The terms "conspiracy theory" and "inside job

[Samantha J Fox]

Its around a year now that I have been aware and frequently been reading in to the subect of 9/11. Its been a very interesting time that has seen my interest and understanding of global politics grow considerably, its just a shame that it took such a dramatic event for this to happen, or I guess I would still just be fantasising about my football team winning the big cup once again. Anyways, that is not important, well it is, but just not for right now.

What has struck me about the 9/11 truth movement is some of the terminology that is so ingrained within it, and whether this is actually doing the movement harm in many ways. As we have come to realise that society is essentially brainwashed to just know what they think they know, without actually questioning anything or even wanting to. We have become conditioned to a certain way of thinking and within that conditioning we have also reached a very suspicious and arrogant atitutude towards the term "conspiracy theory". This term, (no matter how David Ray Griffin pointed out relates to the official story too) is quite simply a very quick way to distance the person you are trying to inform from taking onboard what you say.

The years of "conspiracy theory" propaganda being lumped in with UFO's Yetti's, Tin hat's means that JFK, and 9'11 are now pretty much in the same fantastical realm. As soon as you mention that it was an "inside job" and the term "conspiracy theory" you can see peoples grimace as there ingrained need to keep face kicks in and they immediately look to reject what you are saying without taking it in. Pretty much from the start its as if you are creating a battle with the other person, and its only if they allow you to get in enough evidence that they may take the line of "hmmm well it wouldnt surprise me" and thats usually just so they dont have to talk about it anymore.

Its the same with the term "inside job", this almost conjures up images of Bush sat around the table with Rumsfeld and Cheney and stack of Post-it notes drawing up plans to "knock em down", when in reality the seeds of 9/11 were sewn many many years ago. How much of the general public have any knowledge of the CIA helping to create Al Q, or of their links with the ICI, who were found helping to fund 9/11. The incriminating evidence that is based in fact is disturbing, and yet I wonder if we are shooting outselves in the foot by being linked so closely to the above terminology. Clearly the plans for 9/11 were in motion for quite some time beforehand, and the amount of people far and wide that probably knew of this attack would be eye opening. If anything this demonstrates a part of the sickness of mankind in that many people probably found a certain comfort in knowing that such an attrocious thing was going to happen before it did. If they were not expecting to gain financially from it, then they could be comfortable with the same NPT's atitude of "I know something you dont know"

IMO, the involved parties who sewed the seeds of 9/11 and allowed it to happen knew they would be safe from the start as long as they had the media throwing their own Buzz words at the masses, such patriotism, Let it Roll, War on Terror, National security and such like. It seems plainly obvious that while the world is seen as a free playground for those at the top, they are still reporting 1950's-esque propaganda so that we all believe it is a case of defending our countries against evil invaders.

Is it not possible that we could introduce some new Buzz words so to speak, that can somehow gain a more easy listening response. If we are dealing with the kind of minds that can influence many millions then are we really expected to get the message across if we are always being linked to age old cliches about whacky conspiracy theories and George Dubya doin it.

Who knew what and for how long may not be so important right now, (especially as until the TV says so, it is just a "conspiracy theory" anyway) more the simple fact that people far and wide did know, and they knew for some time, and that the television was used to manipulate our thoughts so that we just agreed to know what we think we know.

Anyways, I'm not so sure of what can exactly be changed, I was just throwing out a little monday morning thoughts.

[spiv]

I couldn't agree with you more Samantha. However, I believe that time will tell in that the pressures of people just rejecting the words "conspiracy theories" will be overcome by words such as "tell me, have you ever wondered how two 110 story massive buildings fell in ten seconds" and "have you ever wondered how a 47 story building, not even hit by a plane, fell in six seconds, yet the health and safety brigade have not outlawed us all working in tall buildings?"

Every time I hear the words "conspiracy theories" I keep remembering the very odd words of George Bush when he said something like "Let us not indulge ourselves with wild conspiracy theories". A very strange thing to say at the time.

[Samantha J Fox]

[xmasdale]

[chek]

[Busker]

Inside Job always makes me think of a rather excellent song by Don Henley.

[Samantha J Fox]

[QuitTheirClogs]

The 9/11 truth movement has got the upper hand in being very strongly linked to the “truth” word. The government (US & UK) and its supporters can make no claim to this word because they have a clear record of lying. Maybe it’s time for the truth movement to go on the offensive and start naming people as “9/11 Liars.”

I don’t see a problem with the “9/11 inside job” term. It communicates very directly what most of us think (or know), and we shouldn’t be shy in saying it. There’s overwhelming evidence that 9/11 must have been orchestrated by elements of the US government, but this doesn’t mean we need to get bogged down in theorising about the details.

The “conspiracy theorist” label is losing a lot of its power. It’s been used far too liberally and as a way of preventing people from asking genuine questions. Being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” (or “nut”) gets people’s backs up, so it’s probably now working for the movement rather than against it.

I think the movement would be wise to avoid such terms as the “new world order” and the “rabbit hole.” Personally, I don’t believe there is (or ever could be) any sort of unified world government. Just because the powerful elite have their secret meetings doesn’t mean they can actually work together. I’m sure they expend as much energy on stabbing each other in the back as on stomping over us proles.

[wickywoowoo]

Maybe we should point out more often that in the end, Mel Gibson was proven right and he did get the girl.

Maybe people would be more open to the term then.

[Busker]

[xmasdale]

I find it depends so much on who you're talking to.

I do challenge the term conspiracy theorist, by saying I'm not one, because I don't know what happened, whereas they US administration are conspiracy theorists because they have a theory about a conspiracy which they claim is beyond doubt.

