View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Scepcop » 05 Dec 2012, 12:10

Excellent but disturbing article.

http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/07/9 ... %E2%80%9D/

9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of “Conspiracy Theory”

Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the 9/11 official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy.

by Paul Craig Roberts.

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.
A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Timesdoes not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Lee Harvey Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s (including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001 inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as “conspiracy theorists.”

This, despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free-fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy; really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.

Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first-responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens.

Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit’s findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit’s findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.

Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers’ favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit’s findings.

As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators. To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.

The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government’s explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the ”war on terror” and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government’s explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.

If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future.

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS has had careers in scholarship and academia, public service, and journalism. He served as Congressional staff and as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Arouet » 05 Dec 2012, 12:31

I think conspiracy theory, more than just saying that the official position is wrong (because when can it ever be 100% correct) really means when the government is suspected of having orchestrated the event itself.

By definition, any crime involving three people is a conspiracy, but its not really a useful word that way. So yes, 9/11 was a conspiracy, but the "conspriacy theory" is that the government was behind it (and variations on that theme).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Dec 2012, 14:25

Arouet wrote:I think conspiracy theory, more than just saying that the official position is wrong (because when can it ever be 100% correct) really means when the government is suspected of having orchestrated the event itself.

By definition, any crime involving three people is a conspiracy, but its not really a useful word that way. So yes, 9/11 was a conspiracy, but the "conspriacy theory" is that the government was behind it (and variations on that theme).

Sure, in that case, but most generally it's just a 'conspiracy' between a group of people to do something, doesn't have to be the govt necessarily.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby really? » 07 Dec 2012, 11:43

Here we go again. 9/11 was a conspiracy to be sure, but not a conspiracy carried out this government.

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby really? » 07 Dec 2012, 11:46

Arouet wrote:I think conspiracy theory, more than just saying that the official position is wrong (because when can it ever be 100% correct) really means when the government is suspected of having orchestrated the event itself.

By definition, any crime involving three people is a conspiracy, but its not really a useful word that way. So yes, 9/11 was a conspiracy, but the "conspriacy theory" is that the government was behind it (and variations on that theme).

SydneyPSIder wrote:Sure, in that case, but most generally it's just a 'conspiracy' between a group of people to do something, doesn't have to be the govt necessarily.
[my underlined emphasis}

Could this be a ray of sunshine ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 07 Dec 2012, 14:03

really? wrote:
Arouet wrote:I think conspiracy theory, more than just saying that the official position is wrong (because when can it ever be 100% correct) really means when the government is suspected of having orchestrated the event itself.

By definition, any crime involving three people is a conspiracy, but its not really a useful word that way. So yes, 9/11 was a conspiracy, but the "conspriacy theory" is that the government was behind it (and variations on that theme).

SydneyPSIder wrote:Sure, in that case, but most generally it's just a 'conspiracy' between a group of people to do something, doesn't have to be the govt necessarily.
[my underlined emphasis}

Could this be a ray of sunshine ?

No, sorry, I'm just providing the bog standard definition of a 'conspiracy' as it's always been defined. 9/11 had to have govt involvement. How's that essay coming along?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Misha » 07 Dec 2012, 18:05

really? wrote:Here we go again. 9/11 was a conspiracy to be sure, but not a conspiracy carried out this government.

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.


I could not agree with you more, Really. And, I get SydneyPSIder's point too. 9/11 for all intents and purposes was not done by our constitutional government. Again, Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer defines government in two forms: The Provisional government (elected) and the Permanent government (The revolving door between unelected second and third tier "government" officials tied to the military/industrial/intelligence complex).
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 07 Dec 2012, 21:37

Misha wrote:
really? wrote:Here we go again. 9/11 was a conspiracy to be sure, but not a conspiracy carried out this government.

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.


I could not agree with you more, Really. And, I get SydneyPSIder's point too. 9/11 for all intents and purposes was not done by our constitutional government. Again, Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer defines government in two forms: The Provisional government (elected) and the Permanent government (The revolving door between unelected second and third tier "government" officials tied to the military/industrial/intelligence complex).

Yes, it's a 'government within a government' as OBL helpfully put it for us in his first disclaimer -- inside players at all levels who seems to be corrupted by something -- money, power, fear of not being #1, or helping out allies -- I'm not sure which is pre-eminent. The FBI and CIA naturally attract psychopaths and sneaky people as part of their recruitment (heck, so does regular management jobs), and a lot of people will do just about anything to keep their job or get that bonus they were promised in the lower echelons.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby ProfWag » 08 Dec 2012, 23:42

really? wrote:
Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.


This is not only an excellent point, but key to why 9/11 CTs (and others) are not logical. Although "nothing is impossible," it most certainly would have been quite difficult for a group of people in the numbers required to cover up 9/11 to have many of them not spilling their guts to others. It just isn't feasable.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Misha » 09 Dec 2012, 06:49

ProfWag wrote:
really? wrote:
Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.


This is not only an excellent point, but key to why 9/11 CTs (and others) are not logical. Although "nothing is impossible," it most certainly would have been quite difficult for a group of people in the numbers required to cover up 9/11 to have many of them not spilling their guts to others. It just isn't feasable.


Who are you going to spill your guts to? Who is going to report it? Who is going to puff it? Finally, we are getting to the "unacknowledged" world.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Arouet » 09 Dec 2012, 10:03

C'mon, we're in the information age! Blogs, facebook, twitter. It's impossible to keep information quiet these days. Heck, we even have wikileaks for gosh sake! You don't think there would be a receptive audience there?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 10:42

ProfWag wrote:
really? wrote:
Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.


This is not only an excellent point, but key to why 9/11 CTs (and others) are not logical. Although "nothing is impossible," it most certainly would have been quite difficult for a group of people in the numbers required to cover up 9/11 to have many of them not spilling their guts to others. It just isn't feasable.

Yes and no. And there is some disturbing and pretty well incontrovertible evidence to suggest a lot of weird shit was going down that day -- including NORAD and USAF stand-downs, identical 'exercises' being run, and so on. Apart from the obvious 'patsy' setup of untrained pilots and their mysterious habits, the unlikelihood of 16 guys with boxcutters all being passed through by airport security unchallenged, and on and on. Too much funny business going on by half, and a huge chunk of the American population agrees in surveys. They became mistrustful after JFK, and after RFK, and after Richard Nixon, with just cause.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 10:54

Arouet wrote:C'mon, we're in the information age! Blogs, facebook, twitter. It's impossible to keep information quiet these days. Heck, we even have wikileaks for gosh sake! You don't think there would be a receptive audience there?

Wikileaks can only leak what they receive. They get 200,000 cables from the insecure US diplomats network, they leak 200,000 cables. Plenty of other stuff going on out there they don't have access to.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby Arouet » 09 Dec 2012, 11:47

The question was if someone had the information to leak, who would publish it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 and Orwellian Redefinition of 'Conspiracy Theory'

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 12:04

Arouet wrote:The question was if someone had the information to leak, who would publish it.

I don't understand the 'question' as you've rephrased it, I'm just going on what has been said earlier.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron