Conspiracy theories in the digital age

[UM-Bot]

Image credit: stockxpert

Jim Marrs: Was 9/11 an inside job? Did a giant UFO fly over Stephenville, Texas, in early 2008? Are high-flying planes dumping chemicals on us? Did a high-level conspiracy kill JFK? Did a flying saucer crash near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947? Will the year 2012 spell doom for us all? “I don’t believe that!” seems to be the most common response to some of these questions – among the most mysterious and controversial issues of our day. But, “I don’t believe that!” is not a valid argument.

Only facts can counter other facts and in today’s “Information Age,” there is information enough for anyone, if he or she will take the time to seek it out.

During the past century a subculture of like-minded people have become concerned that major contemporary and historical events were not caused by "what we've been told" through the mainstream media or our history books. Generally described as “conspiracy theorists,” these people are passionately concerned about their country and are driven by a strong sense of ethics and justice. In many cases, they are also armed with facts, either underreported or unreported by the corporate mass media.

Conspiracy theories are explanations based on speculation. When facts are available, speculation ends. Conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts.

With the advent of the Internet, the ranks of conspiracy-minded people have swelled remarkably. The Internet is brimming with hundreds of variations on thousands of conspiracy theories. Some are superlative examples of research, others push the speculative envelope, and many more are dubious flights of fancy. But no matter the accuracy or veracity of these millions of thoughts, the sheer volume bears witness to the tremendous number of people with provocative questions in search of answers.

One may be the most highly-intelligent person in the world, but if operating from erroneous or incomplete information, no one can come to a truthful and correct conclusion on any issue. One must know all one can about a wide variety of topics. And none are more fascinating then the subjects being tossed about on the Internet.

Here are just a few examples:

• Apologists for the 1964 Warren Commission, handpicked by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the Kennedy assassination, argue that a single bullet traversed Kennedy’s neck and went on to wound Texas Governor John Connally. This scenario is the foundation for the argument that only three shots were fired, all by the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet, Kennedy’s autopsy report supported by eyewitness testimony and the bullet hole in his shirt and jacket clearly prove that he was shot in the back (third thoracic vertebrae) not through the neck.

• Witnesses in Stephenville, with nothing to gain and everything to lose, reported in early 2008 that a giant – some said a mile-wide – craft flew over their town at below air speed and that it was chased by military jets. The US Air Force initially stated that it had no jets in the area. But after a few weeks of continuing reports, the Air Force reversed itself and stated that 10 F-16s were on a training mission over Stephenville on the night in question. Asked for details of the mission by reporters, an Air Force officer said they had none as they were not in contact with the jets; an explanation greeted with great incredulity.

• The mainstream media is rife with reports that the world’s supply of oil is peaking and that a future with higher prices for gasoline is inevitable. Yet, arguing against this position is a wealth of information showing untapped and unreported oil reserves both in the United States and in other countries. There is even the possibility that some oil wells, once thought depleted, are refilling.

• What crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, continues to bring a swirl of controversy with two broad sides being taken – one believing that nothing more than a balloon test was involved while the other believing that a crashed UFO and even alien bodies were recovered. Both sides concede that government authorities secreted away whatever came to earth. So this issue today comes down to whom one chooses to believe – government pronouncements that have changed four times over the years or more than 600 individuals on the public record who claim to know about a crash disk and non-human bodies.

It is subjects such as these that remain on the outskirts of public consciousness, never fully addressed in public, yet never fully forgotten. But in this Digital Age, there is no excuse for ignorance. Everyone now has access to a full range of information on these and many other issues.

Some deal with mysteries, which may involve science of which we are not yet aware. In the primitive past, such things would have been called magic.

Today, they are more likely to be called extraterrestrial.

Some are concerned with conspiracy, a term formerly disparaged by the corporate mass media. However, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, obviously were the result of someone’s conspiracy, the term has been somewhat rehabilitated.

Thoughtful persons rightfully question why such issues are not more fully debated in the mass media. Who would have a vested interest in preventing the public from learning who killed JFK? Who truly was behind the 9/11 attacks and the truth behind the ubiquitous UFOs? Could it possibly be the owners of the six giant multinational media corporations that control virtually everything we see, hear and read?

Subjects like the ones above and many more unconventional topics, including: Is the Supply of Oil Peaking? Is the Federal Reserve a Scam? Are Chemtrails for Real? What Flew Over Phoenix? and, What Will Happen in 2012? are addressed in my new book, Above Top Secret.

