One for Parky

[Renton 22414]

We're all conspiracy theorists at heart

 

 

Why are conspiracy theories so popular? We may not always believe what we're told, but we still can't resist listening to them. Guy Smith, producer of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files, suggests the answer may lie deep within us all.

I admit it. If I'm being really honest, I can't deny that I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps we all are?

 

It's easy to dismiss all conspiracy theories as "bunkum", but remember just occasionally they do turn out to be true. Remember Watergate? Iran-contra? Special Branch collusion with loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland?

 

As Jim Fetzer, one of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists says, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

 

 

Sunday 18 February

9pm on BBC Two

The 9/11 conspiracy movement

 

 

Programme preview

I've just spent the best part of nine months investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September, 2001. They range from the plausible - that intelligence agencies in the Middle East may have had some inside knowledge about what was planned - to the totally wacky - that United 93's passengers were abducted by government agents.

 

But the deeper you dig in the dark world of conspiracies, the more you realise that different theories share much in common. The conspiracy theorist seizes on any apparent inconsistency and from that germ of truth the story is built up.

 

What happened to the white car apparently involved in Diana's accident? Was there a second gunman on the Grassy Knoll? And why did it take so long to scramble US fighters on 9/11?

 

And we can't help but be fascinated by them.

 

Perhaps it's because deep down, we're all story tellers. It's one of the things that makes us who we are. Since the dawn of time, we've been creating heroes and monsters as a way of trying to make sense of the world. In the beginning, we told those tales round camp fires. Now, it's through internet chat rooms or on mobile phones. But it's still basically the same process - weaving stories out of real life.

 

Tablets of clay

 

Nearly five thousand years ago, the legend of Gilgamesh was scratched on to clay tablets by scribes in ancient Mesopotamia, now Iraq. It's an epic tale of good guys and demons fighting it out in an uncertain world where those we love can be snatched from us at the whim of the gods.

 

 

One of the original conspiracies: the Epic of Gilgamesh

Archaeologists believe it was the first story ever to be written down and as I researched the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I was struck how The Epic of Gilgamesh has many parallels with modern conspiracy theories.

 

When something awful, inexplicable or just plain evil rocks our world, we have an instinctive need to construct elaborate explanations to try and make sense of our anxiety and fear.

 

Many eye-witnesses to 9/11 thought, "This terrible event can't just be something as simple as 19 young hijackers armed with pocket knives. There must be more too it than that - because the alternative is just too horrific to contemplate."

 

That alternative is a realisation we are all vulnerable to forces beyond our control; even princesses and presidents aren't immune to "everyday" tragedies like road accidents or random acts of violence.

 

"I believe the idea that conspiracy theorists are looking for a bigger reason is absolutely right," says Frank Spotnitz, writer of The X Files.

 

Feels 'unfair'

 

"I think the most potent targets for conspiracy theories are events of disproportionate tragedy. For example, the president of the United States is assassinated by a lone gunman. It doesn't seem fair, it doesn't seem right, it can't be. This one guy couldn't have done it - there must be larger forces at work."

 

 

The most potent targets for conspiracy theory are events of disproportionate tragedy

 

Frank Spotnitz, The X Files writer

 

 

Frank Spotnitz on conspiracy theories

And so we take comfort in complicated stories about wider conspiracies, usually involving remote, distant figures.

 

In the past it was mythical gods and monsters. In the more secular modern world, ancient superstitions have been discarded - now it's out-of-touch leaders and unseen government agencies who fill the role of the bogeymen.

 

We find it reassuring to create an explanation that vindicates our world view. It reinforces our beliefs, suspicions and, yes, even our prejudices.

 

And from Homer to Harry Potter, the stories we weave always have a hero who is trying to seek out "the truth". Their mission is to go where mere mortals fear to tread - whether it be the Minotaur's labyrinth or the labyrinthine recesses of the secret state - and bring back knowledge to share with the rest of us.

 

In the age of the internet, those fearless warriors are the self-styled conspiracy theorists whose hunting grounds are the furthest strands of the web. There one can find any number of rumours, stories or scenarios which can be strung together to create the perfect explanation for just about anything that goes wrong in the world.

 

Your rational half knows these theories probably aren't true, but our instinctive side thinks, well just maybe there's something in it.

 

In 5,000 years, we haven't changed at all. And maybe that's a very reassuring thing to know.

 

9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be broadcast on Sunday, 18 February 2007 at 2100 GMT on BBC Two.

[Gemmill 47097]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

[Renton 22414]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

[Guest alex]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

He was on something.

[Park Life 71]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

 

 

 

 

Bit bored with 9/11 now....

[Park Life 71]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

 

 

 

 

Bit bored with 9/11 now....

 

 

 

 

"I believe the idea that conspiracy theorists are looking for a bigger reason is absolutely right," says Frank Spotnitz, writer of The X Files."

 

 

[Park Life 71]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

He was on something.

 

Tbf to him, a lot of the stuff he predicted 10 years ago about surveillance has come to pass.

[Renton 22414]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

He was on something.

 

Tbf to him, a lot of the stuff he predicted 10 years ago about surveillance has come to pass.

 

Orwell was before him. Besides, the stuff about lizards ruling the Earth rather detracts from his good points. I like purple though.

[Tom 14021]

What Did Daved Icke say about surveillance like?

[Park Life 71]

Parky believes that the towers were brought down by controlled explosion iirc.

 

It sounds like this program will be more about explaining how loons like Parky think, rather than disproving their crackpot theories. Might be worth a watch though.

 

I can honestly say I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, although David Icke was onto something.

He was on something.

 

Tbf to him, a lot of the stuff he predicted 10 years ago about surveillance has come to pass.

 

Orwell was before him. Besides, the stuff about lizards ruling the Earth rather detracts from his good points. I like purple though.

 

I could never get me head round the lizard stuff. But the royals and parts of the Euro super rich do share very similar blood lines. Goes back to the Hapzburgs iirc.

Purple is nice and purple crystal is very good for headaches.

[Park Life 71]

What Did Daved Icke say about surveillance like?

 

....Well he has been babbling on about dna databases and id cards and micro chips since the early 90's and people just laughed at him. It will be interesting when people go for new passports in 5/6 years time for sure.

[Ketsbaia 0]

I really hope Ickey isn't right otherwise i'll be forced to bring back my old username.

[Tom 14021]

I really hope Ickey isn't right otherwise i'll be forced to bring back my old username.

 

 

Ted Maul?

 

 

Fiddy Cent?

[Park Life 71]

I really hope Ickey isn't right otherwise i'll be forced to bring back my old username.

 

 

His stuff is mad enough to be right on all counts....

[Ketsbaia 0]

I really hope Ickey isn't right otherwise i'll be forced to bring back my old username.

 

 

Ted Maul?

 

 

Fiddy Cent?

 

David Icke - Son of God

[Park Life 71]

I really hope Ickey isn't right otherwise i'll be forced to bring back my old username.

 

 

Ted Maul?

 

 

Fiddy Cent?

 

David Icke - Son of God

 

I always liked that one.

[Renton 22414]

Did you see this one then Parky?

 

For one hour, I thought it did a pretty good job of debunking the conspiracies surrounding 9/11.

 

If you didn't see it, well, I guess that'll help you, keep taking the medicine.

[Ally 0]

Bollocks was planning on watching that, got distracted by Gladiator.

[ChezGiven 0]

Did you see this one then Parky?

 

For one hour, I thought it did a pretty good job of debunking the conspiracies surrounding 9/11.

 

If you didn't see it, well, I guess that'll help you, keep taking the medicine.

 

I watched it and for me it didnt deal well enough with one of the major events in the story, namely that its likely that they brought flight 93 down instead of letting it hit its intended target. Quite plausible that the government would cover this up afterwards as it wouldnt have been very palatable for the public.

 

Thats the only event in the story that is a bit suspect. Everything else, its fairly clear what happened.

 

However, the film dealt with the one of the more minor events very badly. That wasnt really even an event, it was whether the CIA knew that the al qaeda operatives were in the US and whether they knew what they were planning. If they did, they should have told the local FBI and they should have acted. The film last night explained that 'the CIA and FBI are 2 big organisation and the CIA gave the FBI the information but the FBI, what with it being a big organisation and all, failed to act on this information'.

 

That was poor imo, the film concludes that the US were guilty of intelligence failures like with WMD not a conspiracy. I felt that the possiblilty the CIA knew what was happening and let it happen anyway as still 'un-investigated'.

