedly pointed to the inconsistencies surrounding this tragic event.

The people occupying the white house are CRIMINALS. They are not "Republicans." They are not "conservatives." I don't even think they are "Americans." They are CRIMINALS and they lie and they cheat and they steal and they murder to get what they want. And they will continue to do so to remain in power -- you can bet your last dollar on it. And that isn't any "conspiracy theory."

Edit: for clarity

[jokerman93]

12. Great Post n/t

[Insider]

21. excellent point

They are not "Republicans." They are not "conservatives."

bears repeating. and republicans are not my enemies, neither are conservatives. the bush regime is full of criminals, and THEY are the ones who need to be tried and sentenced.

[troublemaker]

22. I try not to equate 'gullible' and 'liberal'

re: I am AMAZED when people who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" PARROT the dismissive "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" bull shit. It is completely reactionary knee-jerk anti-think double talk.

The phrase 'I don't believe in conspiracy theories' is a slightly more polite form of, 'I don't believe laughable bullshit.' It offers the implicit possibility that a person dismisses some nonsense another person is inexplicably enamored of because of a broad policy.

There is no aspect of the categories "liberal" or "progressive" that is inconsistent with the statement "I don't believe laughable bullshit." If belief in laughable bullshit were a defining trait of being "liberal" or "progressive" then we would expect conservatives to all disbelieve laughable bullshit. I haven't found that to be the case... they seem pretty enamored of laughable bullshit, really.

Believing certain things that are palpably false may serve the function of a secret hand-shake to signify membership in a political sub-group that has chosen to believe some false thing or another as a test of devotion to the cause... as an emblem of the destruction of one's own faculties for the higher service of ideology. But surely it's a bit much to expect such devotion from entire classes like liberals and/or progressives.

[freeforall]

44. Excellent post beam_me_up!

I think that anyone who totally believes the government is loony. Of course there are conspiracies.

[crossroads]

60. Hear Hear! Well Said!

:kick:

[AG78]

8. I'd have to agree

It's odd what happened to the word conspiracy.

The official story of 9/11 is by definition a conspiracy.

Granted, some theories about any number of things can get a little out there. But conspiracies(as seen by the actual definition of the word) do happen.

[junker]

9. history is merely the study of conspiracies revealed, and suspected.

cicero.

[indigobusiness]

10. There's a HUGE conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theories...

Thats my conspiracy theory.

[Sporadicus]

11. I Don't Believe in All Conspiracy Theories

Only those that are true.

Seriously, dismissal of 'alternate explanations' can be a tool of the RW to discredit anyone who disputes the official line. It was employed at some point after 9/11 - by whom I can't remember - suggesting that the stories belonged in the same category as UFOs.

I happened to see C-Span's Washington Journal in March; the guest was Michael Barkun, author of "Culture of Conspiracy," in which he suggests that people make up conspiracy theories in order to make sense of our crazy, crazy world. Those screening callers made sure to take only inarticulate tinfoil-hat wearers in order to enhance this professorial assclown's credibility.

I've developed hidebound cynicism, skepticism - whatever you want to call it - over the years when it comes to accepting the official explanation for ANYthing. I suppose it's from coming of age during the Vietnam War, Watergate, Arms-for-Hostages, etc. I've also found that Adam Weishaupt's adage 'follow the money' holds true when determining who's responsible for some terrible action.

[baldguy]

13. Definition of "theory":

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4, Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Fear]

14. but they do believe in God......hmmmmmm

[indigobusiness]

16. God is a conspiracy?

That's rich.

[Fear]

50. More or less the concept

[indigobusiness]

78. Referring to God as a concept is richer still.

God, by definition, is inconceivable.

[Fear]

83. True

[robcon]

17. I reject most conspiracy theory

I would define 'conspiracy theory' as commonly used to include some or all of the following:

-Little or no proof that the alleged 'conspiracy theory' acts actually happened. Plenty of evidence that the acts 'could' have happened. 'Conspiracy theories' cannot be disproved, because they have little actual detail that can be investigated. E.g. Wellstone's death... who killed him, and how? There are a dozen versions (by my estimate) none can be proved, and, of course, few can be disproved either.

-Rarely are the names named or the dates/events/places given. E.g. who killed Kennedy? - well, it wasn't Oswald, the conspiracy theory goes. But who did? Who pulled the trigger? names, faces, dates, evidence. None of those are given. Who did kill Kennedy, if not Oswald? What is/are the name(s) of the alleged assassin(s)?

-Ascribing to organizations (e.g. Mossad, CIA, PNAC, etc.) extraordinary powers and abilities that are ridiculous and unsupported is a sure sign of a conspiracy theory.

