Home » Writing » Conspiracies » Is Questioning Conspiracy

Is Questioning Conspiracy?

30 Seconds

30 seconds is not always enough time to grasp complex subjects.

Despite our addiction to sound bites, slogans, and witty one-liners, there is sometimes a need for a little more time to get properly to grips with some issues.

I was disturbed by many aspects of the “9/11 Commission Report” (download a copy here).

For a start:

why on earth did it take 441 days to set up the Commission and get it going? The JFK and Pearl Harbour commissions were started within 7 days.
a budget $15 million might seem like a lot of money to some of us, but over $60 million was spent investigating Clinton’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky. By the Commission’s own reckoning, 2,152 American citizens, excluding rescue workers, died in the towers that day. Surely this merited more investigation than a presidential dalliance!
the very Chair of the Commission itself, Thomas Kean, and his Vice Chair Lee Hamilton are on record as saying that they felt that the inquiry was “Set up to fail” (Washington Post 2/8/06.)
There are 33 references to elevators in the report, but not one mention of “elevator modernisation” or “elevator maintenance” which was taking place throughout the 9 months prior to the event by 85 Ace (no mentions) Elevator employees – none of whom were available on 9/11.
There were 75 references to China in the report, but not one of them mentions the removal from the crime scene and mysterious shipment to that country, within days, of the rubble, steel, and debris left by the collapse of the Towers.

These are just a few questions which pop up in a quick cursory examination of some of the known facts. A look on line will list hundreds more, together with hundreds of whacky and variously improbable explanations. I’ve looked through quite a few but, with a certain amount of persistence, found one or two presentations to be very compelling. Not least are the various “for 9/11 Truth” videos from architects, engineers, pilots, firefighters, and others. But not everybody has the time or inclination to wade through all this footage.

Having done some wading (so that you don’t have to) I find I can unreservedly recommend one in particular.

The “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” is one of the most reasoned, studiously neutral, and compelling videos I’ve seen. Some 1500 members of the American Institute of Architects and other prestigious and respected technical organisations have contributed to and/or supported the production of this video. They don’t posit theories as to “who dunnit”. They merely address questions which, when answered carefully through empirical scientific method, raise further questions as to why the official Commission narrative comes up with different answers.

It is an hour long, but really, it is well worth setting aside some time to hear them out. We’re not talking about a minor nuisance here. We’re not swatting flies. We’re talking about the largest loss of American lives in peace time. If there are reasonable explanations for all the points raised, these explanations should be readily forthcoming. There should be no hesitation whatsoever in addressing the legitimate concerns of legitimately concerned American citizens.

If there are reasonable explanations but government sources are unwilling to present them, what does that tell us about American governmental attitudes to its own citizens?

If there are no reasonable explanations to be had at all, what does that tell us about the forces at play within and without American government today?

Next Instalment:

Is Questioning Conspiracy / Part 2

In Part 1, I suggested the “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” online video as one of the most reasoned, studiously neutral, and compelling arguments for re-examining the supposed facts of 9/11.

In Part 2 I wanted to point to another, more personal documentary video, but, before doing so, I wanted to point out the way in which I believe the internet and modern communications technology has allowed ordinary individuals to compete with corporate (ie controlled by the super rich) media production and corporate distribution.

Our laptops

On our laptops we now have much of the same capability as these corporations had as recently as 10 years ago. We can, as individuals, do extensive research, assemble cogent arguments, and splice together audio and visual imagery faster and as efficiently as any wealth-compromised corporation. We still don’t have the direct access to the heavy duty, slam dunk distribution they own and have at their disposal, but we can post our findings and, if they strike a chord (and we’re lucky), they will distribute themselves. The Architects & Engineers video mentioned above has already achieved more than a million views via a multiplicity of channels and sharers. This represents and “end run” insofar as the corporate networks and communication channels have been neatly sidestepped.

As we speak, unspeakable wealth is being brought to bear in the interests of returning control of the internet to the corporate interests who unwittingly launched it. As we speak our internet rights are fast following our real-life rights down the tubes of “prevention of terrorism”. If they are successful in this, it will inaugurate a dark age the like of which our forebears experienced in medieval times. Many of us feel that this dark age is already upon us; that the unidentified forces which are messing with the facts, history, and our lives are already so much in the ascendancy that only a radical reawakening of the body public will ever stand a chance of fending it off.

But, as promised, a more personal approach to the questions raised by the 9/11 catastrophe. This can be found at “Anatomy of a Great Deception”. This is one man’s 1 and a half hour journey through the debris of information and disinformation surrounding that infamous day. He starts from a studiously neutral standpoint with one simple, non-conspiratorial question. Unable to find the answer, the full panoply of other questions begins to blossom before his eyes. Very quickly he finds he is in waist deep and mired in horrifically contradictory stories and theories. His home life descends to an unmanageable low as he struggles to grapple with the implications.

