Class on Conspiracy

by **robertdreed** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:57 pm

Fourth Base, I don't want to discourage your inquiry into 9-11. I think that if properly researched, it could indeed be a thought-provoker. I recommend perusing the archives at <a href="http:cooperativeresearch.org/.">operativeresearch.org/.</a> They have a lot of data over there, and it's a good way to point up conflicting accounts, anomalies, little-known facts which have been glossed over and forgotten. However, in my opinion, the event of 9-11 doesn't provide the strongest evidence for conspiracy. That award goes to the unofficially official interconnections of US foreign policy and various political power players with the global drug trade, and the escalation of the drug war parallelling the escalation in global corruption. This is something for which the high probability of a conscious design can be apprehended. Unlike 9-11, which in and of itself is simply an isolated event- and, sas such, a series of bombings, which is by no means easy to investigate- the patterns of global manipulations of the drug trade for political goals comprises an ongoing series of events, for which there is voluminous evidence of underlying patterns of corruption and control. It requires more than a few weeks to research this sufficiently to build a case in the form of a term paper. But I can't think of anything else that provides more evidence that something is rotten in the "free and democratic system" of the US government, and that the actual implications of the facts is being covered up or glossed over by the large media outlets, although occasionally disturbing and anomalous facts pop up in some of their featured news stories on the topic.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:28 am

Robertreed, my proposal has nothing to do with an inquiry into 9-11, or an investigation of the event itself. The professor's approach is dishonest, in that he is ASSUMING that "conspiracy theories" are a symptom of mental or physiological dysfunction, and therefore neglecting to even question whether or not there may be any objective basis for a fully rational person to entertain such theories. Although SOME crazy people might believe in conspiracy theories, it does not follow that ALL people who believe in conspiracy theories are crazy. Actually, we need to define our terms here. The US government is one of the most strident advocates of one particular conspiracy theory: that Arab Muslim fanatics, spurred on by their hatred of "our freedom", have created a global terrorist network of sleeper cells commanding vast financial, military, intelligence and logistical resources, of such subtlety and brilliance that their presence is detectable only by the devastation they leave in their wake. Indeed, the US administration case for the existence of such a conspiracy rests on three pillars: faith in the integrity and decency of Washington politicians, and equally reliable forensic evidence, such as video and audio tapes, mysterious web-sites, and the disembodied testimony of anonymous wretches deep in the bowels of Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or some similar facility. Much of what is sneeringly (and inaccurately) called "conspiracy theories" is actually SKEPTICISM of the government's own conspiracy theory. For example, a book like "The New Pearl Harbor" does not present any theory at all, but does point out glaring inconsistencies and flaws in the government's official conspiracy theory. In other words, the term "conspiracy theory" has come to be used to silence skeptics and rational investigators, ironically, to PROMOTE faith-based, irrational beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That could be the question that the paper tries to answer: has the US government's behaviour been consistent with its own stated aims and principles, so that to be skeptical of the government is by definition dysfunctional and evidence of possible mental illness? Or can a case be made that, in the absence of adequate answers to the urgent questions facing us in the turbulent post-911 world, the LACK of skepticism and critical thinking surrounding a cataclysmic event like the September 11 attacks, may themselves be evidence of mental disturbance in those who refuse to allow themselves to doubt or question?

by **Gouda** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:00 pm

I wish I could have stated it as clearly as Alice. Nice! Fourthbase, I'll second a potential thesis being angled in this way.

by **NewKid** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:12 am

Well said. If O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, etc. showed up with defenses as limp as the official story, how would everyone react? And isn't it amazing that bloggers can dig into the minutiae of Plamegate and every minor discrepancy in the stories on Libby, the NSA scandal, etc., on the liberal side, and the Rathergate memos and a thousand other insignificant issues on the right, but none of these people have done even the most elementary analysis of the official story. It isn't the answer that's the problem on 9-11, it's that nobody ever asked the question.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:41 am

