Our 'Conspiracy Theory' Brainwashing

How High-Crimes Are Protected With One Simple Phrase

 

The Truth About "Conspiracy Theory"
How One Simple Phrase Is Pushed Upon Us, Over And Over Again... Just Like Brainwashing
NewsFocus, by Tim Watts - 013110

The Societal Brainwash Trigger That Tells Us All To Look Away

One thing can generally be said about conspiracy theories, there are two sides of unequal education debating the investigation of choice, with the "uneducated side" resisting relevant new information because it’s contrary to what they believe.

The question to the outsider, which group is which?

Arguably, the "uneducated side" is essentially those who are unwilling to look at all of the information. These people have seldom ever attempted the exhaustive years of research to get the full grasp of the story, instead spending only a few weeks or months at best, to find shaky evidence or questionable testimony to support and prop up their own preconception of the issue. Those who have diligently researched the issue know both sides of the coin, while the debunker with less research knows only one side.

People don't like it when their perception of the world is challenged. This certainly holds true for all of the major political conspiracies of our day. Pick any name, whether it’s John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy Jr., Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan… or pick any event, ranging from the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City Murrah building explosions, to the 9/11 World Trade Center demolition, there are two sides of argument, no matter the conspiracy.

People have formed personal mental firewalls when it comes to conspiracy, due to learned behavior from the media, but many also deny the large conspiracy because it's too hard to fathom. They falsely assume that the "epic crime" is simply too impossible to happen.

These "constants of ignorance" will remain until both sides in the conspiracy debate are, A) of equivalent knowledge regarding the issue, and B) open to accepting new information, even though it is paradigm changing to their initial stance on the issue.

Facts Define Reality

Personally, I have never met an intelligent person who, after looking into the evidence of the John F. Kennedy assassination, ever came away believing that a lone gunman from a far away book depository fired off consecutive accurate shots from a bolt-action carbine rifle. The reason they don't believe it is because they are aware of suppressed facts that are out there, hidden information that few take the time to look for, evidence that paints a much different picture than the official story.

The same is true of 9/11. This author most certainly did not knowingly charge into nine years of investigation and research thinking that small unscrupulous factions of our government were involved in any way. To the contrary, this research effort was initiated in the hopes of ascertaining how foreign operatives took the WTC towers down. Due to the nature of their collapse it was apparent that something else other than airplanes compromised those buildings to the point that they, A) fell at free fall speed with no resistance, while following the path of greatest resistance through their own structural core, and B) each fell conveniently into their own footprint.

To go into this research thinking that terrorists were solely responsible, and then find facts and evidence that suggest another explanation, has been very hard to deal with. It has been that way for every investigator who has taken on the task of finding the real truth from that horrible September day. Not many were expecting what they found.

Ignorance is indeed truly blissful, but once Pandora's box has been opened, it's hard to return to the innocence of naiveté.

The Epiphany Moment

When you meet evidence that you don't expect to find, evidence that steers your conclusion in a different direction, you either accept it or you don't. Those that refuse the new direction generally reject it out of hand as the result of bad research and cockeyed conspiracy theory, or they just simply don't want to accept the ramifications, but for those willing to look at the evidence in a new light, an epiphany is rendered.

To reach an epiphany, you need perception altering information that is contrary to your previous knowledge. When it happens, this is for all intents and purposes, the game changer; the redefining Eureka moment. With the 9/11 event, you will only reach this point after you have fully examined all of the information and the evidence, with an open mind.

Those that easily dismiss critical information or evidence out of hand as coincidence or irrelevance are not looking for the truth. These people are not willing to spend years delving into every facet, every single nuance of the crime. They would rather look only at facts that support their own perceptions, rather than looking at all of the evidence.

There are two types of debunker, those who are earnestly working to cover the crime up and those who simply don't like the conclusions that are coming from those investigating the crime. Usually it is the government linked conspiracies that drive many debunkers, generally because they are unwilling to accept that their government would ever harm civilians, nor attempt cover-ups of any kind.

The second debunker is usually involved, not out of a passion for investigating the crime, but because of a passion of "offense," stirred up by those who investigate the crime. The debunker seldom enters a conspiracy discussion to find the truth, but rather to vent their disgust over a concept they cannot deal with. They usually get involved only because they don't like what they hear coming from the investigators, hypotheses that are too heretical to their belief system and much too inconceivable for them to fathom.