But he perseveres. He plods through the mire in a way which each of us would if we had the time and determination. Throughout he suggests we shouldn’t take his word for any of this but provides links and references every step of the way.

At the end, he concludes that he cannot accept the findings of the Commission. He does not offer any explanation as to what might actually have happened or at whose hands. He simply states that he cannot accept the findings and that this opens a whole range of doors and possibilities too vast for him to deal with himself. He finds a degree of peace through having produced the film, but knows he can go no further at that stage.

Does this make him a “conspiracy theorist”?

Next Instalment:

Is Questioning Conspiracy / Part 3

Having raised Questions, I’ve asked whether raising questions qualifies as “conspiracy theory”. A question is, after all, neither:

“a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful”, nor
“a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained”.

It is simply a request for information. Questioners don’t become conspiracy theorists unless they propose answers to the question; especially where such answers are inconsistent with the hard and openly available evidence to hand.

In Parts 1 and 2, neither I nor the videos listed proposed answers to the often frightening questions raised.

However, the questions remain unanswered.

There is no new movement within the legal or legislative establishments to address the significant informational shortfalls so graphically highlighted. The questions continue to be ignored by any and everyone with any chance or capability of responding to them fully and responsibly.

So, who are these people who continue to ignore these questions? What unites them in their determination to avoid dealing with these questions at all costs? And what recourse, if any, do we have?

Setting foot….

Here is where we part from the studied neutrality of sticking to the raising of questions.

If “they” are not going to answer the questions, perhaps it’s up to “us” to have a shot.

And it is at this point, at last, that we set foot, unashamedly and in the absence of alternatives, into the land of “conspiracy theory”.

“A Rich Man’s Trick” picks up from where “Anatomy” leaves off.

At the end of “Anatomy”, David Hooper says he feels that there is a large dark presence at play, but feels uncomfortable trying to identify or quantify it. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is a questioner and has done his job.

However, another non-corporate production by another internet powered individual – in this case apparently a Yorkshire history teacher – delves into his own inability to accept an earlier Commission’s report on an earlier American tragedy – the assassination of JF Kennedy.

This inability leads this historian to delve into the origins of the two World Wars to map out and throw into relief a cast of characters and activities that truly stretch the credibility of any “normal” mind.

Is he mad?

Personally, I don’t think so, but have a look and decide for yourself.

NOTE: As at 18/7/21 the above mentioned film has been REMOVED by Youtube.

Next Instalment:

Is Questioning Conspiracy / Part 4

Follow the Money

This is a supplemental to the preceding Parts 1 to 3.

Again, this is back in the realm of “questioning” – as opposed to “conspiracy theorising”. In the video below, Corbett isn’t saying who he thinks is responsible (although some fairly obvious conclusions can be drawn throughout), but he raises the questions.

And again, as mentioned previously, the questions remain unanswered. There is no new commitment from the legal or legislative establishments to address the glaringly obvious informational shortfalls being so consistently and graphically highlighted. The questions continue to be completely ignored by any and everyone with any chance or capability of responding to them fully and responsibly.

And again, it is only the power of the internet and our modern laptops that allow determined individuals to put together coherent multi-media documentaries without the need for compromised corporate backing. And that same internet allows us to sidestep the corporations’ stranglehold on distribution as well.

Unfortunately, what the internet cannot do is sort the wheat from the chaff.

Other determined individuals can go some way towards doing this on our behalves, but ultimately, it is up to us, occasionally, to take time out from our 30 second skips through cyber space to focus on important issues and bring what’s left of our longer attention spans to bear.

It is up to us to make full and constructive use of what the internet has provided via this potentially brief historical/technological window of opportunity before the window is shut forever.

….little practical significance

The “9/11 Commission Report” (download a copy here) states, “To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.” And adds, astonishingly, that “Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”

In this video, James Corbett (not to be confused with Stephen Colbert!) applies basic television detective logic to the “crime” (9/11 was a crime wasn’t it?) and the “crime scenes”. He follows the money and raises the questions that arise there from.

He points out that, unsurprisingly, “the answers to crime investigations are not going to come from the suspects”.

Stating what should be obvious to all of us, he adds, “Instead, it is up to the Investigators to unearth the true evidence.”

Please Note: The above mentioned video has been REMOVED by Youtube.

If you’re put off by the voice and the imagery, you can read the full transcript and check all the references here:

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/

Next Instalment:

There is no Next Instalment to this series. As I re-read the series I realise that Youtube and Hubpages have been messing with content. Why this should be is anyone’s guess, but I would imagine you know what my guess might be.

As the mainstream media slowly shuts itself down to anything but the “official narratives”, so the trend appears to be replicating itself online via centralised corporate ownership.

Nevertheless, forlornly optimistically, a new series starts at: Lost Innocence / Virginity