About the third class (2nd with Dr. WHA): - Talked about "overvalued ideas" and "groupthink". Basically, he insinuated that anyone driven by a passion or principle is the victim of an OCD-like obsession or (his favorite) an amygdala disorder and any group dedicated to just about anything is an incipient cult. The class was a little lame at first, but then roundly protested (Yay! Go classmates!) using MLK and civil rights organizations as a logical foil to his grotesquely stupid definitions. - Talked about two psychological experiments: the one by Solomon Asch that showed that people will conform to a group opinion if they feel alone, and the more famous one by Stanley Milgrim that showed people will follow orders even if they think what they're doing is killing someone. - Talked about the fallacy of screening, and mostly its relationship to lie detecting. Talked a lot about the polygraph, how it's merely a test of how intimidated the subject is, not a test for honesty. For example if it's only 60% accurate, and only 1 out of 100 people is a liar, then you'll have about 30 errors, all being false positives. That it's remarkable the CIA still uses it, and even more remarkable that it's still the only such test used, said it was probably just used as a "management tool", to intimidate employees. And that half of their recruits are bad guys anyway, so the CIA doesn't really expect much honesty to begin with. He says hi-tech ways of detecting lies hasn't really reached the intel services. Talked about the usefulness of still using the faulty tools to interrogate someone, motioned with his hands to give us a visualization as he says "You've got your interrogator here, and..." and ends by wistfully stating (as others who would put a "benign spin" on it would) that interrogation is not a science as much as it is an art form. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"> Then showed us the trick of choosing one of three boxes with only one holding a prize, and before opening your choice being shown one of the two not chosen that is empty, and being asked a la Let's Make a Deal if you would switch to the 3rd box. I thought it wouldn't make a difference, that it was 50/50. I was wrong, apparently, as it's a matter of logic. Anyone encounter that trick before? Anyway, that was just another of his anecdote/theories that questioned the accuracy of perception. He's never mentioned to the class that he was an intelligence officer himself, or that he's participated in torture/interrogations, but he's curiously willing to drop first person knowledge in the form of hypotheticals. In the course of talking about screening and the idea that if you're testing generally for something with a small incidence with a method that is significantly less than 100% reliable, you're bound to get bad results... ...He asks us if we've ever heard of remote viewing. One guy in front (I nicknamed him "Functional MRI Guy", because he seems to always talk about the usefulness of an MRI -- sidenote, I have an ever-so-slight hunch that MRIGuy is close to Dr. WHA, like some kind of plant Q&A facilitator/unofficial TA, or maybe he took WHA's other class before) described them impressively (military, installations), even name-dropped a project (Grill Flame?) and this led to WHA's highlight of the class. First WHA mentioned another name of one of the projects, "Stargate", and MRIGuy corrected him with "Starfire", and WHA insisted there was also a "Stargate". Then described remote viewing as an old idea, what they used to call "clairvoyance" the ability to see across distance and time. Went on to bemoan the $20M spent on it in the 70's. But said that SRI had studied it, and claimed to get useful data..."but never at the right time." Says that the military would have "DoD guys" (i.e. soldiers) sign up as the viewers (true?) and that the soldiers were willing because they'd prefer that to "peeling potatoes". Says offhand (as if this is surprising info) he has "a chance from time to time to speak to guys in the CIA who still believe in it". MRIGuy mentions that remote viewing eventually went off the deep end when viewers began reporting "Martians" and interstellar travel, etc. This flusters WHA, and as he vigorously tugs on his ear he says it'd be nice if that were true, but it's stuff like Martians that keeps people from believing in remote viewing...not that there aren't "respectable analysts" who still believe it (said in a midwestern aw shucks shoulder-shrug kind of way). A girl in back says that those experiments seem to still exist today, as she saw an ad in the classifieds asking for people who think they're psychic. WHA responds with what we would all consider an equivocating non-denial, along the lines of: That may be true, may be true...can't tell if it is or not, I wouldn't be surprised, I might be wrong but you're possibly right, etc. WHA then says a little after that, but it's just not likely to be possible, it would go against all of what we know about science. MRIGuy retorts, well there is quantum entanglement -- and WHA says Ahh yes, there is quantum entanglement, that's the one thing that would allow it, but that QA operates at an atomic level, and that it would still defy everything we know about how physics works on a macroscopic level. Point is: I had a strange feeling that Dr. WHA (intended to read like "Dr. Wha" punning on "Dr. Who") believes in remote viewing (you know, "I have this friend who..."), and possibly has some experience in studying it or better yet the knowledge that it is still believed in and studied by intelligence agencies. Any comments or questions about any of the class? p.s. I had an idea about an angle for the paper. To supplement my argument, whatever it will be, I might want to take a real conspiracy, one even Dr. WHA admits as a "real conspiracy", one that's universally acknowledged and without controversy, and thoroughly debunk it. Use all the ways that contemporary "dubious" conspiracies are debunked. Any thoughts?

by **slimmouse** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Then showed us the trick of choosing one of three boxes with only one holding a prize, and before opening your choice being shown one of the two not chosen that is empty, and being asked a la Let's Make a Deal if you would switch to the 3rd box. I thought it wouldn't make a difference, that it was 50/50. I was wrong, apparently, as it's a matter of logic. Anyone encounter that trick before?<hr></blockquote> I was gonna give folks the answer, but its a good one for logic testing .... <a href="http://www.comedia.com/hot/monty.html">www.comedia.com/hot/monty.html</a>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:11 pm

