These are the people that say there are no conspiracy theories save the government conspiracy theory that they believe in and that anyone else that believes in some other conspiracy other than the conspiracy theory that they believe in is just a conspiracy theorist. They are so defensive of their own conspiracy theory that they deny that their conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory and that those that accuse them of being denialist instead of conspiracy theorists themselves, will simply say that such a notion in itself is just another conspiracy theory or just part of the conspiracy theory that they don’t believe in.
Are you still with me?
Let’s take for example the conspiracy theories that abound regarding the events of 11 September 2001. First, though, we need to lay down a few ground rules as to what a ‘conspiracy theory’ actually is.
These days the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is usually used in the derogatory sense. It’s the word ‘theory’ within the term that causes the doubt that makes it derogatory, particularly after an event which has been explained and where the explanation is given in such a way as being a matter of fact. All subsequent alternative explanations are then said to be only ‘theories’ or alternative explanations that are not able to be proven as factual. This is all very well but it makes the assumption that the original, or ‘official’ explanation, is undoubted and is the actual reality of the event and that it is supported by overwhelming and irrefutable evidence. In the case of the events of 11 September 2001 the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ was purported and offered by the US government to be that evidence that proved beyond doubt that the events of that day were as stated at the time by the US government and that, therefore, any alternative versions of those events were just ‘conspiracy theories’, indeed, as President Bush told Americans, they weren’t just ‘conspiracy theories’ but ‘outrageous conspiracy theories’ suggesting that any person that supported alternative ideas about what had happened on 9/11 were ‘outrageous’ people.
At the time many Americans were so shocked at what had happened that they were prepared to accept without question the version of events that the US government had offered and to accept the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ as the documented record of those events.
From the very beginning, however, there were those that doubted and questioned the governments version of those events but the government, via the use of a compliant and submissive mainstream media, were able to quickly use the term ‘conspiracy theorists’ in its most derogatory sense to smother any possibility of these alternative versions of events gaining any traction within the general populace. At first the government simply ignored those that offered alternative ideas as to what had happened and hoped that they would simply just go away on account of nobody taking any notice of them. But it wasn’t too long before it became obvious that these people weren’t going to simply just go away. Eventually the government realised that, not only were they not going to go away, but more and more people were actually joining the ranks of those that were listening to and preferring to accept the alternative ideas that were being offered.
The government continued to essentially ignore them but the government’s supporters increasingly were finding it necessary to not just attempt to belittle and demean the doubters as ‘outrageous conspiracy theorists’ that were un-American and even traitorous, but, realising that some of these alternative ideas were now actually becoming a base which were being supported by academics and scholars and not just sceptics, now had to actually attempt to ‘debunk’ some of these ideas. They found that so many people were actually finding more merit in these alternative ideas than in the government’s version of events that it was time to attempt to prove the academics and scholars wrong.
The magazine ‘Popular Mechanics’ in their March 2005 issue ran a lengthy article that they claimed ‘debunked’ 16 of the what they considered to be the most ‘popular’ of the conspiracies. But the attempt at ‘debunking’ was weak and transparent and didn’t offer any more actual evidence to support the government’s version of events as per the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ and so it was quickly ‘debunked’ itself by other witnesses that came forward, more photographic and film evidence that emerged and by other academics and scientists attesting to the physical realities of what happened.
For many of those that have ‘sat on the fence’ over the veracity of the governments claims, the details that surround the destruction of WTC7 is the clincher. The emerging video evidence about its owner wanting to ‘pull the building’, the video and audio evidence of fireman and others warning people that the building was about to be blown up, the evidence of the massive explosions themselves, the way the building collapsed in freefall into its own foundations as in a controlled demolition, the claim by the BBC that the building had actually already collapsed whereas at the same time as the audience were being told it had collapsed, the building could be seen still standing behind a foreign corespondent who was clearly ignorant of the shape of the Manhattan skyline, the fact that demolition charges need days if not weeks to set up; all of this evidence and much more is convincing enough for so many. People in ever increasing numbers from around the world as well as from within the US are now, at the very least, asking questions with most being now quite convinced that, indeed, it is the governments version of events that is the real ‘outrageous conspiracy theory’.
And as the facts emerge, the notion of an ‘outrageous conspiracy theory’ in turn recedes only to be replaced by the realisation that the government hasn’t just lied about 9/11 but it was complicit in the committing of the crime that was 9/11.