[stickdog]

37. Unofficial theories must be evaluated evenhandedly with official theories.

In the case of Wellstone's crash, the official theory is that two pilots failed to notice the plane was drifting WAY off course for almost two minutes (the CDI needle would have been fully pegged off course for most of this time), then somehow slowed more than 60 mph below the recommended approach speed, then managed to ignore the stall horn while making no discernable attempt to recover from a very borderline (read: just above the published dirty stall speed) stall condition.

What do the official theorists at NTSB think was going on in that cockpit? I'm asking because the official report makes no attempt to even consider this question. What could possibly explain an experienced pilot (with a second pilot, no less) exhibiting such a completely egregious level of incompetence during a routine instrument approach? Remember, there was no evidence of icing, and no other planes reported any icing conditions at the approach altitude in the entire state of MN that day. Also note that the visibility was 4 miles, there was no measurable wind, there were only the barest traces of precipitation and low (400-500 ft) cloud cover was decribed by other pilots -- including the pilot who went out looking for the crashed plane within minutes -- as light fog.

Considering the official theory, I'm not inclined to set the bar too high when it comes to evaluating competing theories. How about you?

[Minstrel Boy]

18. Conspiracies are not aberrations to the system. Conspiracies are

the system - the supra-legal system - at play.

9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the nascent fascist oligarchy shielded by the National Security State has thrived, unchecked, since it gunned the last real American President down in the street like a dog.

The denial is powerful - most people refuse to accept that things are this bad, and leaders can be this amoral - but conspiracy is as conspiracy does.

[K-W]

19. It is a twisting of language, but the sense of the term is not that

people who say they dont believe in conspiricy theories are using the word the same as in the term conspiricy theorist. This doesnt include all conspiricies, just the unlikely ones.

People can then use the word conspiricy against any supposed conspiricy, which is the problem. Like many issues in current politics we are not using language properly.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Remember the netwrok news show about PNAC?

I think it was "Nightline" but it's been nearly a year ago now, I'd guess. Well, probably a year in the fall.

Anyway, the reporter interviewing some guy in the PNAC offices said something like "You know, some people talk about PNAC like it's a conspiracy, ha ha ha." The PNAC guy said, "Oh, really? Ha ha ha."

I said, "GRRRRRR. Damn lying reporter! 'Nothing to see here, folks, move along now.' GRRRRRRR. "

[JayS]

23. The Oklahoma City bombing was a collection of several...

...conspiracies, some of which the government has no interest in solving.

[stickdog]

24. This meme is, in fact, a very brilliantly executed meta-conspiracy.

Infotainment outlets have steadily invoked a grammatical sleight of hand that distinguishes instead between conspiracy and fact, such that proven conspiracies become fact and are thus no more conspiracies, never were conspiracies. Therefore, in a system of grammar where all unproven conspiracies are still called conspiracies but all proven conspiracies become facts, you are foolish or at best unduly speculative to be concerned much about conspiracy as a subject.

Watergate becomes a fact, not a conspiracy, because some were convicted for it through the regular justice system. Iran/Contra becomes a fact, not a conspiracy, because some were in effect convicted of it through Senate committee, a higher court than the regular justice system. Junk science as practiced by tobacco companies is now fact, not conspiracy, with the offer of one company to break ranks and turn over evidence in return for reduced penalties for itself. Concrete ready mix, compressed gas and grain cartel conspiracies to fix prices and restrict trade aren't conspiracies once convictions have been obtained, just facts.

The net effect of this grammatical game -- the game where proven conspiracies are no more conspiracies but facts instead, a different category of thought altogether from conspiracy -- is a meta-conspiracy designed to shut people up, to keep them from spontaneously speculating on subjects that they have not been directed to think about by the infotainment industry. Maybe one day, when and if convenient, we will eventually be directed to think about these subjects by the media, but until that happens there is no profit in anyone thinking that far outside the small box that has replaced the hearth in the living room.

[Beam Me Up]

73. I am stunned.

The first paragraph in particular:

Infotainment outlets have steadily invoked a grammatical sleight of hand that distinguishes instead between conspiracy and fact, such that proven conspiracies become fact and are thus no more conspiracies, never were conspiracies. Therefore, in a system of grammar where all unproven conspiracies are still called conspiracies but all proven conspiracies become facts, you are foolish or at best unduly speculative to be concerned much about conspiracy as a subject.

Very well said. I'd be very appreciative if you could point me in a direction where I could read more like this.