FourthBase, sorry I was so optimistic about the time it would take to link every fact I mentioned in my previous post... In between "real life", I've been working furiously, and I just keep finding so much great stuff...and reading way too much. I've almost finished, though, and I'll post what I have so far. Take the time to look at it and tell me if it's useful to you -- if it is, great, and I'll keep going. If it's not, let me know, please. An example of official debunking: <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html">usinfo.state.gov/media/Ar...41966.html</a> Instead of "challenging...debunking in general", why not be a bit more subtle? Do a study on a "conspiracy theory", examining the kind of environment that provides fertile ground, and factors that promote widespread belief in, conspiracy theories. Just as an example, you could contrast between the global outpouring of love and sympathy for the US and the spontaneous coming together of Americans immediately after the 9-11 attacks, with the global hatred and suspicion directed at the US five years later, as Americans themselves are increasingly disillusioned and mistrustful of their government. "As reported to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49% of New York City residents and 41% of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66% of city residents and 56% overall want a new investigation. … Nearly half of New Yorkers believe that serving US leaders deliberately permitted the killing of thousands of Americans by foreign enemies…" <a href="http://www.justicefor911.org/Original_Complaint_10-28-04NY.php">www.justicefor911.org/Ori...8-04NY.php</a> Also see a petition organized by 911 victims' family members: <a href="http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633">www.911truth.org/article....6093059633</a> Some other poll results: "Osama bin Laden Trumps President Bush as Most Dangerous to World Security" <a href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:rIWVxLb_FzIJ:www.innovativeresearch.ca/American%2520Myths_PeaceKeeping_Nov%252012.pdf+Bush+%22most+dangerous%22+poll+countries&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8">72.14.207.104/search?q=ca...=clnk&cd=8</a> There was also a Eurobarometer poll (of attitudes in 15 EU nations) taken in 2003, that showed the US in second place after Israel as countries that represent a threat to world peace, but believe it or not, it's been thoroughly scrubbed from the internet, except for The Telegraph and a couple of articles that attack it. <a href="http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aaaanov006.html">www.emjournal.pwp.blueyon...ov006.html</a> "In a twist that left analysts scratching their heads, the poll suggested that the British have turned against Washington even more sharply than the French or Germans. Asked if America posed a threat to peace, the "yes" response was 55 per cent in Britain, 52 in France and 45 in Germany. In Greece, the figure reached 88 per cent, with 96 per cent calling the Iraq war "unjustified". But the EU itself is deemed a threat to peace by 18 per cent in Britain compared with eight per cent for the whole union. Only Denmark continues to back the Iraq war." <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/04/wmid04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/11/04/ixportal.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ortal.html</a> What happened in those five years to make so many people believe the unthinkable? You could correlate the growth of "conspiracy theories" with the number of unanswered questions and doubts, starting perhaps, with the investigations and declarations that raised people's hopes and then evaporated like a mirage, creating real frustration and suspicion. Examples of these, could be: 1) The "put options" that were touted as a smoking gun leading to people who not only knew about the attacks in advance, but who intended to profit handsomely from them; the investigation inexplicably stopped, with a total information black-out on the matter;  <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOL20041218&articleId=320">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...icleId=320</a> <a href="http://www.sierratimes.com/03/04/10/gaddy.htm">www.sierratimes.com/03/04/10/gaddy.htm</a> <a href="http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html">www.hereinreality.com/ins...ading.html</a> <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html">911research.wtc7.net/sept...kputs.html</a> From The Complete 911 Timeline ( a treasure trove of information and links): <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=0:10am-11:50pm%2011%20Sept%202001">www.cooperativeresearch.o...ept%202001</a> September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious Trading of Put Option Contracts on American and United Airlines Occur A. B."Buzzy" Krongard. Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks. “Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange [sees] purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options—where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would [net] a profit of $5 million once the carrier's share price [dive] after September 11. On September 10, 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, [are] purchased in Chicago. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines [see] such trading in their put options.” One analyst later says, “I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in ten years of following the markets, particularly the options markets.” [Associated Press, 9/18/01; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/19/01] “To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.” [Independent, 10/14/01] September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious Trading on Stocks of Two Large WTC Tenants The Chicago Board Options Exchange sees suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts in its shares are bought each day. Then the total for the three days before the attacks is 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, see 12,215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day. [Independent, 10/14/01] Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, says, “This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.” [ABC News, 9/20/01] 2) The computer hardware possibly containing suspicious financial transactions that was "destroyed" in the attacks, and the fact that the German company that claimed to be able to recover the information, was quietly purchased by a US firm with CIA ties, after which the hardware recovery was not mentioned again; <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/reuters121901.html">www.cooperativeresearch.o...21901.html</a> <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/welcome-to-the-murky-world-of-kroll-inc--the-private-cia/2005/06/24/1119321904732.html">www.smh.com.au/news/busin...04732.html</a> <a href="http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=940">inn.globalfreepress.com/m...toryid=940</a> 3) The anthrax attacks that were publicized as an attack by "Al Qaeda", and that just happened to be directed at opponents of the Bush administration, the investigation of which was suddenly abandoned when it traced the source of the anthrax to a US military facility.  