A 'Conspiracy Theory Conference' was held at Conway Hall in central London yesterday (Sunday 25th Sept.). Here are a few, admittedly biased, comments about the day.
In its original formation this 'conference' was set up as a very one-sided affair indeed, with all contributors firmly in the establishment camp. David Aaronovitch, he of "Voodoo histories" (and foremost media tub-thumper for bombing Iraq) was to give a presentation in the afternoon. Many were looking forward to confronting this fellow but discovered that he had 'pulled out' a few days earlier.
Here is a media favourite, a columnist for the Times, whose every conscious utterance is broadly promoted by our mainstream media.
When the opportunity arises for him to present his ideas before people who are ready, willing and able to challenge them (albeit in the very constricted form of short questions) he chickens out.
That's how I saw the situation anyway, whatever excuses he came up with.
The point is that this serial liar is always free to make his preposterous and dishonest statements unchallenged.
For instance in a recent article he wrote the following sentence:
".....the conspiracy theories over Israel's mistaken bombing of the USS Liberty in 1967......"
Giving the massive amount of evidence presented by those sailors on the USS Liberty who survived this attack and the astonishing political aftermath of the outrage, this statement can only be perceived as an obscene and deliberate lie. Informed by this and every other deliberately twisted and misdirecting analysis Aaronovitch has produced it is fair to ask whose interests his lies are meant to serve.
However, Aaronovitch was replaced by Ian R Crane, first chair of 9/11 Truth UK, full-time speaker and well-known activist. Many had expected that this change would give the day a little necessary 'balance'. However, 'balance' is hardly the word because by 5pm Ian's end of the see-saw was firmly planted on terra firma while the rest appeared to be uncomfortably suspended at the other end trying to decide whether to gain leverage by bravely edging backwards towards their extremity or leaping to safety in case things got worse.
I will explain, but first a few words about the day itself.
During the morning Professor Chris French and Robert Brotherton of Goldsmith's College and Karen Douglas of Kent University addressed (one way or another) the 'psychology' of conspiracy theorists. French and Brotherton peppered their limp and vacuous ideas with ridicule that they mistook for wit (You'll know that I'm a Bilderberger because I say these things....and the like).
They defined what is meant by a 'conspiracy theory'........O.K......
We heard that a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is more likely to believe in another.......um,..........(searching for some nuance of meaning in this statement of the obvious that I might have missed [but hadn't])........um........Yes.........(thought) Is French being paid to do this?
......back to the august professor....
We were told that these theories were universally contradicted by the evidence of real experts and were, therefore, unworthy of consideration and NO, Professor French would not engage in argument over the substance of any issue whatsoever.
We were, apparently, there to learn what was wrong with us as far as French was concerned. He was the one 'establishment' speaker I actively disliked. Arrogant, bombastic, sneering. A man who dismissed the truthfulness of conspiracy theorists claims while refusing to engage with these issues himself. One felt he is the kind of man who, if he felt he had a winning hand, would delight in wiping the floor with anyone who tried to argue with him.
There is a horrible cowardice to the individual who is prepared to build a career by trashing the truthfulness of persons with whose statements of truth he fails to personally counter or even engage. This is a pathetic (and, again, cowardly) way to make one's own position invulnerable.
Karen Douglas spoke along the same lines with one or two small variations. Again, the presumption of error was entirely with the conspiracy theorists. There were a couple of memorable elements though, the first being a response to a question (on a questionnaire completed by people, some of whom could be categorised CTists):
"If you were a member of the security services would you participate in false flag events?"
The responses (apparently) demonstrated the psychological mechanism (of CTists) of "projection". Apparently 'people like me' answered "yes" more so that those who disbelieve CTs.
This sort of took my breath away.
Isn't this question a bit like asking, "If you were a bird would you eat worms?"....or...." If you were Hitler would you invade Poland?"
I found it flabbergasting that such a question should have been posed by someone who called herself an academic.
We also found out that conspiracy theorists, given 3 questions on the issue, were prepared to believe that Bin Laden was alive and dead. This demonstrated that distrust of authority can be the overriding factor in a person's judgement. Fair enough (almost) but again, Douglas' ability to ask sensible questions must be seriously questioned.
