| | Acknowledging the existence of various conspiracies is NOT what I mean by "conspiratorialism."
For example, obviously there was a 9/11 conspiracy: al Qaeda organized it. And obviously there was a Pearl Harbor conspiracy: the Japanese organized it. "Conspiratorialists," however, are eager to deny the existence of such obvious, acknowledged conspiracies. Instead, they assert that there was another, far grander, secret plot behind these events -- some mega-conspiracy, in which al Qaeda or the Japanese, respectively, were mere pawns.
Here's a decent-enough definition of "conspiracy theory" from the very informative Wikipedia entry on the topic:
A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The entry goes on to cite a discussion by Daniel Pipes on this topic:
In an early essay by Daniel Pipes "adapted from a study prepared for the CIA", Pipes attempts to pin down what beliefs distinguish 'the conspiracy mentality' from 'more conventional patterns of thought': appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all.
Among the methodological fallacies and shortcomings of conspiratorialism:
Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:
* Occam's razor - is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?
* Methodology - are the "proofs" offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
* Whistleblowers - how many people—and what kind—have to be loyal conspirators?
Regarding the bullet point "Methodology," above, I would elaborate as follows: Conspiracy theories are methodological variants of rationalism. Once postulated as an explanation, the abstract theory is then applied deductively to account for every subsequent fact, event, and personality, in its own defense and support. Precisely because the "explanation" involves conjecture -- unknown or hypothesized conspirators, meetings, acts, etc. -- the "explanation" can be modified to account for and incorporate anything, limited solely by the speculative creativity of the conspiratorialist.
For example, the downward collapse of the Twin Towers appeared to generate outward puffs of dust and debris. To the engineer, this is easily explained by the massive air pressure generated by collapsing upper floors and ceilings, which blew out the windows of the floors below. Wedded to the 9/11 conspiracy theory, however, conspiratorialists "explain" the puffs of debris as evidence of a "controlled demolition."
For U.S. government complicity and involvement to be true, one would have to believe that "the Conspiracy" managed to secretly place massive amounts of explosives throughout the WTC, completely undetected -- a plot that would have to involve big teams of demolition experts sneaking into the innards of the buildings over a period of many days in order to lay their charges. One would have to believe that none of those people would ever become a "whistleblower" on this plot against thousands of his fellow citizens -- and one would have to believe that the Conspirators in High Places would have had total confidence in EVERY PARTICIPANT in this incredibly risky act of treason. The demolition team would then have had to lie in wait nearby at the preordained time after the jets hit the towers, so that they could blow these precisely laid explosives and finish demolishing the buildings.
In addition, to be true, this monumentally complex plot would also have to involve hundreds of others in a vast conspiracy to hijack those planes. Given the hijackers' (proven) Muslim backgrounds and al Qaeda involvements, there would have to have been direct coordination between the U.S. government and al Qaeda to get these pawn-"martyrs." There also would have had to be complex coordination between U.S. agents and the hijacking group -- to arrange their training, their international meetings and movements, their accommodations and funding.
To account for the simultaneous attack on the Pentagon, conspiratorialists have creatively hypothesized a U.S.-launched cruise missile, not a commercial airline -- which, to be true, would have had to involve active U.S. military pilots willingly shooting at their own headquarters and murdering their fellow soldiers. Add to this the incredible cover-up, involving radar operators, flight crews, ground crews, officials where the jets were based, etc. All this, to protect a group of politically motivated power-mongers.
Also, we have the little matter of that missing airliner, filled with people, many "important" -- including the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General. We have the little matter of some of their bodies, identified by DNA, recovered at the Pentagon site, too -- which, to have been faked, would have had to involve a host of additional conspirators among rescuers, hospitals, medical labs, etc.
And the same for the airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania. Either this was an action caused by al Qaeda, or by a U.S. military shoot-down. In the latter case, imagine how many people would have had to be involved in the action and the cover-up. Also, all the recorded cell-phone conversations from Flight 93 passengers to their loved ones would have had to be faked.
Now, add all of this together. Try to conceive how all of it could be kept perfectly secret -- without a single defector to blow the whistle, either before or afterwards. Try to conceive of any contemporary public official who would have risked so much to do such things. His actions would have to be undertaken with the full knowledge that, if exposed, he would certainly face a life sentence or even execution for his deeds. Then try to imagine hundreds of government employees similarly motivated, all acting in concert, and in complete secrecy.
When one considers all of this mind-boggling complexity, then contrasts it with the simple, most obvious alternative -- a plot involving 19 al Qaeda hijackers -- I can't imagine anyone who would leap to the "9/11 conspiracy theory" other than for psychological or ideological reasons.
Lending weight to this last point is the fact that so many 9/11 conspiratorialists subscribe to multiple anti-government conspiracy theories. All of these plots entail horrific acts of treason and murder (often mass-murder), deliberately and cold-bloodedly engineered by demonized politicians and government officials. Moreover, the conspiratorialists indict, as the diabolically scheming malefactors, individuals whose lives and careers bear not a hint of the kind of sociopathic motives that such atrocities would necessarily require.
Let's get real: If you were a sitting politician, just imagine what it would take, psychologically, for you to deliberately cause, or to consciously allow, a terrorist attack to annihilate thousands of your own fellow citizens, wreak economic devastation during your own administration by destroying the New York financial district, and cause huge damage to your own military headquarters. It's hard enough to imagine a single official with such nihilistic motives. To believe that hundreds or thousands of such sociopaths exist in public office, and that they could or would unite in such a nihilistic enterprise, completely defies common sense.
That conspiratorialists would remain wedded to such preposterous "theories" (no, let's call them "fanciful conjectures"), despite their many and monumental implausibilities and all contrary evidence, says far more about them than it does about the events they are trying to "explain," or the individuals they are trying to blame.
|
|