Initial reports, authoritatively blaming al Qaeda, Russians, Saddam for the anthrax attacks (a hoot, because of all the disinformation): <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,578030,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/w...30,00.html</a> October 2001: Anthrax Letters Kill Five, Heighten Terrorist Fears Complete 911 Timeline The anthrax letter received by Senator Daschle's office. A total of four letters containing anthrax are mailed to NBC, the New York Post, and Democratic senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The letters sent to the senators both contain the words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.” Twenty-three people are infected and five people die. Panic sweeps the nation. On October 16, the Senate office buildings are shut down, followed by the House of Representatives, after 28 congressional staffers test positive for exposure to anthrax. A number of hoax letters containing harmless powder turn up. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 12/8/01] Initially it is suspected that either al-Qaeda or Iraq are behind the anthrax letters. [Times of London, 10/27/01; BBC, 10/16/01; Observer, 10/14/01] However, further investigation leads the US government to conclude that, “everything seems to lean toward a domestic source. ... Nothing seems to fit with an overseas terrorist type operation.” [St. Petersburg Times, 11/10/01; Washington Post, 10/27/01] In August 2002, the FBI names Steven Hatfill, a bioweapons researcher who worked for the US government, as a “person of interest” in the case. [Associated Press, 8/1/02; Times of London, 8/2/02] Though he undergoes intense scrutiny by the FBI, he is never charged with any crime. As of mid-2004, no one has been charged in relation to the anthrax letter attacks. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/anthrax/story/0,1520,719367,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/anthra...67,00.html</a> A web site that has everything you could possibly want to know (and much more), about the anthrax attacks & investigation, with links for everything:  <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/index.html">www.anthraxinvestigation.com/index.html</a> A good summary:  <a href="http://www.aljazeerah.info/Media%20Watch/While%20media%20spotlights%20one%20anthrax%20suspect,%20another%20is%20too%20hot%20to%20touch.htm">www.aljazeerah.info/Media...0touch.htm</a> 4) The destruction of crime scene evidence before it could be examined by investigators, ie, the removal of the WTC steel under tight security and secrecy, and its immediate shipping abroad. Five years later, no one seems to know who gave the order for such an appalling violation of normal investigative procedures; <a href="http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225">fe.pennnet.com/Articles/A..._ID=131225</a> <a href="http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-16.html">www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-16.html</a> September 12-October 2001: Steel Debris From WTC Shipped Out of US for Recycling Complete 911 Timeline Steel beams from the WTC were already being removed and recycled by September 20, 2001, when this picture was taken. In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. [Committee on Science hearing, 3/6/02] Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products. Asian companies are able to purchase the steel for just $120 per ton, compared, for example, to a usual average price of $150 per ton in China. Industry officials estimate that selling off the steel and other metals from the WTC for recycling could net a few tens of million dollars. [New York Times, 10/9/01; Reuters, 1/21/02; CorpWatch, 2/6/02; Reuters, 1/22/02; Eastday (.com), 1/24/02] 9/11 victims' families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/02 (B)] Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) will later call the loss of this evidence “borderline criminal.” By March 2002, 150 pieces of steel from the WTC debris will have been identified by engineers for use in future investigations (see March 6, 2002). [FEMA report, p. D-13] A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which commences in August 2002 [Associated Press, 8/21/02; NIST, 8/21/02] , will have 236 pieces of recovered steel available to it. Of these, 229 pieces are from WTC 1 and 2, representing “roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.” [NIST draft report, 9/05, p. 85] New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg defends the decision to quickly get rid of the WTC steel, saying, “If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.” Officials in the mayor's office decline to reply to requests by the New York Times regarding who decided to have the steel recycled. [New York Times, 12/25/01; Eastday (.com), 1/24/02] 5) The refusal of the Bush administration to allow an independent investigation of 9-11, only reluctantly agreeing to a strictly limited investigation after a year and a half, and only because of organized pressure by families of the victims, but allowing it a budget of just $3 million (!) and appointing Henry Kissinger as chairman (!!) <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD01Aa02.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...1Aa02.html</a> <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=124722">www.americanprogress.org/...F&b=124722</a> 6) Claiming that they had positive evidence that would soon be presented to all the world, that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were responsible for 9-11, within a month of the attacks, the US led a massive invasion of Afghanistan that involved the death and maiming of untold numbers of civilians, but which appears to have deliberately allowed Taliban forces (and possibly Osama bin Laden) to escape.  November 28, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Escapes Tora Bora by Helicopter A US Special Forces soldier stationed in Fayetteville, North Carolina, later (anonymously) claims that the US has bin Laden pinned in a certain Tora Bora cave on this day, but fails to act. Special Forces soldiers allegedly sit by waiting for orders and watch two helicopters fly into the area where bin Laden is believed to be, load up passengers, and fly toward Pakistan. No other soldiers have come forward to corroborate the story, but bin Laden is widely believed to have been in the Tora Bora area at the time. [Fayetteville Observer, 8/2/02] However, other reports indicate that bin Laden may have left the Tora Bora region by this time. Newsweek separately reports that many locals “claim that mysterious black helicopters swept in, flying low over the mountains at night, and scooped up al-Qaeda's top leaders.” [Newsweek, 8/11/02 (B)] Perhaps coincidentally, on the same day this story is reported, months after the fact, the media also will report a recent spate of strange deaths at the same military base in Fayetteville. Five soldiers and their wives died since June 2002 in apparent murder-suicides. At least three were Special Forces soldiers recently returned from Afghanistan. [Independent, 8/2/02] Meanwhile, a former Unocal oil executive was appointed president, and a US-led consortium was finally able to start its long-held plans to build a pipeline from the oil-rich Central Caspian region to export markets in Asia.  (OK, my bad…that Karzai used to work for Unocal is extremely controversial, and not supported by enough evidence to be considered a fact. Sorry…) Still, there's enough of a whiff of SOME weird connections, to warrant further sniffing:  <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm">emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm</a> From the 911 Complete Timeline : (<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-625)">www.cooperativeresearch.o...46767-625)</a> "US troops land near the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, Afghanistan. [Associated Press, 8/19/02] Apparently, as the noose tightens around Kandahar, new Afghanistan head Hamid Karzai makes a deal with the Taliban, giving them a general amnesty in return for surrender of the city. Taliban's leader Mullah Omar is allowed to escape “with dignity” as part of the deal. However, the US says it will not abide by the deal and Karzai then says he will not let Omar go free after all. Taliban forces begin surrendering on December 7. [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/8/01] Omar escapes." Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his transitional government assume power in Afghanistan. It was reported a few weeks before that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal at one time (Karzai and Unocal both deny this), as well as Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban. [CNN, 12/22/01 (B); Le Monde, 12/13/01] <a href="http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm">www.unocal.com/uclnews/97...02797a.htm</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm</a> Kindly note how CNN described Karzai:  "Karzai, a former lobbyist for the U.S. oil and gas company Unocal…" <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/12/karzai/">www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/as...12/karzai/</a> 7) In the face of widespread disbelief that Henry Kissinger, a man wanted in several countries for questioning for his role in war crimes, would be chosen to head the investigation of 9-11, he was the Bush administration's firm choice -- he only stepped down when he realized that he would be required to divulge his international client list. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger</a> <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=176">www.thenation.com/blogs/c...=3&pid=176</a> <a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/kiss-n28.shtml">www.wsws.org/articles/200...-n28.shtml</a> <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/">archives.cnn.com/2002/ALL...r.resigns/</a> 9) Kissinger's replacement to head the investigation was Thomas Kean, a director of Amerada Hess, a company whose business partners were suspected of funding of "al-Qaeda" (Conflict of Interest 1). Moreover, Amerada Hess would directly benefit from the invasion of Afghanistan, since the pipeline to be built in Afghanistan as the result of the invasion, would allow Amerada Hess to export oil and gas from the Caspian region and thereby get a return on their investment (Conflict of Interest 2).  <a href="http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040527201054793">www.911truth.org/article....7201054793</a> 10) Despite the official explanation that the disaster of 9-11 resulted from widespread incompetence and failure, no one has been held accountable. On the contrary, a remarkable number of those who failed in their duty to protect the citizens of the US, were lavishly rewarded with promotions to even greater positions of responsibility. In contrast, whistle-blowers have been made to pay dearly for their courage and honesty.  "Whistleblowers and elected officials who have called attention to these matters have been ignored, ridiculed, fired, threatened, subjected to gag orders and harassed. We draw your attention in particular to the cases of Sibel Edmonds, Sarshar Behrouz, Robert Wright, Indira Singh, U.S. Air Force Col. Steve Butler and former Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Such examples, coinciding with legal changes under the USA PATRIOT Act and other statutes and regulations, excessive classification orders and constant invocation of a state of threat in the homeland, have a powerful silencing effect on others who would come forward. ...Officials and military officers associated with the "failures" of investigation and defense response have not been held accountable; on the contrary, several of them have been confirmed in elevated positions, given awards or promoted following September 11. We draw your attention in particular to the cases of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Gen. Ralph Eberhart (Commander of NORAD on 9/11/01), FBI officials David Frasca, Marion Bowman, Michael Maltbie and an unnamed FBI official alleged to have tolerated penetration by foreign agents at the Bureau's translations department (CBS News, 8/8/04)." <a href="http://www.justicefor911.org/Original_Complaint_10-28-04NY.php">www.justicefor911.org/Ori...8-04NY.php</a> (By the way, this "Original Complaint", though long, is an excellent summary of why the official conspiracy theory is so widely doubted). Promotions: <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27876">www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=27876</a> <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27867">www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=27867</a> From "Public Letter to 9/11 Commission Chairman from FBI Whistleblower": After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of 'extensive backlog of untranslated documents', and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up… Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. … "After this supervisor's several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI's higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General's Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI's Arabic language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon." <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-06.htm">www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-06.htm</a> This is so priceless, I'm including a long quote:  "On May 30, 2002, FBI Special Agent Robert Wright appeared with Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman at a Washington news conference and tearfully apologized for the bureau's inaction before 9/11. One of Wright's investigations led to the seizure in June 1998 of $1.4 million in terrorist funds linked to a Saudi businessman. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration designated the businessman, Yassim al-Kadi, as a financial supporter of Osama bin Laden. Klayman said that if Wright's investigation had been pursued, "the money to fund terrorist operations, such as 9/11, would have been cut off." He said "these monies were moving through some powerful U.S. banks," affected "some very powerful interests in the U.S.," and that resistance to taking the investigation forward stemmed from conflicts of interest because top officials were "tight" with Saudi Arabia. Klayman said FBI officials had to be nervous "when the rich and powerful in Washington, D.C. are doing business with some of these entities" that could be coming under investigation. Klayman said that when he went to the Justice Department after 9/11 offering Wright's expertise, he was told by Michael Chertoff, head of the Criminal Division, that they were not interested in conspiracy theories." <a href="http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A218_0_4_0_C">www.aim.org/aim_report/A218_0_4_0_C</a> (The same Michael Chertoff who was later appointed to head the Department of Homeland Security). Compare the above, with what the DHS website says about him: "Secretary Chertoff was previously confirmed by the Senate to serve in the Bush Administration as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. As Assistant Attorney General, he helped trace the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the al-Qaida network, and worked to increase information sharing within the FBI and with state and local officials." <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=11&content=4353">www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/dis...ntent=4353</a> Next in his string of greatest hits was "Katrina…who knew?": "Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur." <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/">www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03....chertoff/</a> 