A while back, Lambert called me a conspiracy theorist because I mentioned PNAC, the Project for a New American Century. I argued then that my opinion of PNAC didn't constitute a conspiracy theory, since PNAC itself had made no effort to conceal its behavior.
As an example of ACTUAL liberal conspiracy theory, I direct you to the following link:
Naa – no big deal there. It’s SOP for scouts to poke around before a presidential visit. In a rural area like that, you can cover a lot more ground from the air. Dark color against a bright sky and sun contrast thing going on – they’re dark green, but would look black if they were up a few 1000 feet. Probably just the local nasty guard unit with a few secret service agents aboard.
I just can see dumb Dubyah saying to covert operatives... "OK I'm going to be speaking about healthy forest thinning up there in Oregon in a few days. Why don't ya'll go burn some woods down to make my point. Ya'll get some helicopters and go start some fires!" (gosh, I wish we had an adequate symbol for tongue firmly inserted in cheek )
(well at least he wasn't dumb enough to dispatch a squadron of F-15s to drop napalm on the ridges.)
Thanks, Tom, a good "headshaker". PS As far as I know, "PNAC's behavior" has been limited to writing and speaking thoughts. The mission statement was written in'97 I believe, when we were in the tawdry shadow of Bubba's Presidency.
The thing about secret conspiracy theories, of all political persuasions, is that people continually forget to consider two main things.
The first is how hard it is to keep a lid on everything. For example, everyone who mattered knew that the US had stealth fighter aircraft before it was announced officially.
The reasons are many and simple, but the biggest is this: the more people you have in on a conspiracy, the harder it is to keep a lid on things.
The other thing that people fail to consider is that the motivation of the folks keeping the secret has to be a really strong one for them to keep their mouths shut- and the stronger that motivation is, the better they are at keeping operational details secret.
So, using my earlier example, while tons of people knew that we had stealth aircraft, hardly anyone knew exactly where they were, what their operating characteristics were, and how many we had.
For example, most air traffic controllers knew that we had stealth fighters. We didn't know that there was an entire operational squadron, that they were operating out of the desert Southwest (although in aviation that's always a safe bet ), and the methods they were using to move those aircraft around the world without giving away that they were F-117s.
It wasn't a hugely big deal for the bad guys (Soviets, Chinese Commies, Iraqis, etc) to know we had stealth fighters, but by God it was pretty damn important that they not find out what they looked like, how we moved them around, how many we had, etc.
What does this have to do with anything?
Well, I think the "Bush's people started fires!" thing is ridiculous. The notion is that at least a couple dozen people would have known about the conspiracy (you gotta figure a crew of at least three or four people per helicopter, plus ground support, times several helicopters) AND on top of that these folks would somehow be convinced that Bush's environmental/forest plans were important enough that they'd keep this thing secret.
Sorry, folks, not going to happen.
But none of this means conspiracy theories aren't a lot of fun.
My own personal favorite is one about the JFK assasination. "Mortal Error" is a terrific book that details the conspiracy.
Its theory is elegant and simple, and explains a lot of stuff. Basically, the author buys into a theory that was advanced by a firearms expert.
The theory is that JFK was indeed shot by Oswald... but the headshot (the Oswald shots alone would have been fatal) was from a Secret Service guy riding in an open-topped car just behind JFK.
What I like about this theory is that the whole thing makes a lot of sense. The varying theories of "The Cubans shot him" or "The Commies shot him" or "The Mafia shot him" haven't always made a lot of sense in terms of motivation, or ability to carry it out.
Also, there's some evidence of wackiness/conspiracy after the shooting, but not so much beforehand.
Because the big conspiracy was to hide that the Secret Service messed up. And this was an easy secret to hide, because they had strong motivation (protect the SS from embarassment) and an easy scapegoat anyway.
It explains why some of the things that apparently went on (body looking different in DC than it did in Texas) happened and explains the lack of hard evidence of any kind of group that was against JFK.
Anyway, that's my spiel on conspiracies.
As far as other conspiracies that I have a little expertise on... I seriously, seriously doubt that the TWA800 flight was brought down by a US missile.
That would simply be WAY too hard to cover up, because too many people would have known about the launch and they would have little motivation to keep it hidden.
Now, an enemy shoulder-launched missile, I could believe, because they'd have both fewer numbers of folks in on it and much more cause to keep it hidden.
Bush/Cheney going to war in Iraq for oil... this hardly qualifies as a "conspiracy theory", because it's no secret that the US could use the oil.