I'd also be particularly interested in learning how "elites" think. Most ordinary (working class) people have a difficult time believing that other people sit around in rooms trying to plot the course of history. I mean, they understand that decisions have to be made -- but the situation is so "obviously chaotic," how could anyone be said to be 'in control'?

They DO have a point. We see how much effort is involved in planning the details of our own lives--and these, for the most part, don't require creating a ruse or deception, not to mention multiple layers of it, to go about our business. That other people could be so immersed in deception seems incomprehensible. I mean, it is one thing to imagine a bunch of "fanatic jihadists" planning to hijack an airplane and quite another to imagine not only THAT happening, but simultaneously there being another layer of intrigue. These are descriptions of two very different realities; one seems 'plausible' to many while the other does not.

[Kod478]

25. blame the crazies

The word "conspiracy" has a bad connotation because it has
been applied to stories like UFOs, JFK, and other far-reaching
stories. As a result, whenever someone mentions conspiracy it's usually automatically dismissed. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist because I don't believe people are that smart. But conspiracies do exist, and when they do, they shouldn't be dismissed because of prior penalties that quacks have caused by labeling ridiculous assumptions or hallucinations as factual conspiracies.

[stickdog]

30. "I don't believe in conspiracies because people aren't that smart."

Obviously people aren't that smart.

Otherwise, they would realize that all of human history is littered with proven conspiracies.

You might as well say, "I don't believe slavery ever existed because people aren't that cruel."

[NecessaryOnslaught]

62. Suicidal arabs are goddamn geniuses

outsmarted the INS, FBI, CIA, NSA, FAA, NORAD, and even managed to have the trade center steel recycling outsourced. Not bad for fanatical god-fearing cavemen.

[Pithlet]

26. No

Isn't that just another way of saying: I believe in the conventional wisdom (i.e. the establishment) explanation for everything?

It just means that some people don't wish to jump to conclusions without evidence. I don't automatically believe "conventional wisdom" either, unless it has evidence to support what it is saying. I don't automatically buy any conspiracy theory that comes down the pike either unless there is something to back it up.

Not automatically buying conspiracy theories the instant they are dreamed up does not equal "sheep". I've never understood why questioning conspiracy theories is so bad, because I don't think ANYTHING should escape scrutiny.

[Dont Hurt Me]

27. I couldn't

have said it better myself. There is far too many conspiracy theories flying around here. But then again, I usually find them amusing.

[bhunt70]

29. I agree wholeheartedly.

[stickdog]

31. Question everything.

I have more reason to believe Berg's gangster business partner was involved in his death than some terrorist mastermind. While I don't have any EVIDENCE that links al-Taee to Berg's death, the same situation applies to Zarqawi.

However, Aziz al-Taee had much less ambiguous means, motive and opportunity than Zarqawi. So in the face of equally compelling evidence, al-Taee is the more likely suspect.

Does this sort of reasoning make me a "conspiracy theorist" or a reasonable investigator of the facts at hand?

[Dont Hurt Me]

32. I agree that

being sceptical is a good thing, I see the problem as many people here take all conspiracy theories as fact. But once again it's sort of amusing.

[stickdog]

34. Unexplainable secrecy breeds untoward suspicions.

Corporate media often forgoes asking even the most obvious questions of official sources. This leaves giant "plot gaps" in our daily news narrative. So we are given three choices:

1) we can believe whatever we are told,
2) we can speculate about the veracity of the narrative and the merits of possible alternative explanations, or
3) we can stop giving a shit.

Which would you suggest?

[Dont Hurt Me]

38. The corporate media

does question the government. They love nothing more than to break a scandalous story, and there is no reprisals for doing so. You must understand that for the major media to cover a story there has to be rudimentary evidence, or they lose integrity. It's ok to be skeptical but on DU, by nature of who is here, we see extreme conspiracy theories.

[stickdog]

40. Who in the corporate media has asked Bush even the most OBVIOUS

questions about his bizarre behavior on 9/11?

Why in the world would a reporter "lose integrity" for asking the most obvious and rudimentary journalistic questions?

If the corporate media had been doing its job, Farenheit 9/11 could have been culled from national news broadcasts. Right?

[Dont Hurt Me]

42. I meant

to imply that they lose integrity if they make unfounded ridiculous questions, sorry. There are plenty of reporters on both sides of the isle that ask questions.

Farenheit 9/11 is an extremist video, It got the attention it deserved. Everyone knows about it and those that want to see it will.

Also just curious, what do you question about bush's behavior on 9/11.