12) Immediately after the attacks, the government was classifying and "disappearing" all kinds of evidence that could not possibly endanger national security, but that COULD, on the other hand, contradict the government's official story. Documents and evidence that disappeared into the memory hole never to be seen again: i) the blueprints for the WTC buildings (not even investigators were permitted to see them); ii) the passenger manifests for the doomed flights, which were briefly released before they were declared classified, and which listed NO Arab passengers at all, terrorist or not;  <a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html">www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001.../main.html</a> <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/wot/vonbuelow.htm">www.serendipity.li/wot/vonbuelow.htm</a> <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flight_11_passengers.html">www.whatreallyhappened.co...ngers.html</a> Late February 2003: DNA Identifies Passenger Remains, but Hijacker DNA Is Not Tested Complete 911 Timeline Medical examiners match human remains to the DNA of two of the hijackers that flew on Flights 11 and/or 175 into the WTC. The names of the two hijackers are not released. The FBI gave the examiners DNA profiles of all ten hijackers on those flights a few weeks earlier. Genetic profiles of five hijackers from Flight 77 and the four from Flight 93 that did not match any of the passengers' profiles have been given to the FBI, but the FBI has not given any DNA profiles with which to match them. [CNN, 2/27/03] People and organizations involved: Federal Bureau of Investigation iii) the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC (see above) were quickly and quietly shipped to Asia and rapidly sold as scrap for well below their market price; iv) FBI agents showed up "within minutes" of the attack on the Pentagon and confiscated the film from security cameras at a gas station across the street from the Pentagon, as well as film from another security camera, placed on the roof of a hotel, that likely filmed the crash. Also, after the Los Angeles Times reported that the police were examining "footage from dozens of cameras at the three airports where the terrorists boarded the aircraft", only a few frames of film are released to the public, none from Logan, from which the "lead hijacker" Mohamed Atta supposedly boarded the plane, because, according to the FBI, unlike any other airport in America, Logan had no security cameras.  <a href="http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackCctvVideo.shtml">911review.org/Wiki/Pentag...ideo.shtml</a> "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin." <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7¬Found=true">www.washingtonpost.com/ac...Found=true</a> …"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html">news.nationalgeographic.c...tagon.html</a> "Sources tell CNN that the FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. Aaron. BROWN: Why? Do we have any idea why they won't release it? MCINTYRE: Well, the claim - we have filed a freedom of information request for it. They claim that it might provide some intelligence to somebody else who might want to do harm to the United States. But officials I talked to here at the Pentagon say they don't see any national security or criminal value to that tape. The FBI tends to hold on to things. But the government may eventually release that tape, and if they do, we'll bring it to you. BROWN: Jamie, thanks. I must have missed something in how, where the intelligence possibilities are there, but that happens with me sometimes. Thank you for your work today, nice job." <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/asb.00.html">transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS...sb.00.html</a> ANYWAY, this is getting way too long, it no longer has to do with your paper, I've just been wandering down memory lane... But, I do think it might be interesting for you to examine what kind of factors and environment promote the proliferation of "conspiracy theories". The lack of clear information and answers to important questions must surely be one. The sense that those who are supposed to provide people with information and ask the questions for us, such as the press and our political representatives, are failing to do so, even covering up facts and deliberately lying in some demonstrable cases, is another. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1700691,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/intern...91,00.html</a> The growing gulf between what people are told about the world and what they can see with their own eyes is definitely a third. And one of the things they see, is a government consistently sacrificing their lives and safety, their future and those of their children, in order to serve someone other than the public that elected them. Whether that "someone" is a global corporate entity or entities, or the Illuminati, or an alliance of religious fanatics, or satan-worshipping pedophiles, or aliens, or a bunch of sociopathic good ol'boys, or whatever, well, that would depend on the quantity and quality of the evidence. Generally, though, it doesn't help things when governments ask people to believe in magic bullets and collapsing buildings doing a free-fall into their own footprint even when nothing hit them, or in terrorist masterminds who command vast global armies of fanatical followers but whom nobody sees (and who grow amputated legs and even come back to life - repeatedly), or in miraculous passports found lying on sidewalks, or how happy the people of Iraq are, now that 100,000 of them have been killed, they've got no clean water system, no reliable electricity, their country has been ruined and contaminated with depleted uranium, their men have been stripped naked, humiliated and tortured to death, their government and their economy have been taken over by foreign rulers... But they've got this wonderful future, see, because they've been liberated by America. You know what? I'll be happy to provide you with links documenting anything I wrote above -- sort of compensation to you for reading it. I hope you'll keep us posted about the class. Good luck, again. Who is "al Qaeda"? <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...cleId=1291</a> Carlyle – Bin Laden Bush connections:  <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4288516-103680,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/print/...80,00.html</a> Bin Laden Tapes: <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL%2020060121&articleId=1768">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...cleId=1768</a> <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=OSS20050505&articleId=99">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...ticleId=99</a> One book that takes a very comprehensive overview of all the lies and the questions left unanswered by the 9-11 Commission is David Ray Giffen's: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions. A summary of the points covered by the book can be found in this article: <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20050908&articleId=907">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...icleId=907</a> A discussion of the drills that just happened to be taking place on Sept. 11 2001, which directly contradict Condaleezza Rice's claim that "noone could have predicted" that airplanes would be used as missiles: <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GEO20051116&articleId=1268">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...cleId=1268</a>

