posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:23 PM
I'm sure a lot of the so-called 'conspiracy theorist' ideas originate, at least partially, from an internal psychological factor. People do seem to
need someone to blame when things go wrong, we're all guilty of it. The cultural aspect of this is seemingly just that the fingers of blame point to
whoever is the highest power, or greatest enemy, in the situation - and this varies from country to country, region to region, race to race and
culture to culture.
However, this is not to say that the 'theories' presented are not correct. They need to be looked at rationally and logically, using evidence and
intuition to work out if they are valid or not. This must be done on a case by case basis; one cannot simply say that all 'conspiracy theorists' are
crazy just because David Icke (as an oft-used example, i've nothing against the chap) reckons the Queen's an inter-dimensional reptilian
Very few of the popular 'conspiracy theories' (Christ I hate typing that, the OSs in most cases are bloody conspiracies!) will have formed out of
pure fiction. There is usually some oddity to be found in the OS that some open-minded person will pick-up on, this snowballs and before long people
are claiming aliens, Satanic cults and holograms are involved...
In my opinion the OS of 9/11 has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt (a British legal term) to be false, but the questions are: how much have
'they' lied about, was this done innocently or knowingly/malevolently, and how much involvement did 'they' have in the actual chain of events?
'They', in most cases, are said to be the US governement and/or TPTB, and this is key to understanding what happened that day and the events both
before and after.
At the very least, going by what I have seen, the US government (or elements within it) had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 plot, allowed it to happen
as a 'new Pearl Harbour' (see: the Project for the New American Century), and manipulated the unfolding situation to their advantage. There is a
great amount of evidence pointing to something deeper than this, but it is hard to know what is true and what isn't from our somewhat detatched
The heart of any reasonable 'truther's' argument should be simply pointing out many inconsistencies in the OS, and then saying 'if any single part
of what i've said is true, then what are the implications?'. Begin with something most people can agree on like the true reasons for the wars in the
Mid-East, and then work backwards. The debate around the collapse of the towers and the impacts of the planes into their various targets is so clouded
that I don't think that can really be the focus of any argument, not if your going to change someones mind on this.
As with everthing though we need more debate and investigation, open-minded yet rational, and above all honest and fair.