[stickdog]

47. Well, for starters ...

In July 2001, Bush stayed offshore in an armed military ship when he was at the G8 summit to protect him from a suspected terrorist plot to crash a hijacked commercial plane into a building. (Sources: New York Newsday, Sept 19, 2001 and LA Times, Sept. 29, 2001, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092701genoa.story)

Given that Bush himself was a suspected target of a "hijacked plane bomb" terrorist attack in July, how can his administration possibly explain the fact that he kept reading about a pet goat in a widely publicized, previously scheduled public appearance only 5 miles from the Sarasota International airport for more than 10 full minutes AFTER it had become obvious to everyone that the US was dealing with a coordinated attack of suicide-bomber-terrorist-hijackers? Didn't it cross anybody's mind in the entire Bush entourage that the grammar school might just be the next target and that they just might want to get Bush and all of the little kids he was reading with out of harm's way? If not, why not? Remember that Bush STAYED at the school until AFTER 9:30 EDT (over 20 minutes after the SECOND plane hit the WTC) and even held his initial "we'll get'em" press conference AT THE SCHOOL!

Is there no one in the entire Bush administration/intelligence/Secret Service with a three digit IQ? The simplest and clearest explanation for this bizarre reaction to the VERY real potential of toddler mass murder is administration foreknowedge at the highest levels. Bravado doesn't fly as an explanation because Bush would be taking little kids with him in any potential attack. Stunned inaction doesn't fly either because the primary mission of the entire Secret Service is to ensure the President's safety. There are only two logical choices here: the Bush administration was either CRIMINAL or else CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.

Does this reasoned analysis make me an extremist as well?

Much more:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

just one little excerpt ...

The reason given why Bush didn't leave as soon as Card told him the news is: "Without all the facts at hand, George Bush had no intention of upsetting the schoolchildren who had come to read for him." Advisor Karl Rove said, "The President thought for a second or two about getting up and walking out of the room. But the drill was coming to a close and he didn't want to alarm the children." This excuse is patently absurd, given the security risks and importance of Bush being informed and making decisions as Commander in Chief. Nor was the drill coming to a close: one drill had ended and another was about to begin - it was a perfect time to simply say, "Excuse me" and leave the room. Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is only 3½ miles away; in fact, Booker was chosen as the location for the photo-op partly because of its proximity to the airport. Hijackers could have crashed a plane into Bush's publicized location and his security would have been completely helpless to stop it. Remember, Bush's schedule had been announced on September 7 and two of the 9/11 hijackers came to Sarasota that same day. Furthermore, the Secret Service was aware of the strange request for an interview a few hours earlier and the previous night's report of a person in town who had made violent threats against Bush.

Indeed, a few days after 9/11, Sarasota's main newspaper reported, "Sarasota barely skirted its own disaster. As it turns out, terrorists targeted the president and Air Force One on Tuesday, maybe even while they were on the ground in Sarasota and certainly not long after. The Secret Service learned of the threat just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary."

Bush Lingers On

Once he was out of the classroom, did Bush immediately leave Booker? No. He stayed in the adjacent room with his staff, calling Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice, and preparing a speech. Incredibly, even as uncertain information began to surface, suggesting that more planes had been hijacked (eventually 11 planes would be suspected) , Bush was allowed to make his remarks at 9:30 - exactly the time and place stated on his advance schedule. Why hasn't Bush's security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable decision to stay at the school? And why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?

[Dont Hurt Me]

49. Well for starters...

Your first point is dated July 2001, and I don't see how it's related to his actions on 9/11.

Bush's actions after he first heard of it are not that strange. the Secret service was probably more concerned about people with guns and bombs trying to attack the president in the school or as he was leaving. So they spent a few minutes scoping the area and deciding what to do.

Yes I'm sorry but your views on this are extreme and few people would agree with you outside of this forum. I do not believe that all those members of the administration, the secret service, and all those that would have to know about a secret plot, would allow thousands of americans to die.

[stickdog]

51. You are nuts. Cheney was supposedly forcibly raced to an underground

hideout during this same time period.

Meanwhile, Bush just sat there FOR A FULL 10 MINUTES reading about a pet goat. And no journalist has ever even asked him why.

And you think it's EXTREMIST just to ask this simple, obvious and journalistically rudimentary question! What planet do you live on?

I'm not accusing the President of anything. I'm saying that EITHER they knew it or they blew it. But since no corporate journalist has ever even asked the OBVIOUS and RUDIMENTARY pertinent questions, what am I supposed to think?

[Dont Hurt Me]

53. No

I meant that YOUR belief that this is a conspiracy are extremist, as in few people believe it.

How does bush sitting there for only 10 min prove Bush knew about the attack?