 

Building 7 was still a mystery after the film too.

[Guest alex]

Nicely demonstrated how much hearsay is often reported as fact on t'internet though I thought.

[Park Life 71]

Did you see this one then Parky?

 

For one hour, I thought it did a pretty good job of debunking the conspiracies surrounding 9/11.

 

If you didn't see it, well, I guess that'll help you, keep taking the medicine.

 

I watched it and for me it didnt deal well enough with one of the major events in the story, namely that its likely that they brought flight 93 down instead of letting it hit its intended target. Quite plausible that the government would cover this up afterwards as it wouldnt have been very palatable for the public.

 

Thats the only event in the story that is a bit suspect. Everything else, its fairly clear what happened.

 

However, the film dealt with the one of the more minor events very badly. That wasnt really even an event, it was whether the CIA knew that the al qaeda operatives were in the US and whether they knew what they were planning. If they did, they should have told the local FBI and they should have acted. The film last night explained that 'the CIA and FBI are 2 big organisation and the CIA gave the FBI the information but the FBI, what with it being a big organisation and all, failed to act on this information'.

 

That was poor imo, the film concludes that the US were guilty of intelligence failures like with WMD not a conspiracy. I felt that the possiblilty the CIA knew what was happening and let it happen anyway as still 'un-investigated'.

 

Building 7 was still a mystery after the film too.

 

Agree with most of that. The intelligence agencies knew a lot more than they later revealed as the possible blow back is immense. Building 7 was brought dowm by a child playing with a model plane, I distinctly heard a loud 'snicking' sound as the balsa wood cracked against the 'frail' concrete, tumbling the building.

[Guest alex]

Anyone remember the issue of Viz that implicated Elvis in the killing of JFK?

[ChezGiven 0]

Nicely demonstrated how much hearsay is often reported as fact on t'internet though I thought.

Did that very well, especially the 4000 jews angle.

 

Didnt deal with the main conspiracy theory i.e. could governments or govt agents be complicit in acts of terrorism to further political ends?

 

Problem is that because of the Russians blowing up its own citizens and then blaming Chechen rebels to justify further aggression in the province, that isnt a theory anymore.

 

Given the evidence in Russia, i did wonder why the programme didnt even look at that angle.

[Guest alex]

Nicely demonstrated how much hearsay is often reported as fact on t'internet though I thought.

Did that very well, especially the 4000 jews angle.

 

Didnt deal with the main conspiracy theory i.e. could governments or govt agents be complicit in acts of terrorism to further political ends?

 

Problem is that because of the Russians blowing up its own citizens and then blaming Chechen rebels to justify further aggression in the province, that isnt a theory anymore.

 

Given the evidence in Russia, i did wonder why the programme didnt even look at that angle.

There's certainly a lot of stuffed unanswered about 9/11 and the subsequent events afterwards haven't helped clear things up in any way. However, I reckon some of the cranks like the ones in the programme are so far from the truth they're doing the US Government's job for them. For me, the main issue is how much was known before the events and whether or not the attacks were allowed to take place, and why. Stuff like WTC 7 isn't much of an issue for me.

[Renton 22414]

Nicely demonstrated how much hearsay is often reported as fact on t'internet though I thought.

Did that very well, especially the 4000 jews angle.

 

Didnt deal with the main conspiracy theory i.e. could governments or govt agents be complicit in acts of terrorism to further political ends?

 

Problem is that because of the Russians blowing up its own citizens and then blaming Chechen rebels to justify further aggression in the province, that isnt a theory anymore.

 

Given the evidence in Russia, i did wonder why the programme didnt even look at that angle.

There's certainly a lot of stuffed unanswered about 9/11 and the subsequent events afterwards haven't helped clear things up in any way. However, I reckon some of the cranks like the ones in the programme are so far from the truth they're doing the US Government's job for them. For me, the main issue is how much was known before the events and whether or not the attacks were allowed to take place, and why. Stuff like WTC 7 isn't much of an issue for me.

 

Maybe they've been planted by the US government.

 

Given the prgram was only an hour long, I thought it was quite effective in what it set out to do. It amazes me though how many people appear to find theories about the US government murdering thousands of their own people plausible, and worse, somehow more comforting, than the widely accepted reasons given.

 

Yet they weren't even capable of planting WMD in Iraq..............