In Above Top Secret, such controversial issues are tackled by asking the fundamental questions once taught to beginning journalism students — Who, What, When, Where and Why. Armed with basic facts and hopefully, a dash of deductive reasoning, readers are invited to take on the world of mystery and conspiracy, normally eschewed by the mass media.

####

Jim Marrs is a best-selling author, TV producer, and university instructor. He is a frequent guest on national radio and TV programs.

Above Top Secret is published by The Disinformation Company, December 2008

Source: E-mail Press Release

[PhoenixBird88]

Another author with nothing to say but whats already been said....

[Oen Anderson]

I listened to Jim Marrs on the Coast-to-Coast radio show when he talked about this new book of his. He said he was asked by the team at abovetopsecret.com to writh this book. Unlike his other books he needed to show no proof, only provide thought provoking insights. Yes, this reminds me of Russ Kick gleening info from other peoples work to compile into one not to well written book. Sad.

[Keel M.]

Yes, this reminds me of Russ Kick gleening info from other peoples work to compile into one not to well written book. Sad.

I know of someone else who does this sort of thing in a different genre. It's as though they expect us to believe they're saying something new...

[Dogran]

The big problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that, while the basic premise isn't implausible (the government planned the whole thing to provide justification for draconian 'anti-terrorist' measures), the 'evidence' on which the conspiracy theorists invariably base their claims is. Moreover, it's also entirely redundant.

The issue is this: the 'anomalies' noted by the conspiracy theorists are presumed to be the result of events or processes necessary for the government to execute their plan. To take a few popular examples:

• It's said that the Twin Towers wouldn't have collapsed from aircraft impacts alone, therefore more factors must have been involved: demolition charges, or aircraft laden with explosives.
• It's said that the fact that the Towers fell into their own footprints was evidence of a planned demolition.
• It's said that the puffs of smoke seen down the edge of WTC-7 were demolition charges being fired, and this is proof of conspiracy.
• It's said that the Twin Towers fell faster than freefall speed on their way down, thus proving controlled demolition.

And so on. But there are problems with all these claims. Not least the standard debunkings: given the forces involved the Twin Towers could only have fallen into their own footprints - they could not have tipped over as some seem to believe they should have. Video footage clearly shows ejected debris overtaking the collapsing buildings, thus showing they were falling slower than gravitational freefall. The puffs of smoke on WTC-7 appear while the building is already falling, suggesting that they are dust being ejected from fracture points.

We've all seen these arguments being gone over time and time again, and the conspiracy theorists invariably end up relying on mere insistence and accusations of complicity or stupidity to push their point of view.

But the biggest problem with the entire "9/11 Truth Movement" is far more straightforward: if the 'anomalies' the conspiracy theorists spend their time highlighting and questioning are assumed not to be anomalous at all, but consistent with the physics of buildings collapsing purely through the high-speed collision of heavy aircraft, does it then prove that the government were not responsible?

The answer of course is no. If we wished to claim that the government planned and executed the whole thing, then we need only prove that they recruited nineteen men who hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings. The result would have been the same. No demolition charges required; no remote-controlled aircraft; no vast-scale collusion of WTC staff, public service workers, air traffic controllers and the military - all of which would have been required if the conspiracy theorists' claims are accepted at face value. The whole thing could have been arranged with only a handful of people inside the government having to be aware of it.

The point of all this is that the main objection to the conspiracy theorists is not a matter of quibbling over their individual claims, but of questioning the entire basis of their reasoning. Their primary goal is to condemn the government, but they would have no way to do this without the huge, elaborate conspiracy they present. At best, they could raise the question of whether the hijackers were Al-Q'aeda or government recruits - and it would be impossible to settle that question one way or the other.

[turbonium]

Just to address the last post briefly..

The debris is ejected with great force from the towers, so if it's ejected downward, it will obviously travel faster than free-fall speed (of the building collapse). And there are puffs of smoke coming out of WTC 7 before it begins to collapse. And the towers should not collapse straight down, because that is the path of greatest resistance - straight down, through 70+ floors of a structurally sound building, with 47 massive steel core columns. But that's an issue for the conspiracy threads, not here.

The point of the article is to show how the mainstream media is not in tune with the public's concerns and questions on major issues. As evident from the discussions and articles on the internet, outside of the mass media control.

And he's right. There are major issues - like JFK and 9/11 - the mass media refuses to report on. Unless it fits the 'official' story. The internet is the only means of getting such information. We have to sift out the bad info from the good info for ourselves. The mass media ignores the good info, and mocks the bad info. So they can hold it up and say it's all bad info on the internet, except for the info on mainstream media sites, of course.

Slimeballs, without a doubt.