When challenged about these issues during questions from the audience she looked angry and accused her interrogators of not understanding 'the scientific method'.
Every conference is better for a comedy moment or two. Thanks Karen.
Messrs. Bartlett and Miller of Demos said little that was memorable except that that they mentioned Cass Sunstein and that they would, like Mr. Sunstein, be recommending infiltration of 9/11 groups and the like. They promised 'new ideas' in a forthcoming Demos publication. We were also told that our theories are wrong, of course.
Finally Ian R Crane came on and made a presentation hammering a few issues, most notably one that is truly impossible to 'debunk'....the collapse of Building 7. His presentation was clear and powerful and punctuated by regular applause.
He also handed the stage over to Tony Farrell for 5 minutes.....and here was the whole confrontation of the day personified in one man.
Here is why no one will engage with the issues. Here is why 'conspiracy theorists' are confronted only by ridicule and name calling.
The PRIMARY reason is because EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS that in most jobs if you stand up and suggest state criminality or even demand the answers to reasonable questions
YOUR CAREER IS OVER.
YOU WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE FINANCIALLY DESTROYED.
Just like Tony Farrell, the principal intelligence officer for the South Yorkshire Police whose conscience would not allow him to lie, no matter what the personal consequences*.
So, Professor French et al. The TRUTH OF THESE ISSUES CANNOT BE SIDESTEPPED.
False Flag terror and the rest can never be 'somebody else's business'.
These issues will define your children and your grandchildrens' future and there might be more serious aspects to the outcome of your current moral indolence than the quality of their careers.
If you reject our allegations, outrageous though they might appear, it is your DUTY to prove us wrong.
As fully responsible human beings.
At the end of the conference all speakers faced the audience for questions together. Ian's success with the crowd obviously stung Jamie Bartlett into challenging him on the issue of Building 7. The exchanges were memorable for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Carl Miller (Jamie's Demos co-worker) became visibly angry and invigorated at one point. Bartlett's intervention on the matter was more a debating tactic, in my view. His motive was to score what points he could with the crowd. Miller was more interesting and more genuine. He holds to the official story with real passion and was obviously distressed that he could not prove his point with the audience.
He soared into an angry diatribe, " Why on earth would the government collapse the towers. Would flying planes into them not be enough for God's sake! It's ridiculous. Why would they collapse Building Seven at a time when the whole world was watching. It is just MAD to believe that! (and re Jane Stanley's premature report of the building's collapse)Why on earth would the BBC be involved in a conspiracy! etc....
He exuded real distress and exasperation.
Actually all his reactions and comments are eminently understandable and reasonable UNTIL you realise that these were indeed controlled demolitions.
The evidence of this is final, definitive, totally proven. The 9/11 Commission ignored this issue and only years later when the WRC7 had become a dangerous public embarrassment did the US government come up with a 'theory' of this unique collapse.
An absolutely laughable theory.
Only when you realise this and accept that Building 7 was a controlled demolition (as any intelligent and honest person finally must) and therefore that the whole event must have been an event carried out by some network within government can a person begin to understand that there must be and ARE answers to the questions asked by Mr. Miller. Very reasonable answers (see below).
The second 'event' right at the end of the conference that brought loud cheers from the floor occurred when Jamie Bartlett accepted an invitation from Ian to debate the issue in public. Carl agreed but quickly started to backtrack, "I'm not a professional debunker" (this was the previously mentioned 'leaping off the seesaw').
This is one event for which I cannot wait. It will be a 'first'.
Will it happen?
We will see.
*1) Building 7 was headquarters to all kinds of security service people. The 23rd floor had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. This was probably involved in managing the crime. What is always a criminal's first priority? Destroy the evidence (just like all the WTC 1 & 2 steel was immediately shipped to China rather investigated as part of a crime scene).
2) The essential element of this operation was that it induce massive shock in the American public. A few dozen dead, killed by planes hitting the building would not have served purpose. A plane had hit The Empire State Building in 2003. Not nearly big enough a deal. Apocalyptic terror. Thousands dead. Citizens running for their lives. This is what was required and what America got.
3) Ian R Crane told you. Stanley's report was not BBC involvement in the plot. it was a 'scripted event' gone slightly wrong.
Ian R Crane
BBC AND CHILD ABUSE
1 hour ago