Conspiracy theory is dead.
That’s because it never existed.
Whether things (allegedly) happen, it hardly matters that the action was planned; it matters a lot more as to WHO planned them and WHO carried them out.
Take the competing theories as to what happened on September 11, 2001.
The official theory says that nineteen hijackers and others planned attacks.
Alternate theories say that others planned the attacks.
Still other theories contend that the events were staged with the goal to frame people for committing attacks.
All of these theories could be characterized as conspiracy theories.
So why bother using this phrase?
It is awfully strange that those who disagree with the official theory are the ones given the label of conspiracy theorists.
The one word missing in the shallow analysis often offered about the events is the word “agent.”
According to Dictionary.com, an agent is one who is a person or business authorized to act on another's behalf
We learned through a Fox News headline today that there was “9/11 plane landing gear found in Lower Manhattan.” Getting to the text, the message softens a bit, to “Part of landing gear apparently from one of the jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, has been found wedged between two buildings.”
Apparently. The article never tells us which plane the landing gear came from, although it quotes the deputy police commissioner of New York City as saying that the gear has a Boeing number identification clearly identified upon it.
What does this have to do with the concept of conspiracy?
We have been persuaded to believe, from this article, and numerous media reports before it, that the only true theory is the official one. The wording “from one of the jetliners that crashed…” gives away this presumption.
We have been persuaded to believe that only conspiracy theorists believe otherwise. By implication, we are to ignore their ideas completely.
We are persuaded to ignore the possibility of agency, in this case the idea that people not privy to the plan could act on behalf of those who made the plan.
With that, the news media which rehashes this “news” will completely ignore what many alternative theorists have said for years: that of the four planes alleged to have been a part of the events of September 11, two of them did not fly and two of them flew well past the time of the alleged attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.
You can believe those who condemn conspiracy theory while secretly supporting one.
Or you can believe those who are willing to present an alternative to a theory that does not work.
That’s because it never existed.
Whether things (allegedly) happen, it hardly matters that the action was planned; it matters a lot more as to WHO planned them and WHO carried them out.
Take the competing theories as to what happened on September 11, 2001.
The official theory says that nineteen hijackers and others planned attacks.
Alternate theories say that others planned the attacks.
Still other theories contend that the events were staged with the goal to frame people for committing attacks.
All of these theories could be characterized as conspiracy theories.
So why bother using this phrase?
It is awfully strange that those who disagree with the official theory are the ones given the label of conspiracy theorists.
The one word missing in the shallow analysis often offered about the events is the word “agent.”
According to Dictionary.com, an agent is one who is a person or business authorized to act on another's behalf
We learned through a Fox News headline today that there was “9/11 plane landing gear found in Lower Manhattan.” Getting to the text, the message softens a bit, to “Part of landing gear apparently from one of the jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, has been found wedged between two buildings.”
Apparently. The article never tells us which plane the landing gear came from, although it quotes the deputy police commissioner of New York City as saying that the gear has a Boeing number identification clearly identified upon it.
What does this have to do with the concept of conspiracy?
We have been persuaded to believe, from this article, and numerous media reports before it, that the only true theory is the official one. The wording “from one of the jetliners that crashed…” gives away this presumption.
We have been persuaded to believe that only conspiracy theorists believe otherwise. By implication, we are to ignore their ideas completely.
We are persuaded to ignore the possibility of agency, in this case the idea that people not privy to the plan could act on behalf of those who made the plan.
With that, the news media which rehashes this “news” will completely ignore what many alternative theorists have said for years: that of the four planes alleged to have been a part of the events of September 11, two of them did not fly and two of them flew well past the time of the alleged attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.
You can believe those who condemn conspiracy theory while secretly supporting one.
Or you can believe those who are willing to present an alternative to a theory that does not work.
RSS Feed