by **havanagila** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:22 pm

4thbase, I am more interested in the first part of the lecture, namely, "groupthink" amygdala and OCD etc., as it resonates with things happening here. I wrote previously about APA new project (semi secret) to start universalizing the DSM, under the American auspices. This was criticized, and exposed, showing already 10 such groups around the globe, working under the project. ISrael has been assigned to develop the new universal definition for OCD (under a dubious psychiatrist called Prof. Zohar). I have read several times the notion that even Judaism can be viewed as OCD or "groupthink", and this is get Ating gradually close to a slippery slope of Nazi thought forms. (adding the amygdala to the basket). So, if you can give some more details on what he sees as "groupthing OCD" I would appreciate it.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:13 pm

Wow, Alice, that's going to be an immense help! Thank you so, so much!!! Hava, here's my notes on that, briefly: The 7 Characteristics of Groupthink 1. Illusion of invulnerability "As long as we stick together..." 2. Moral superiority, "We're taking the high ground" 3. Rationalize discrepant info, resist non-group paradigm 4. Pressure for unanimity 5. Insulate from friends, family 6. Suppress doubt, disagreement 7. Tendency to display risky shifts Now, here's how the core of the civil rights movement fits that. 1. Invulnerability = "We shall overcome" = hope, faith 2. Actual moral superiority, i.e. racism is wrong 3. Resisting dominant racist paradigm 4. Unanimity = practical necessity/advantage, one voice is more effective 5. By-product of ostracization & hardship of struggle on family 6. Suppressing disagreement = fighting gov't instigators/saboteurs, and cultivating #4 7. Risky shifts = marches, demonstrations As for a single person like MLK... He was driven by an overvalued idea: justice WHA on "overvalued idea"...an overwhelming fixation on an idea (political/societal/philosophical in nature, of course) in which the fixator prioritizes the pursuit and desemination of the idea to the detriment of his own personal health, family, career. The overvaluator ignores all "reasonable" arguments against the idea and is eager to convince everyone that his idea is true, and that they must believe it and also pursue it. And of course, fighting the injustice of racism and poverty did nothing for MLK's health or personal happiness, and he rightly and thankfully ignored whatever "reasonable" arguments there in favor of racism (or not fighting it), and thankfully tried to convince as many people as possible that racism was wrong. What WHA wants the class to tunnel in on is the overvalued idea as the tell-tale sign of the lone conspiracy-theory nut, the incipient cult leader (a la Koresh), and even the terrorist (scary). And what they might all have in common is amygdala damage, which severely disturbs one's ability to properly set priorities, and is rather common (common causes: strokes, head injuries, lead poisoning, prenatal infections...ummm...ummm) <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> So MLK should have cared less, driven a bus or something, ate dinner with his family at 6pm every night, not talked to people so enthusiastically, accepted that things are roughly going to be the ways they are, tried to change whatever little bit of the world he had control over, and lived happily ever after.