[Dogran]

Just to address the last post briefly..

The debris is ejected with great force from the towers, so if it's ejected downward, it will obviously travel faster than free-fall speed (of the building collapse).

Which illustrates precisely the sort of ad hoc reasoning employed by conspiracy theorists in order to support their favoured explanation in light of evidence that would otherwise falsify it.

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean. The "Government Did It" conspiracy for 9/11 simply does not require any of the elaborate nonsense the conspiracy enthusiasts have invented for it. All it would require is that the nineteen men responsible were working for the US Government and not for Al-Q'aeda. But since that would be very difficult - if not impossible - to prove with evidence, conspiracy theorists are left having to search for 'anomalies' to support their claims.

The problem being that, far from being a 'truth movement' as they like to pretend, what they really are is a 'selective evidence' movement, working to push the conclusion they want to see.

And the towers should not collapse straight down, because that is the path of greatest resistance - straight down, through 70+ floors of a structurally sound building, with 47 massive steel core columns. But that's an issue for the conspiracy threads, not here.

You need to study some physics. Even basic, high-school level should do for this question. The force vector necessary to make the buildings topple over - bearing in mind their earthquake-resistant construction - would be a large force applied high, horizontal, and, depending on the force involved, fairly persistent. You claim that a vertical drop is the path of greatest resistance - but of course it's not. Study the collapse properly, rather than through the eyes of a conspiracy theorist. Why do you think so much debris IS ejected laterally? Because the mass of the floors above the impact point where the initial structural failure occurred is crashing down onto the floors below - precisely what you would expect, given the damage inflicted on the towers. The towers were built to be stronger on the outside than down the centre - this was part of their earthquake-proofing. Hence, much of the force was channelled down what were, structurally speaking, two giant tubes.

The point of the article is to show how the mainstream media is not in tune with the public's concerns and questions on major issues. As evident from the discussions and articles on the internet, outside of the mass media control.

And he's right. There are major issues - like JFK and 9/11 - the mass media refuses to report on. Unless it fits the 'official' story. The internet is the only means of getting such information. We have to sift out the bad info from the good info for ourselves.

And that's the problem. The Internet's greatest merit is the fact that it provides everyone with access to a global publishing medium. Any one of us can make our opinions heard around the world in seconds - which, from the point of view of free speech and the exchange of information, is a fantastic benefit.

The downside of the Internet as a repository of information, though, is the flipside of its greatest asset: it's almost entirely unregulated, and there is nothing to prevent anyone from posting the most hopeless nonsense as fact. You toss in the fact that "[w]e have to sift out the bad info from the good info for ourselves" as though it isn't the fundamental point here: people have opinions and beliefs and prejudices, and they tend to support people who seem to agree with them, while condemning those who don't. You say "mass media ignores the good info, and mocks the bad info", but that's subjective. A conspiracy theorist would tend to see any info that supports his or her favoured theory as 'good'. Hence conspiracy theorists themselves tend to dismiss anything that doesn't conform to the picture they want to see.

But as I said, the 9/11 conspiracy theories face a single, insurmountable problem: like it or not, they are all completely unnecessary to the point they're trying to prove. The conspiracy as it's usually described on conspiracy websites - involving demolition charges and the like - would have to have been vast. A conspiracy is more likely to be successful the smaller it is - and if the Government really had wanted to bring down the Twin Towers and damage the Pentagon, only nineteen men, plus a small handful of planners, would actually have been required.

[turbonium]

You need to study some physics. Even basic, high-school level should do for this question. The force vector necessary to make the buildings topple over - bearing in mind their earthquake-resistant construction - would be a large force applied high, horizontal, and, depending on the force involved, fairly persistent.

The upper section of the South Tower tipped 20+ degrees from the vertical. Conservation of Angular Momentum ring any bells? But not on 9/11. Instead, the lower section gave way, floor by floor, even though the upper section wasn't directly above the lower section anymore!! It was balancing its entire weight atop one edge of the building!!

Amazing.

You claim that a vertical drop is the path of greatest resistance - but of course it's not. Study the collapse properly, rather than through the eyes of a conspiracy theorist. Why do you think so much debris IS ejected laterally? Because the mass of the floors above the impact point where the initial structural failure occurred is crashing down onto the floors below - precisely what you would expect, given the damage inflicted on the towers. The towers were built to be stronger on the outside than down the centre - this was part of their earthquake-proofing. Hence, much of the force was channelled down what were, structurally speaking, two giant tubes.

It's obvious that you need to study relevant documents, and look at some photos taken during their construction. The 47 massive steel core columns are a good starting point for your research.....