[stickdog]

55. Where did I say that?

I said EITHER they knew it OR they blew it.

And I really don't see how anyone can dispute this analysis nor why nobody in all of corporate media has said one peep about it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

57. Ok

how does it show "EITHER they knew it OR they blew it"

[stickdog]

59. Either they knew Bush wasn't at risk (how?) or they risked the lives of

200 little kids by keeping Bush at a scheduled photo op for a full 30 minutes after the SECOND plane hit the WTC.

[Dont Hurt Me]

63. well

I still don't believe that proves anything. You may not believe it, but all those people would not let Americans die like that. To accuse the president of killing thousands of Americans is...well....extreme.(sorry had to say it again)

But that gets back to the thread and my point that there are lots of conspiracy theories on DU, and I enjoy them all.

Well it's late, i'm tired and going to bed.....it's been fun, good night.:)

[bpilgrim]

64. burry your head deeply into that pillow

sweet dreams



peace

[stickdog]

66. It proves that either they knew it or they blew it.

I'm done playing semantic games with you about this.

However, no logically unassailable analysis is extreme, even if it causes extreme cognitive dissonance.

[Eloriel]

85. Well, that IS the problem, isn't it

Cognitive dissonance.

Well said.

[bpilgrim]

61. easy...

they BLEW IT since they allowed the hostile event to unfold for almost 2 hours before lifting a FINGER to protect us.

or they KNEW about it since * did NOT react at ALL.

everyone i know knows they would have at LEAST reacted... they can't say for certain HOW they would have REACTED but all say they at LEAST would have REACTED.

HUMAN NATURE

unless they were expecting this and were following a script..

peace

[bpilgrim]

52. "does question the government" - lol

where have you been the past 3 1/2 years?

how many stories have you seen on the collapse of wtc7, eh?

most never even heard about it.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

peace

[Dont Hurt Me]

56. Are you implying

the goverment blew up the world trade center? Do you know the work that goes into demolishing a building like that. Don't you think the people that work there would have notice the the guys installing TNT?

And yes our media, print, tv, internet, and others do a fine job of questioning the government. Or do they only question clinton and other democrats and somehow bush buys off ten's of thousands of reporters and the liberal media outlets...please

[bpilgrim]

58. i'm QUESTIONING

you are IMPLYING and CALLING NAMES.

i am also point out the FACT that the media - with broadcast media being the worst offenders - for the past 3 1/2 years have NOT DONE THEIR JOBS questioning our 'leaders' and are directly culpable for our current catastrophy in iraq, hello...

now back to the WTC7 video...

there are two types of collapses CLEAN vs DIRTY.

what kind was the one depicted in the video?

CLEAN.

what forces are known to cause CLEAN collapses? please add to the list.

1. engineering design/flaw
2. demolition

TIA :hi:

peace

[NecessaryOnslaught]

65. Are you implying

that there has been a plausible explanation for the collapse of wtc7? Or that there has been a comprehensive investigation? And no, "Guliani's disel fuel" crap is in no way a credible explanation for the symmetrical collapse of a 47 story steel framed building. :nopity:

[Octafish]

81. What "liberal media outlets?" NPR?

Please tell. I, for one, can't find them. Here's the results of some content analysis of what's commonly perceived as the most "liberal" media outlet around, National Public Radio:

Extra!, June 2004

How Public is Public Radio?

A study of NPR’s guest list

By Steve Rendall & Daniel Butterworth

When National Public Radio was launched in 1971, it promised to be an alternative to commercial media that would “promote personal growth rather than corporate gain” and “speak with many voices, many dialects.”

SNIP...

The elite majority

Elite sources dominated NPR’s guest-list. These sources—including government officials, professional experts and corporate representatives—accounted for 64 percent of all sources.

Current and former government officials constituted the largest group of elite voices, accounting for 28 percent of overall sources, an increase of 2 percentage points over 1993. Current and former military sources (a subset of governmental sources) were 3 percent of total sources.

Professional experts—including those from academia, journalism, think tanks, legal, medical and other professions —were the second largest elite group, accounting for 26 percent of all sources. Corporate representatives accounted for 6 percent of total sources.

CONTINUED...

http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html

[TruthIsAll]

89. There is always one. Now listen. And listen close.

There would not be a conspiracy theory about anything if the questions asked were answered convincingly, coherently and logically without insulting our intelligence.

There has never been a plausible explanation of the Warren Commission Magic Bullet Theory, how WTC7 imploded, etc....

As there has been no response at all to the 23 questions asked of Bush by the 9/11 victims, it is logical to assume he cannot answer them without admitting he is guilty of incompetence or the criminal kind.