But sometimes you meet people who immediately say something like "I'm not a conspiracy theorist because there was no conspiracy" and then get angry or dismissive if you want to discuss the situation further. You can't force such people to engage in debate.

I have to keep reminding myself of where they're coming from in order not to get angry with them, by remembering that I too for two years accepted the official conspiracy theory.

Noel

[xmasdale]

I have also found it helpful to tell people that I want to know the truth, whatever that is, and that if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did it, I shall be glad that at last the mystery has been cleared up and relieved from that scary feeling that the most powerful people in the world are unscrupulous murderers out to gain total global dominance.

Then I ask them awkward questions like "why did WTC 7 collapse?"

Often they have never heard of the building though they claim to have studied the evidence and concluded there is no reason to doubt the official account.

Noel

[Thermate]

[Westgate]

This is such a complex question. I have quite a few American friends, representing quite an age span. They are both Democrats and Rethuglicans, often quite outspoken about their political views. But they seem to share a common unease and inablility to actually believe that their own government would have been involved in organising or allowing 911 to happen deliberately.

My own children are used to Dad's views on both Kennedys assassinations, UFO's versus military secrets, Moon landings etc etc. They just call me an old conspiracy theorist, which of course is exactly what I am.

But I like the false flag technique mentioned in the previous postings, plus asking people what they think they know about 911, then just asking one or two questions to judge their reactions. You can often see the blinds coming down, but you can usually just ask about free-fall times of WTC 1-2-7, to try and keep their attention.

English friends become genuinely alarmed and disbelieving when I broach the subject for the first time, it then depends on the individual and how you then 'set your stall out' on the subject.

When large Corporations roll out a new management 'tool and technique' they often use two or three buzzwords to accompany the training. If and when staff 'buy in' to the new ideas, their use of the buzzwords gives a good idea of the depth of penetration of the new concept into the workforce. 'It's not rocket science' is a good example that's been kicking around for several years now.

We are people who genuinely want the truth to be told - for we all have a gut feeling that 911 has never been explained adequately. We are by nature 'truth seekers' - capable of coming 'out of the box' in our mode of thinking. Some can express this more competently than others, but that does not and should not prevent anybody from expressing themselves in whatever way they are most comfortable with.

To sum up IMHO - I think people will always call us whatever they want, be it amiable pratts, conspiracists, whatever they feel at the time. But the most important thing is to never give up fighting for 911 truth whatever others may call us.

[Keith Mothersson]

I think Inside Job is fine for most people, but some I would say False-flag terrorism to.
From Inside Job I move to Frame Up.
Then War Pretext.
Then Police State.
Then Blood libel - like its not a parlour game or detective story for Muslims, for whom Police State is to a considerable extent a reality.

Many people still seem to be able to accept a degree of Buildings MIHOP without rethinking whether there is any real basis to the toxic hi-jacker legend, which is the real kicker politically.

They don't so very much mind if we hate, fear, suspect dirty agencies at the top of US and global society JUST SO LONG AS WE BELIEVE IN THE MUSLIM BOGEY MAN.

So we need to push through from inside job to frame-up. (and maybe need to talk about patsies in that context, ingtroduce Tarpley's model).

[DrJazzz]

I'm with the no-pussyfooting around.

Yes, people reaction to the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is a problem. There's three ways of dealing with it

1) Point out that by definition, the official story is a 'conspiracy theory'

2) Say, we're just asking questions

3) Take the hit

(1) is quite common, but my least favoured line. It's a dodge based on semantics. They know what they meant, and this doesn't address it. (2) isn't bad at all but its problem may be that while the questions are doubtless all very interesting it doesn't challenge the carte blanche rejection of 'conspiracy theories'

So I personally go for (3), and take the hit. Yes, it's conspiracy theory. Too bad! One can reflect it back by suggesting that anyone that rejects CT is a 'conspiracy denier' (I've enjoyed that phrase lately).

[DrJazzz]

blimey I just had the phrase "*****footing around" censored where ***** is a phrase meaning 'cat'

[Keith Mothersson]

'No I'm a conspiracy hypothesist' is another angle relating to Dr Jazz'es #2 and #3 above.

In the early seventies the left produced a pamphlet entitled 'Gays the word', which gave useful currency to a phrase to use when hearing someone refer to homosexuals as p**fs or qu**rs.

Likewise now we can add a fourth strategy to those Dr Jazz outlines: 'Oh you must be one of those conspiracy theorists'.

'Yes I do try to be false-flag aware ....Most wars start with organised frame-ups, after all; Mind you I try to steer away from really simplistic and unsubstantiated conspiracy hypotheses peddled as fact by proven liars, such as Bush'es wild theory that Bin Laden could have done it, whose attractiveness is entirely on the emotional level for those who find modern society all too complex and are vulnerable to the appeal of juicy hate figures.'

The entire pyschologising thrust of the BBC2 series is crying out for creative reversal against the gullible 'Bin Laden done it' believers (assumers). The latter aren't bad people, any more than workers on building sites who took a bit of time to get used to the new vocabulary (and attitudes) about homosexuality. But we'll get there if we give people the tools (vocabulary, dvds, etc) and above all model creative respect and the radical energy of hope as we communicate with people.

A 'Pravda' (official truth) world of lies cannot last! Gradually more and more of us are getting the hang of a new less dualistic way of doing politics; aka building a truth community, where truth isn't so much any particular set of beliefs, but a critical but listening approach, or as Andrew Johnson says: Ask the tough questions, folks.