Hmm, what else... anyone have any favorite conspiracy theories?
You are obviously a government plant sent out to poke holes in those ideas that hit too close to home.
HA! - disprove that one
I believe it was J. Edgar Hoover who said something about a huge conspiracy can work because people will refuse to believe it's possible, even when looking at the damning evidence.
For instance, if the "we allowed 9/11 to happen" theories are correct, or - worse, if our government actually had a hand in it, then everything you think and know about the way our country and world works is incorrect. That's quite a blow to deal with. It's easier to pooh-pooh it than take a long hard look at an idea that disturbing.
I'm not claiming the theories are correct, but I do think there are many unanswered questions and strange inconsistencies. However, I will suspend disbelief on occasion and say "what if our gov't is capable of doing this?". Without that question, you do yourself a disservice in not even looking at or thinking about a "conspiracy".
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
On the Daily Show they did a skit on President Bush's speech concerning "thinning" the forests. T
The reporter on the scene said:
"In calling for defoliation or thinning of the forests, Bush is being loyal to his policy that states, in order to set something free you have to kill a large part of it.
There are many ways to look at a conspiracy theory but I would like to add a few thoughts.
9/11 was a conspiracy. We know that for a fact. The idea of hijacking the plains and flying them into the towers and other buildings was carried out under careful planning. The question we should ask ourselves is if the terrorist had any inside help. The answer should be a no brainier. I submit to you that such an operation would have been impossible without inside help. Any one with any knowledge of covert operations knows that the 9/ll events would require intelligence, planning and logistical set up prior to 9/11. No doubt several aspects of the operation was pre-staged to gage operational parameters. In other words there was a “dry run”.
To what extent has our society been penetrated with operatives with connections to the events of 9/11 will be impossible to determine with absolute certainty. And we must keep in mind that part of the tactics of such terrorist would be to create doubt concerning government and private agencies that are a threat. Also the reason that the operation was the type it was – was because it was the extent of the ability of the organization that created the operation. Because their parameters are limited their effectiveness is dependent on getting the ball started and other non-connected entities joining in to do most of the damage.
It is my impression that the events of 9/11 did not need any high placed (in government or private organizations) operatives. In fact by the very operation as it unfolded would indicate that those that participated were considered to be disposable and not well connected. In other words not that important to the overall organization. But it would appear that there were not connections to our social structure. To be honest I am more concerned with what I would call secondary conspiracies. This would be individuals in high position that would use the events for personal or coordinated gain. One example would be an individual conspiring to extract money, position or power because of the incident. Another example of a group conspiracy would be political parties or private business using the incident to advance non related agendas.
I cannot say I have good feelings about the Republican or Democratic political parties. Certain liberal organizations such as the ACLU and the NAACP I believe are suspect along with some conservative organizations. The only good feeling I have had so far is the military and some (few) religious organizations.
In summary I am more concerned with corruption from within that intend use the event of 9/11 to modify our culture for their advantage than threats from without even if outside threats have inside connections.
[ September 10, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: The Traveler ]
Posts: 101 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
On the contrary, the 9/11 attacks required no "inside help" whatsoever.
What needed to be overcome, that inside help would be required? They used "weapons" that were already regularly allowed through airport security (boxcutters, as far as we know).
They gained access to the cockpit simply enough- they grabbed a crew member and told the pilots to open the door, or else. Pilots did so, were killed immediately, and then the plane was taken over by the bad guys, who promptly flew into the buildings.
Not too much required in the way of "insider" knowlege. It was common knowlege amongst anyone in the aviation industry that the theory of dealing with hijackers was to pretty much not anger them and do whatever they wanted, within reason; opening the cockpit door was (at the time) totally within reason.
Other insider knowlege? None required.
quote:I submit to you that such an operation would have been impossible without inside help. Any one with any knowledge of covert operations knows that the 9/ll events would require intelligence, planning and logistical set up prior to 9/11. No doubt several aspects of the operation was pre-staged to gage operational parameters. In other words there was a “dry run”.
And in fact there are some indications that they did do a dry run or two; however, planning, intelligence, and so forth do NOT indicate ANY kind of conspiracy that needed help from the inside.
The truly crucial errors made on 9/11 (actually, way way BEFORE 9/11) were two-fold. First, we failed to take seriously enough that they'd actually implement a Tom Clancy plot and crash a big plane into a building. Second, we failed to secure the cockpits of the aircraft.
Don't let them into the cockpit and you probably immediately reduce the number of victims by a factor of 10, over 90%, from 3000ish to 300ish.