THAT is why conspiracy theories exist. Because the official explanations are clearly bogus or incomplete.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

88. Oh please, they don't question shit.

Unless it involves sex and Democrats. Where were they during the S & L rip off (Neil and Jebbie), Iran Contra, Iraq-Gate, Harken Energy (Baby Bush), Enron (Kenny Boy), Halliburton w/ Iran and Iraq, The stolen 2000 election? Yeah I thought so. Ask Dan Rather why he said in a British interview that there are certain topics he won't touch because of fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Some "journalists" claim that they don't want to lose "access" and sources so they'll only go so far, and on and on..... You're dreaming kid.

PS There is nothing extreme about F. 9-11. Somebody has to do these assholes work for them if they won't.

[BeFree]

28. I conspired some today!

Conspiracy happens. Just today I conspired with another individual on a political matter. A minor matter, yes. Still, a conspiracy.

Theories happen also. Until something becomes a fact, questions attempting to explain that something are theories.

Anyone, who, without knowing all the facts about a particular circumstance, jumps to a conclusion is a practicing idiot.

As for some of the major circumstances which we know had to have been a part of a conspiracy of some kind, theories are all we have since few, if any, of the facts are known. To jump to conclusions without all the facts, as so many do, is stupid and idiotic. And, dismissing conspiracy theories without offering up facts to disprove the theories, is just as stupid and idiotic.

[St. Jarvitude]

35. Another important theory you did not mention...

How about Newton's theory on gravity? I'd say that's pretty damn important...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Conspiracies are the norm in other countries...

...we have "lone nut gunmen", and the lone nuts that would have us believe that.

[stickdog]

39. Yes, we have NO PROBLEM WHATSOVER believing communist,

Muslim or just about any other foreign conspiracy. Plus, we have no problem believing domestic mafia conspiracies or even domestic corporate conspiracies.

But the US government would never, ever criminally conspire in any way. (Except when already proven to have done so in court, of course.) Not in America. Nope.

Because:

a) we are not like that
b) we can trust our leaders here
c) we can trust our media here
d) nobody can keep a secret here (except for corporate & gangster-types, of course)
e) people aren't that smart (except for corporate & gangster-types, of course)
f) it's just INSANE to even speculate otherwise
g) all of the above

[Eloriel]

86. Conspiracies, incl. big ones, don't have to involve that many peeps

Just think of Enron and the games it played to engineer CA's energy crisis. Enron got away with it for a very long time (in fact, haven't yet been fully called to account, have they?) That had to involve hundreds if not thousands of people, no? And how could all those people have kept quiet, not talking?

No, didn't have to involve hundreds of people, and certainly not in all the details. A few at the top, a few departments involved but who don't necessarily know the whole picture, no problem.

There were people in the trading departments who HAD to have known what was going on, right? Why didn't they talk? Easy. For one thing Enron gave people very, very handsome compensation packages and working there was a bit like working at a country club, and a family. Easier not to "see" the problems if you're really, really happy. Second, there are plenty of people out there who either believe or can be made to believe that taking unfair advantage of others isn't necessarily a bad thing, esp. if it helps line their own pockets. Finally, who were they going to "talk to" about it? The FBI? The Energy Department or SEC -- all under the control of the Bush administration? The press, which in TX was as pro-Enron as it got? Hardly. Congresspeople, who were also mostly in Enron's pocket? Hardly. Besides, complaining to Congress about important things these days doesn't seem to work as well as it once did, as we've seen from recent news stories.

In short, it's EASY to have some prety vast and far-reaching conspiracies succeed wildly if you just have the right conditions, and it's not that difficult to create the right conditions.

[DEMVET-USMC]

41. Never forget Bush/Walker connections to Nazis

The site I provided no longer works from DU forums. You get transferred to some site that is not Tarpley`s. Do Google using: bush+hitler and take your pick as to what you want to read . I suggest Tarpley chapter2 THE HITLER PROJECT. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

43. That site no longer works,unless you do google and click onto it from

there using : bush+hitler. Wierd, ...Oscar

[Domitan]

45. Correction

It's www.tarpley.net

Thank goodness it was just a typo, not a shutdown of that website. I'm glad I saved each page on that Bush book to my HTML files, regardless.

[DEMVET-USMC]

46. Thanks Domitan, I think it may be the most important book ever written.

This is an incredible book that explains and documents so much of what has gone wrong in our Nation and the World because of the sheer treachery of the Bush and Walker Families dating back to the 1920s. ...Oscar

[Domitan]

48. You're welcome, BTW, have you heard of John Buchanan?

A Republican writer who was the first to put this Bush-Nazi connection (including referral to the Tarpley book) onto the mainstream press (a New Hampshire newspaper).

