What is a Conspiracy Theorist?

Doesn't the corporate media lump many things under the pejorative label -- "conspiracy theorist?" The following are considered a part of this:

• People who have facts about a catastrophe which logically suggest the official story is false.
• People who ask probing questions about a catastrophe.
• People who suspect that others have conspired to do harm for personal gain.
• People who are paranoid about one or more possibilities.
• People who wear tinfoil hats to prevent aliens from interfering with their minds.

Photo Credits:
National Park Service, PD, via Wikipedia
Agência Brasil, CC BY 3.0, via Wikipedia

As you can see, there are a wide range of "types" included under this umbrella term. But why are all of these included? Why, for instance, are those who "merely have questions," being associated with those who "wear the tinfoil hats?" One might think that someone (the media, the government?) had something to hide. Now, there's a conspiracy theory for you! Nebulous, indistinct and easily dismissed.

But ask yourself:

• Has there ever been a conspiracy in the history of humanity?
• Has anyone ever committed murder for personal gain?
• Has a banker ever been greedy?
• Has any government ever lied to its citizens?

I don't think I'd be going out too far on a limb to suggest that all of these require a "yes" answer. So, if some conspiracies have occurred, where does one draw the line between the valid target of the pejorative term and blatant mislabeling?

I had one writer tell me that all 9/11 conspiracy theories had been thoroughly debunked and yet he couldn't tell me any of the details. When pressed on the issue, he said he didn't have time to research the topic. Ah! He didn't know and was merely stating an opinion not based upon fact. He also made it clear that he would never change his opinion just as he was sure I would never change mine. That is an interesting attitude considering the fact that I had only recently changed my opinion. It seems the writer had been living quite happily in his own delusion. Damn the facts; his head was going to remain buried in sand and nothing could force him to look.

In this 1997 movie, Jerry Fletcher (Mel Gibson) is a paranoid New York cab driver who publishes a conspiracy theory newsletter. He also has a crush on the lovely Alice Sutton (Julia Roberts), a Justice Department employee. When one of his theories turns out to be accurate, Jerry finds himself in trouble with the CIA's Dr. Jonas (Patrick Stewart). Alice finds herself embroiled in a game that's bigger than she could've imagined and that Dr. Jonas and Jerry have had a past relationship that could have dire consequences.

At the start of the film, Jerry fits the perfect stereotype of conspiracy theorist, but that image of him eventually falls apart. In the movie, there are some who would wish to keep the stereotype intact. You see, there is a certain power in generalizations that deflects the light of truth. Critical thought cuts right through that diversion. Generalities usually are a subversion and a distraction from the real issues. Many leaders have used this technique to sway the minds of the masses. All who question the official theory are unpatriotic. All who are against the war are disrespecting our soldiers. Wow! Lies and more lies buried behind generalities.

March 13, 1962, General Lyman Lemnitzer, then chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed a document which had remained classified for more than 35 years. In fact, the nature of the document was so inflammatory, Lemnitzer had ordered the destruction of it and many other documents which could be used to hold him and others criminally liable. What was this wonderful document?

It was called "Operation Northwoods." In it, the Joint Chiefs suggested murdering American citizens in order to provoke sufficient public outrage to have Congress demand war with Cuba. America's own military would attack America, but then blame it on Cuba. They would create terrorist acts in Florida and Washington, DC. They would hijack planes and crash them. They would destroy military installations, killing their own soldiers.

The sad fact is that theories, despite the corporate media spin, can be a good thing when they are based upon facts. Scientists do this all the time. They also use the word "hypothesis."

Facts that seem puzzling raise questions. The researcher formulates a theory (hypothesis) to explain the facts and then goes about testing the hypothesis to see if it can be disproven.

The last two presidents (Bush and Obama) have made a point to caution people against entertaining conspiracy theories. This fact alone should raise a red flag. Why would any president say anything to suppress open and honest inquiry? What if the "conspiracy theorist" fits under the category, "People who have facts about a catastrophe which logically suggest the official story is false?" Here we're dealing not with nut cases or mentally unstable individuals; we're dealing with facts and honest questions. Do these two presidents have something to hide?

When President Bush, Jr. was asked by a reporter for his opinion about someone else's accusation that he had prior knowledge of 9/11, the president was suddenly caught off guard. For a few not-so-brief moments, he babbled as if his mind were locked in fear. This looked every bit like the "kid with their hand caught in the cookie jar" syndrome. While far from proof of wrong doing, it has to raise a question in the viewer's mind: What's going on, here?

If George Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, would he admit it to anyone in the public eye? Probably not. From a public presence standpoint, George W. Bush was a bit of a klutz. His Bushisms had long been the grist of the comedy mills. At least Obama proved to be the consummate "silver-tongued devil." Obama gave a pretty speech, but repeatedly failed to deliver on his campaign promises, and successfully turned tyrannical measures into patriotic necessities.

