CONSPIRACY THEORY by Paul Craig Roberts

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/20/conspiracy-theory/

June 20 2011

Foreign Policy Journal

Conspiracy Theory

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.

A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government's explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy's assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as "conspiracy theory."

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media's (including many Internet sites') response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001, inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD's capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as "conspiracy theorists."

This despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let's take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel's Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy, really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.

Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens.

Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit's findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit's findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.

Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers' favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit's findings.

As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the

Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators.

To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.

The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government's explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the "war on terror" and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government's explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.

If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a "war on terror" and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

A country whose population has been trained to accept the government's word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future.

Sometimes Conspiracy Theories Are True

[Herb White]

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/20/conspiracy-theory/

June 20 2011

Foreign Policy Journal

Conspiracy Theory

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.

A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government's explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy's assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as "conspiracy theory."

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media's (including many Internet sites') response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001, inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD's capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as "conspiracy theorists."

This despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let's take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel's Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy, really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.

Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens.

Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit's findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit's findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.

Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers' favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit's findings.

As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the

Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators.

To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.

The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government's explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the "war on terror" and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government's explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.

If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a "war on terror" and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

A country whose population has been trained to accept the government's word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future.

Sometimes Conspiracy Theories Are True

I've always enjoyed paul Craig Roberts articles on anti-war.com. They are always insightful and well-informed. It gives me pleasure to find him speaking out on this topic in his typically concise, erudite manner. Justin Raimondo at one time posted several articles about the Israeli Art Students/dancing Israelis on his anti-war site

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for this, Jim. Roberts' insight is matched by his courage to speak up about the truth. Even for those who claim to believe that "there's nothing to see here, folks, move along" regarding 9/11--they should feel it incumbent upon themselves to at least acknowledge the fascist like control of even the mere REPORTAGE of the existence of such theories that run contrary to officialdom's sanctioned account. This should be particularly evident when these contrary reports are offered by EXPERTS in their fields of study. It should make no difference that there are some experts that agree with the official story because they have been heard. It should however make a great deal of difference that there are experts who do not agree with the official story, yet are silenced by being deprived of a platform from which to be heard. That is a violation of the First Amendment no matter how it is being accomplished--even if it is being accomplished with the complicity and/or compromise of the press itself.

His having drawn a parallel with the same type of censorship (by implication of wackiness) of nearly any and all theories contrary to the "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone" officially sanctioned news stories and the censorship of contrary views on 9/11 is very apropos, indeed.

For some of us it is this very thing that makes the JFK assassination issue relevant to this day, nearly 50 years later. They got away with it 50 years ago. Shall we allow them to get away with this for another 50 years?

Even IF it was true that the official story is essentially accurate, the silencing of its critics is fascist, in both the case of 9/11 and in the case of JFK's assassination... same ladder, differrent rung.

[Greg Burnham]

It is fascinating to note the "censorship" by disassociation taking place even on this forum. The 9/11 topic not only intersects the JFK topic, indeed it runs parallel to it!

The same forces that control the dissemination of information about the JFK assassination by suppression of it are responsible for the suppression of opposing views being reported by the main stream media regarding 9/11.

No matter what side of this fence you find yourself, it should be a BIG RED FLAG that discussion of the subject is censored...oh, pardon me, I meant to say "moderated" -- poppy-cock!

Where were you Tom Scully when Lifton started an ill advised Fetzer bashing in the JFK forum because of Fetzer's work on 9/11???

Where? Why was Fetzer's response moved to a different thread, but Lifton's entire thread remains in place--OFF TOPIC?

I have had enough of this.

[Paul Rigby]

It is fascinating to note the "censorship" by disassociation taking place even on this forum. The 9/11 topic not only intersects the JFK topic, indeed it runs parallel to it!

The same forces that control the dissemination of information about the JFK assassination by suppression of it are responsible for the suppression of opposing views being reported by the main stream media regarding 9/11.

No matter what side of this fence you find yourself, it should be a BIG RED FLAG that discussion of the subject is censored...oh, pardon me, I meant to say "moderated" -- poppy-cock!

Where were you Tom Scully when Lifton started an ill advised Fetzer bashing in the JFK forum because of Fetzer's work on 9/11???

Where? Why was Fetzer's response moved to a different thread, but Lifton's entire thread remains in place--OFF TOPIC?

I have had enough of this.

Scully is manifestly unsuited to be a moderator. He should resign at once.