[DEMVET-USMC]

54. Sorry I never heard of John Buchanan. Tarpley is scheduled as a speaker

at an upcoming " International Investigation Into 9-11 " I think it will take place in Ontario Canada. I was glad to learn he is still alive. ...Oscar

[sleepystudent]

67. Fine...

I believe that there are some conspiracies out there. But I don't believe a conspiracy is to blame for every little mysterious thing out there or everything that has happened in the world that I don't like or agree with, which often seems to be the prevailing logic on here-if I don't like what happened, there must be some mysterious cabal behind it.

Sometimes I think an excessive willingness to call on conspiracies to explain everything that cannot be easily explained is just an expression of someone's relative lack of influence or power in the world. "I am out of the loop and no one will explain to me what's going on, so it must be a conspiracy"

[bpilgrim]

68. plenty of generalities in that post

which charecterizes most of the weak justification for the status-quo.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

peace

[sleepystudent]

69. Um...

You just give me one sentence with no back up to your argument and a Flash movie of a building collapsing? Huh? What was i supposed to see in that? I guess I am so bourgoeis that I just can't see,man. And this idea of "weak justification for the status-quo" just confirms something else-some people are desperate to believe in these conspiracies just so they won't be seen as supporting the status quo and can be seen as different and not going with the flow. Which is fine, if there is measured thinking and reflection behind it, but that's rare. Even here on DU, that's rare.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sleepystudent]

71. hmmm...

considering I'm an architecture student and have had some instruction in structures, prob. more than you, I will try to think about that one. The steel doesn't have to completely melt, it can weaken simply to the point of compromise and then the weight of the slab will do the rest, causing the building to pancake down, floor after floor after floor. Or, as in that video, if the steel compromised and the building's structure twisted more than it is designed ( all tall buildings are designed to give in the wind to some extent), then the slabs, which often rest on the structure, would slip and fall. And if it's curtain wall, the facade is hanging off the structure and basically free of the slab, so it all falls seperately for the most part. But yes, it would take extraordinary heat or jarring to create that sort of structural compromise. Like,say, a tank full of aircraft fuel on fire. or a concussive explosion the level of a small atomic explosion that could be read on a seismograph. You know like what happened that horrible, extraordinary day.

And just because something has never happened in history (no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire...) doesn't mean it's impossible. Also, guess what, some things are never explained, some things never can be. Sorry to break that to you.

I'm also quite sorry that my assertions apparently bother and offend you so much that they leave you responding with one word responses, boring videos, and insults like calling me "ignorant". All because I don't agree with you and don't see things your way. Don't worry, I alerted the mods.

[bpilgrim]

74. typical

of the IGNORANT posts you have posted and of the knee jerk reactionaries to CT threads but we are all supposed to be fine with that.

well this isn't fox news and we like to back our opinions up with evidence and links not some wide-eyed students opinion on what MIGHT have happened.

folks have been WORKING on this for YEARS so i'm sure you can understand the frustration/reaction in dealing with ignorant attacks on fellow DU'ers.

also i couldn't help but notice - this not being fox, we have a paper trail - you didn't even attempt to deal with SOP... how telling, again.

:hi:

peace

(on edit: pointing out someones IGNORANCE is not against DU rules and a waste of the mods time)

[Eloriel]

87. I am always so amused

when people new to DU come here and tell us how pathetic, weak, stupid and/or crazy we all are to believe things that those of us who've been here awhile have researched and gone over and over and over at enormous length, breadth, and depth.

Too bad we're just not as smart as they are.

[JackDragna]

72. I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

At least, it takes a lot to convince me one is happening insofar as the conspiracy deals with world politics. I tend to be a skeptic because conspiracies as we commonly know them are unnecessary to keep the wealthy and powerful in control. When people can be moved to action by the mere use of advertisement, appeal to patriotism and tear-jerker argumentation, then the powerful have little use for conspiracy. We are our own worst enemies and the powerful know this. We are manipulated into doing their whim, believing it to be in our best interest. Things like Iran-Contra and the prison scandal weren't really conspiracies: they were merely secrets, the exposure of which has mostly led to massive disinterest from the public. Nobody significant in the Contra affair went to prison and nobody significant in the prison scandal will go to prison, either. Bush may be suffering some poll fallout from it, but give him time to raise money and give patriotic speeches and this, too, will pass. Remember when the country was angry about the Enron debacale and the president being in bed with corporate America? Now concern about that has disappeared like a fart in the wind.