There is a category of conspiracy theories that pushes the envelope of credulity. Those theories may well contain a great deal of truth, but the foundation of fact supporting them remains weak at best. It should be pointed out, however, that the lack of proof does not disprove anything; it only means that proof is not yet available, if ever.

Here's an example. No doubt an ardent conspiracy theorist would make a big deal out of the fact that the Lyman Lemnitzer photograph seems to show him wearing a Masonic ring.

Freemasonry has several million members worldwide. For the most part, it seems to be merely a fraternal organization. Some conspiracy theorists, however, paint Freemasonry with a somewhat more sinister palette. To them, the inner circle of Freemasonry make up the world's evil elite who plan wars and are actively working toward the eventual New World Order—a one-world government run by those very same elite.

The fact that Lemnitzer appears to have been a Freemason and that he helped to author Operation Northwoods, which recommended murdering his own citizens to forward military and political goals can only add to the fervor of this kind of suspicion.

There are many false parallels in life. People always look for patterns. The "face on Mars" is but one example of the pattern-happy conspiracy theorist mentality. But scientists also look for patterns. It can be a seductive activity, but any scientist will tell you that restraint is the better part of curiosity.

New World and Old World cacti are another example. These two species of plants look very similar, but they remain a case of parallel evolution. Similar conditions forced two widely separated species to develop along similar lines. The similarity between them was only superficial and did not mean close, biological kinship.

Updated 2013:1002

The collapses of 3 WTC buildings in New York were caused by controlled demolition. That much is a proven fact (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth).

The events of 9/11 resulted from a large series of incompetence and yet no one was chastised, demoted or fired. Curious. In fact, it seems that the military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 all received promotions, instead of courts martial. Why would incompetence be rewarded? That, in itself, is either incompetence, or evidence of intent. What intent? Could it be part of the payoff for cover-up? Do you have any better ideas?

Mayor Rudy Giuliani, America's "Mayor," committed a blatant felony by destroying crime scene evidence more than a year before the official investigation began. Was he arrested for his crime? The news media lauded him for his "bravery." The New York fire department members condemned Giuliani for his political cowardice in not helping them get better equipment which might have saved their brothers who died on 9/11. If this former federal prosecutor can get away with a major felony, what's going on? More incompetence? Or more cover-up?

It takes weeks to prepare buildings of the size of all 3 WTC structures. The Bush family security company which oversaw the World Trade Center should have known that tons of material were being delivered to the three buildings and placed in sensitive areas. If they didn't know, was this another case of convenient incompetence?

In the military center where Vice President Dick Cheney and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta were witnessing the anti-terrorist drills being performed on 9/11, one soldier noted that an airplane was approaching the secure and sensitive space around the Pentagon. Cheney told the soldier that the order still stands. But what was that order? The fact that they had the chance to stop the airplane, but did nothing is a stunning revelation. Incredible!

What is more interesting is that the Citizen Investigation Team interviewed many of the witnesses who saw the airplane approach the Pentagon. Those witnesses corroborate each other's stories that the plane could not have taken the path given by the official story. In fact, one witness saw an airplane lifting away from the Pentagon directly after the explosion! If the one airplane did not hit the Pentagon, then what did?

Perhaps the most stunning piece of evidence that proves the government lied, and also proves controlled demolition in New York on 9/11, involves the third building to collapse on that day. World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) collapsed about 5:20 PM on 9/11. It collapsed at perfect free fall for the first 8 floors!

Now, for those of you who flunked high school physics or don't remember it too clearly, here's a few tips to help you understand the significance of this fact.

• WTC7 collapsed at perfect free fall for 8 floors. (See NIST final report on WTC7, and David Chandler's 3 video series on WTC7 free fall.)
• Free fall means that the supports in the building offered ZERO resistance. They were effectively "air." Since when does a building's support become "air?"
• Solid steel (the framework of WTC7) NEVER offers Zero resistance. If you don't believe this, then try smashing your fist through a solid steel beam. Ouch!

Office fires never melt steel beams. Jet fuel fires never melt steel beams. Why would NIST scientists lie about this and try to rewrite the laws of physics? Incompetence, again? With so much incompetence going around before, during and after 9/11, you'd think there was an epidemic.

If a conspiracy theorist is someone who asks questions about puzzling events, then count me amongst the legions of conspiracy theorists. Certainly, I have plenty of hypotheses about 9/11, but not enough facts to prove many of them. What is needed is a non-governmental, independent investigation into 9/11. Is such a thing possible? If someone or some group is pushing the buttons of government to perpetrate such evil, no telling what they might do to stop someone from shining a light on their dark secrets.