[Evan Burton]

Your opinion, Paul, and not supported by his actions on this board. It's just another example of when a moderator does something that some people don't like, some people decide that the moderator is "unsuitable" or "abuses their position". Perhaps some people should read the guidelines and try to adhere to them.

[Len Colby]

Roberts' essay is typical of 9/11 truther kookery, he failed to mention that there is virtually no support for such theories by people with relevant expertise. Only about 1 in 10,000 firemen, pilots, architects & engineers etc have signed 9/11 petitions. By contrast 1 - 2% of registered voters in NYC signed one.

[Paul Rigby]

Your opinion, Paul, and not supported by his actions on this board. It's just another example of when a moderator does something that some people don't like, some people decide that the moderator is "unsuitable" or "abuses their position". Perhaps some people should read the guidelines and try to adhere to them.

No , it isn't, Evan. As Greg Burnham rightly pointed out, Scully's decision to move Fetzer's posting was a) without justification (as it was germane to the subject of JFK); 2) brazenly hypocritical (given his non-action over Lifton's thread attacking Fetzer on the subject of 9/11; and 3) motivated, given 1), by (a) motive(s) not intrinsic to the piece itself, and thus ulterior.

Loyalty to a fellow-moderator possesses merit only when criticism is without foundation. In this case, Scully's action was inexcusable. I note that your own antipathy to Fetzer and his take on 9/11 is itself well-attested. Is this colouring your view?

Now, how about a response of substance: why was Fetzer's thread moved? Or is arbitrary and unaccountable moderation the new order of the day?

[Greg Burnham]

It is apparent that Mr. Scully failed to comprehend the significance of the article Jim posted by Roberts. By moving this thread from the "main stream" forum (JFK) to the "less than main stream" forum (Political Conspiracies), he has demonstrated right here before our very eyes the kind of treatment that this subject routinely receives by those in control of the Main Stream Media.

My comment above is in no way meant to question the intentions of Mr. Scully. I am not suggesting his resignation, although I do appreciate Mr. Rigby's comments as I too believe the action was very ill advised.

That said, it is astonishing that the significance of the relationship--in THIS instance--between JFK assassination research suppression by the MSM and the suppression of 9/11 research by the MSM was lost on the moderators. It is simply ASTONISHING given the fact that it was central to the article written by Roberts to begin with!

Did you guys even bother to read it and my first reply to it, which dilineated the appropriateness of its placement in the JFK section?

The issue being discussed was NOT necessarily whether or not 9/11 has been accurately reported per se. The equally significant issue is the common dismissal of both JFK conspiracy research and 9/11 conspiracy research by the MSM. Such research is relegated to the more obscure means of communication; to the less visible, less accessible, and less exposed outlets.

The irony of Mr. Scully's having unwittingly mimicked the very activity originally being cited and criticized in the original article is perhaps on topic, after all. He proved its validity in perhaps the most graphic fashion possible.

Thank you, Tom Scully, for making the author's point for him. By demonstrating that such suppresive activity is indeed rampant, even where least expected, you have shown that the author's concern was spot on.

.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Rigby]

The issue being discussed was NOT necessarily whether or not 9/11 has been accurately reported per se. The equally significant issue is the common dismissal of both JFK conspiracy research and 9/11 conspiracy research by the MSM. Such research is relegated to the more obscure means of communication; to the less visible, less accessible, and less exposed outlets.

The irony of Mr. Scully's having unwittingly mimicked the very activity originally being cited and criticized in the original article is perhaps on topic, after all. He proved its validity in perhaps the most graphic fashion possible.

Thank you, Tom Scully, for making the author's point for him. By demonstrating that such suppresive activity is indeed rampant, even where least expected, you have shown that the author's concern was spot on.

An excellent post, with a number of nails hit firmly on the head. I would only dissent to this degree: Scully is a lethal combination of hyperactivity and inconsistency. That's fine as a poster, but not as a moderator. More, this was such a blatantly unfair action as to pose profound questions as to his agenda. If I could only read his extraordinary genealogical posts more easily, I would have some idea what, if any, that is.

[Len Colby]

Burnham and Rigby clearly demonstrate that they are blinded by bias. Lifton’s thread touched on the assassination as much 9/11 and the moon landings. Fetzer’s replies dealt exclusively with 9/11.As for this thread unless I’m mistaken it was posted here, not move by a moderator. The notion that Roberts’ essay was relevant to the assassination is risible only 39 of its 1135 words (3.5%) referred to it.

BURNHAM: "it should be a BIG RED FLAG that discussion of the subject is censored...oh, pardon me, I meant to say "moderated" "

So Burnham, do you think Tom Scully is "in on it"?