A Challenge To Conspiracy Theory Debunkers

For those that would debunk, please accept this test as a challenge of your perceptive observations:

  • Please give the dictionary definition of “conspiracy.”
  • Please explain how this does not pertain to factions within government.
  • Explain why this word is not legitimate in describing criminal activity.
  • Please explain why, after "conspiracy theory" has been cried, the legitimacy of a crime is suddenly tagged as improbable or impossible, and thus the allegation is instantly negated out of hand.

Explain how the individuals involved in the following real life instances were not involved in a conspiracy and how conspiracy theory would have been an inappropriate assessment of their meticulously organized plot. Remember, these were once just "conspiracies," until they were proven to be real.

1) Watergate
2) Iran-Contra
3) Operation Northwoods
4) 1934 coup against FDR
5) The Gulf of Tonkin incident

Is it really so hard to fathom a conspiracy when addressing large scale criminal ambitions of the highest magnitude?

Since when did believability circumvent probability in a real investigation?

And why is a conspiracy out of the question once government connections start to get made?

Conspiracies Do Happen

There is obviously no substantial conspiracy theory in, say, shoplifting, but why then is that also assumed when it comes to much larger “inconceivable crimes.” The notion is okay to entertain for a movie, but yet too unbelievable for real life? This might be true, until you realize the depths that mankind is capable of stooping to for vast unimaginable riches and unlimited power. And the fact that people believe the way they do regarding conspiracies makes it all that much easier to pull off a monolithic plan of grandiose scale. Don't be fooled. If the funding money is there, no crime can ever be discounted as too unbelievable.

To think that any crime is impossible or unbelievable has the effect of creating an environment for the “perfect crime,” a criminal act of such huge proportions that no one would believe it, nor bother to investigate it. Armed with this concept, if you have lots of money and no scruples, the larger the crime, the easier it is to pull it off and blame it on something or someone else.

Fact: A suspected conspiracy plot is by itself a theory, until it is proven correct. Thus there is no necessary English grammatical usage requirement for creating a redundant term by saying “conspiracy theory,” unless of course you wanted to create a term with a negative image.

A Weak Argument

If the term “conspiracy theory” is the premise from which debunkers wish to base their attack, then one should be able to reasonably assume that they also think all criminal cases with suspects temporarily behind bars due to incriminating circumstantial evidence are “conspiracy theories” as well, because their cases have yet to be proven.

To cry “conspiracy theory” when it pertains to very serious criminal activity is intellectually deficient and wholly disingenuous as an argument. To make such a claim, it is reasonable to assume that those making the allegation have: A) something to hide, or B) ignorance to reveal.

When you scream conspiracy theory, you are sure to get shut out of the debate right from the start, because your allegation is insulting to the voluminous research already collected, let alone the countless hours, months, and years of research that the debunkers themselves have not yet taken the effort for.

Conspiracy theory is cried most when people find it hard to accept the real truth, or when someone has something to hide.

Never before has conspiracy theory been used as much as it has for 9/11.

Irrefutable 9/11 Evidence

  • Three buildings conveniently collapsed into their own footprint, in less than :10 seconds each with little or no resistance, while traveling the path of most resistance, through their massive steel and concrete cores.
  • According to Department of Transportation chief Norm Mineta, Cheney watched the plane coming into the Pentagon from well over 50 miles out, yet did not have the plane shot down, when he easily could have.
  • An airplane jet engine was found in New York that is not from a 757.
  • Turbine and wheel assembly were found in the Pentagon, not from a 757.
  • Military grade thermite (thermate) was found in four separate dust samples from the WTC destruction.
  • Many alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive to this day and were not involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
  • FEMA showed up the night before 9/11, as testified by Ray Kenney.
  • DOT head Norman Mineta testified that Dick Cheney was tracking the attacking Pentagon object from over 80 miles out.

Tenable 9/11 Observations & Questions

1 Impossible for buildings to fall that fast, unless controlled demo.
2 Kerosene and office furniture are incapable of creating temps to melt or soften steel. Yet we had rivers of molten steel for nearly two months after 9/11, even after being doused repeatedly with water.
3 No fires affected the lower floors of either WTC 1 or 2.
4 Not one, but three steel frame high rise buildings free-fell within seconds into their own footprints, for the first time ever in history.
5 Three rings of the Pentagon were breached.
6 Impossible for a hollow aluminum plane to fly through three rings of solid steel reinforced concrete at the the Pentagon. Did a missile?
7 No wing impact marks on the face of the Pentagon.
8 No large plane parts found at Pentagon or in Pennsylvania.
9 Debris field scattered in Pennsylvania over six to eight miles.
10 Four coincidental terrorist war games scheduled on the same day.
11 NORAD defeated three times. (assuming they took out flight 93)
12 DC emergency dispatch tapes and video are still classified.
13 The emergency fuel tanks were never reported to blow at WTC 7.