Grandiose conspiracies can happen, to be sure, but the wealthy and powerful have little need of them. We dance to the tunes their pipers play. The only conspiracy that we ever really need to worry about is one always staring us in the face and, oddly enough, is the hardest to get the media to pay attention to amidst the speculation about who shot JFK, Jimmy Hoffa or was responsible for New Coke. It's the simple attempt by the wealthy and powerful to control our government, our lives and our freedom by using right-wing mouthpieces.

[stickdog]

75. If there is a fascist elite, a huge event like 9/11 advanced its cause

immeasurably. Just because such an event is not fundamentality necessary for putative elites to manipulate the general public to their ends doesn't mean that it isn't in their bag of tricks.

You can argue your head off about whether or not the public pays enough attention to specific confirmed conspiracies, but Watergate, Iran/Contra and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" prove that CONSPIRACIES AND COVER UPS ARE AMONG ELITES' KNOWN STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.

Given that we know that they exist, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to dismiss them because they aren't fundamentally necessary. Does it?

[JackDragna]

76. Their "bag of tricks"

..doesn't need to be that deep to maintain control. 9/11 is a perfect example. Granted, the event made the country rally around the president, but there were many other events the Republicans could have staged to increase his popularity. Even if no similar terrorist attack happened, the Republicans would still have a strong candidate in Bush simply because of the money used to back him. I think the president was foolish and sat on intel they should have acted on, but I don't think they did so maliciously. Something like 9/11 upset a big apple cart at a time when the right didn't need it tipped over. Yes, Bush did get a big boost for a good while, but pretty much everyone on the left and even many on the right knew the subsequent wars he fought to "avenge" 9/11 would likely backfire. Bush's reaction to 9/11 doesn't strike me as a conspiracy as much as a bungled attempt to make political hay out of a national tragedy.

As for Iran-Contra, Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin, I would again state a difference between conspiracies and secrets. The word "conspiracy" is usually brought forth when sinister motives and planning are suspected for a particular action. A secret activity like Reagan's illegal war in Nicaragua, on the other hand, was pretty transparent once you knew it existed. It's fairly easy to find out about its major players (Cap Weinberger, Oliver North, etc) and figure out what they did wrong. The problem lies in discovering the thing happened, not in some vague conspiracy.

That's why I think it makes plenty of sense to dismiss conspiracy theories, for the most part. Setting up grand conspiracies to accomplish evil ends isn't necessary for the rich and powerful. People are willing to do such things readily for them, either by being brainwashed, threatened or bribed.

[stickdog]

77. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, it wasn't to prop up Bush.

It was to pass the Patriot Act, increase the power of the federal executive, redistribute billions and billions of taxpayer dollars in Homeland Security pork and fight a never ending, budget busting "War on Terra" while cutting the taxes of richest 1% by about 100 billion a year and moving millions upon millions of both white and blue collar jobs to cheaper labor markets overseas.

And that's just the beginning. We could fill a full page with all the crap BushCo has gotten away with -- using 9/11 as their full body armor in almost every case.

If you think the horrid excesses of this administration would have been an easy trick to pull off using an idiot spokesman like Dubya without 9/11, you have another guess coming. Much of it might have been pawned off on us using other means, but the Big Lie is far simpler. This country just doesn't have a lot of tolerance for messy US initiated warfare, even with the Wanker of Oz hiding behind a 9/11 curtain.

[markses]

80. The most cynical behavior of every generation

Are completely out in the open.

One doesn't need a lot of google searching to "discover" our worst cynicism. It is manifest, everyday. The "conspiracy theorists" think LIHOP and MIHOP are bad. I think their time would be better spent thinking about just how bad the official version of events is. You don't need a whole syatem for connectionist exegesis. It's right there out in the open.

[info being]

82. So who conspired to create this system?

You fail to understand that, yes, the system is rigged to favor the rich and powerful. Economic, political, judicial, and monetary systems didn't just happen. They were created by these same people to serve specific purposes.

Groups connected to the Free Masons designed these systems.

[Toots]

79. Those who dismiss "Conspiracy Theories" are conspiring against

those that believe.

[serryjw]

90. I Say that all the time!

Like Watergate ........I'm out in CO doing state petitions and getting our message out. When I discuss 9-11 with someone whom is a disbeleiver I say " If I met some guy in an underground garage, his name was deep throat and would bring down the POTUS...You would have put me in a padded cell".....Then I follow up with "Do you want to know truth?"

[TruthIsAll]

91. Last kick for the holiday weekend

..