BURNHAM: "It should however make a great deal of difference that there are experts who do not agree with the official story, yet are silenced by being deprived of a platform from which to be heard. That is a violation of the First Amendment no matter how it is being accomplished--even if it is being accomplished with the complicity and/or compromise of the press itself."

- Do you have any evidence that they are being silenced? How much attention do a few kooks commenting on areas outside their areas of expertise deserve? Do you think, anti-vaxers, Creationists, Moon Hoaxers, people who think HIV does NOT cause AIDS and Holocaust deniers who claim to be experts deserve media time as well.

- You show your ignorance of the 1st Amendment, it only applies to governmental limitations of free speech.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Len Colby

[Greg Burnham]

Colby commits multiple fallacies in his post. He commits a fallacy known as Ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) with this question: "Do you have any evidence that they are being silenced?" In this fallacy the Burden of Proof has been shifted to the wrong side of the debate. How do we know this? Because he has already stated by implication that a rather large group, including 9/11 researchers (although inappropriately lumped together with researchers of unrelated topics), do NOT deserve "media time". Therefore, according to Colby, there ARE SPECIFIC individuals denied access to MSM exposure. He asked me if I thought they should get media time. That is an admission that they do NOT get it now. He further commits the fallacy of Poisoning The Well with regard to 9/11 researchers by lumping them together with those he assumes the reader will consider "kooks" or will otherwise make 9/11 researchers look bad--which is yet another fallacy called Guilt by Association--and that is assuming that the others in his "group" are, in fact, kooks. It is fascinating to watch how this mind works so unreasonably well. It is an art form to intertwine so many fallacies into a single post.

[Paul Rigby]

Burnham and Rigby clearly demonstrate that they are blinded by bias.

I cheerfully confess to antecedent bias: I harbour a deeply-rooted objection to having my reading matter determined by an egomaniacal American. If I wanted the latter, I'd buy a Murdoch organ each morning.

Lifton’s thread touched on the assassination as much 9/11 and the moon landings. Fetzer’s replies dealt exclusively with 9/11.As for this thread unless I’m mistaken it was posted here, not move by a moderator.

You are mistaken. Scully's boastful confession of responsibility is cunningly hidden from you in an obscure section of the JFK site, under the thoroughly misleading title of Moderator actions and guide for mods: How to move posts to a new thread. Post 82 in that drear list of interventions runs as follows:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14562&view=findpost&p=229181

Moved thread titled, "CONSPIRACY THEORY by Paul Craig Roberts

Redefining the concept to equal irrational beliefs"

http://educationforu...showtopic=17857 to the forum titled, "Political Conspiracies A section for non-JFK conspiracies."

Gonna keep on moving OT threads out of JFK Debate forum because there are more appropriate places on the Education Forum to move them to, and because Evan will one day grow weary enough from the effects of being attacked personally by the authors of OT threads to cede the chore of moving such threads, to other members of the moderation team.

I have to learn to "take the punches" in reaction to moderating actions like this one, so have at it. I had no communication with Evan related to moving the thread described above.

I particularly enjoyed a) the attempt to cloak a petty and unjustified act of censorship in the uniform of heroic and disinterested self-sacrifice; and the language of the Western, as Scully describes his activity in language better suited to the movement of steers, not intelligent contributions to an interesting topic.

The notion that Roberts’ essay was relevant to the assassination is risible only 39 of its 1135 words (3.5%) referred to it.

That's 39 words more than you've managed, and 4% more than a good many posters, all of whose posts have gone unmolested. If the Scully criterion - "No historical context or parallels, please, we're researchers" - were to be applied consistently, we'd presumably be obliged to ignore the passages in, for example, Thomas Buchanan's book wherein he looks back at previous presidential assassinations and demonstrates the prevalence & continuity of political motivation.

I'm also curious to establish whether or not you are the same Len Colby who objected to the same moderator's act of censorship in shutting down Todd Vaughn's thread concerning DiEugenio's somewhat startling knowledge of the former's acquisition of unpublished Weisberg manuscripts?

Or is it just the case that censorship is fine when it suits?

Do tell.

[Greg Burnham]

For the record, lest there be any misunderstanding: Although I do not agree with Tom Scully's decision to move this thread from where it was originally posted, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his intent. FWIW, as far as I can tell, Tom is generally fair as a moderator.

[Len Colby]

Amazing Burnham and Rigby think moving a thread from one section of a sub-forum to another is censorship. The latter thinks this the same as making a thread invisible and the former thinks media censorship of truther "experts" is a forgone conclusion and 1st Amendment issue.