Damning 9/11 Circumstantial Evidence To Consider

Fact: Bush sat in classroom and was derelict of duty as Commander in Chief while we were under attack. He gave no orders to Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Bush said and did absolutely nothing. The leader of the free world has just been told that for the first time since our nation’s independence, the mainland of the United States of America is under attack, yet he just sat there. He even did a short photo-op with the teacher afterwards, so he was clearly in no hurry whatsoever to see if we were being attacked anywhere else, like maybe Chicago or Los Angeles, or perhaps even Washington DC.

Fact: Rumsfeld left his post and was derelict of duty, going instead outside to the Pentagon lawn for a staged photo op that would conveniently establish his reason for being away from the war room, rather than directing an effective defense of the nation as were his express duties. In light of the military personnel there, the single presence of Donald Rumsfeld on the Pentagon lawn helping with a stretcher did not add to the rescue effort, however his detraction from the chain of command was an egregious breach of command and military protocol which impeded the proper defense of the country during a direct attack.

Fact: Dick Cheney was in the war room of the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) bunker beneath the White House. DOT Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that Cheney tracked the Pentagon attack plane from well over 80 miles out, before it had struck. Even with 1960's missile technology we could have blown that plane (missile) out of the air easily, but Cheney didn’t. When pressed by a young man as to whether the orders still stand, Cheney became visibly angry and whipped his neck around declaring, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” It wasn't too long after that the Pentagon was hit.

Fact: Former CIA head George HW Bush was in town and stayed in the White House the night before 9/11 and was in Washington DC the following morning. With "W" sitting in an elementary school classroom in Florida, Cheney in the PEOC and Rumsfeld on the Pentagon lawn, who was flying in the E4B seen over Washington? Was this the airplane that HW stepped onto that morning in DC, rather than a commercial airliner? Who else would have had clearance?

The Reality of Conspiracy

For someone to purposefully try and dissuade a line of thinking in a criminal probe should raise questions as to the intent and integrity of those making the effort to discount or derail those avenues of investigation. People should think twice when someone cries conspiracy theory. If there's nothing to hide, then what's the harm in investigating?

It's human nature for people to look out of curiosity even when someone tells them not to look, but the one thing that seems to work best at keeping many from looking closer is two little words that we have been conditioned to react adversely to, "conspiracy theory." If the mere hint of conspiracy is mentioned, we're conditioned by the media to believe that there is no merit to the story.

Get past the deception. Conspiracy absolutely does happen in this world. As long as huge money is available to unscrupulous men of greed, anything is possible. As long as irrefutable power is sought by man, all theories must be entertained to assess legitimate potential and likely probability for the epic plot. To discount legitimate possibilities out of hand because someone else deems them to be inappropriate or too outlandish, plays only to the advantage of those with something to hide.

Maybe the next time someone yells "conspiracy theory" we should turn and look for once, rather than follow our conditioned response of turning away.

The truth is, the real conspiracy theory generally comes from the government, whether it be a lone gunman with a slow to fire bolt-action rifle from the far away book depository, or three free falling skyscrapers collapsing in ten seconds or less like a controlled demolition, the official version is quite often the hardest to swallow.

Historically it would appear that the official story with it’s “magic bullet” or the hotter than normal kerosene, is usually the one that tends to stretch all credibility of the event, more so than those accounts deemed as actual "conspiracy theory."

The next time you hear someone claim it's all a conspiracy theory, think about taking a second look and make sure you're not just creating the environment for the perfect crime, by not looking at all.

As long as mankind holds onto its insatiable greed and thirst for power, the elements for criminal conspiracy are now, and will continue to be, a given in our society.


See also: The Absurdity of The Conspiracy Theory Fallacy

See also: The Nature of a Conspiracy


SNL's Conspiracy Theory Rock

Saturday Night Live and its most important piece it ever ran. Lorne Michaels caught hell for this.


Return to NewsFocus.org