by **havanagila** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:28 pm

thanks 4th we can sum up his theory : "anyone who annoys me is OCD with amygdala deffects." There are two different issues, one is "cult" problems and I think it merits a research (not by him, though), because it has become a huge social and personal risk. The other issue, is his reductionist biological view of human beings (which I find the most nazi-disturbing and from which follow the rest of his ideas) last - the "ethics blind" analysis of individualism. for him it doesn't matter if the "lone fanatic" is Jesus or Hitler, they both are guilty of excess (from bourgeois norms). I was wondering particularly about OCD application to political dissent, because I have seen it overused recently in Israel, by the little clones/Anderson-compatibles. (there is a bunch here of such groupies, like Joseph Zohar and Bellmaker). I think OCD as applied by these people is very dangerous, especially if they attempt at a "global- universal" definition now under APA auspices. this is the clinical wing of "exportation freedom-democracy campaign". I also was sorry to see Israeli/Jews follow the racist line of investigating the "arab mind" and disseminating the falacies of an instrinsic infamous Arab extremism. Of course, the next logical step is to apply same to jews, and even more so, and this is shooting the leg, so to speak. not to mention morally despicable. However, notably the white-euoro-Christian culture is by far more prone to extremism and fanaticism bordering on madness, just looking at history of the last few centuries.

by **thurnandtaxis** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:30 pm

here's a couple of books that deal with conspiracy theory from a cultural studies viewpoint: Conspiracy Culture: From Kennedy to the X-Files Peter Knight, 2000 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415189780/sr=8-2/qid=1140042902/ref=sr_1_2/102-2852594-7739341?%5Fencoding=UTF8">www.amazon.com/gp/product...oding=UTF8</a> Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture Mark Fenster, 1999 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415189780/sr=8-2/qid=1140042902/ref=sr_1_2/102-2852594-7739341?%5Fencoding=UTF8">www.amazon.com/gp/product...oding=UTF8</a> of the two Fenster's is definately the more academic and fortunately the one that most wholeheartedly denounces the notion of "the Paranoid Style" (as evinced by Richard Hofstadter in his cold war-liberal analysis of rightwing suspicions "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and "Anti-intellectualism in American Life") which equates "Populism" with "Niaveness" and the appeal of reductionist thought in the assesment of blame. Knight's work has good insights towards the struggles of the civil rights movement and the feminist movement to avoid such classifications in their examinations of the motivating forces behind institutionalized prejudices. Although, he is more dismissing of para-politcal thought in general. Fenster seems to think that these impulses spring from democracy's inherent thirst for transperancy in governance. Knight seems to think that they are the by-products of an over-mediated society that seeks to deal with the analysis of increasing amounts of data by searching for further and further connectivity. Both authors analyze post modern literary forbearers (Pynchon, Delillo) as harbingers of the cultural zeitgiest towards pop-culture conspiratorial thinking (X-files, Oliver Stone). It is interesting to note that both of these books pre-date the real upswing (and apparent confirmation IMO) of such suspicions that we have seen post 9-11. I would recommend some familiarity with these works in seeking to access a template for framing your thoughts in a manner that examines causality in a post-modern aesthetic. It seems, like many of his contemporaries, that Dr WHA is a strict modernist, ala' Hofstadter or Pipes in his academic approach to this subject matter. Best, tnt

by **FourthBase** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:27 pm

Thank you tnt! The Fenster book looks like required reading.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:44 pm

Jesus, Peter, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, Paul, Silas, Timothy, etc., et al. But we, here at R.I. all KNOW that they were full of goat's milk, don't we??? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:12 am

I had an idea about an angle for the paper. To supplement my argument, whatever it will be, I might want to take a real conspiracy, one even Dr. WHA admits as a "real conspiracy", one that's universally acknowledged and without controversy, and thoroughly debunk it. Use all the ways that contemporary "dubious" conspiracies are debunked. Any thoughts?  Fourthbase, you don't know me, I don't know you, so I'll make a suggestion and you can take or leave it, ok? If I remember correctly, your assignment is a 15-page paper. That is very, very, very short. If you try to cover too much ground, you will do a terrible job, not to mention losing your sanity in the process. For sure, you will not even come close to "thoroughly debunking" anything except your chances for a decent grade. Instead, you need to focus like a laser on one, very specific topic -- if it's done properly (and ruthlessly enough), it can be very effective. You can forget about "converting" your professor and/or starting a national liberation movement in your classroom. This paper is your chance to practice your ability to define your goal as narrowly as possible (ie choose a winnable battle), build a watertight argument, and support your argument with faultless logic and solid research. All within 15 pages. If you need any help, we're all here... PS: on a completely different topic, that stupid "Monty Hall" thing uses bogus logic. Of course, your chances are 50/50; because you EITHER choose to switch, OR you choose to keep the door you have. In either case, your choice is between 2 doors, not three, because Monty already ELIMINATED the third door. It's out of the picture, gone, poof! No longer relevant. Sounds like your teacher is having a little fun, rippling the waters, sending you a little message that your brain is unreliable, that what makes sense to you is not true, that you're not as smart as he is. Maybe I'm wrong...but stay alert for more subtle little mind-f*%ks, ok?

by **TroubleFunk** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:01 am

Hi, I know you're trying to help a student do a paper here...but your work and insight are providing me a valuable service as well. Thanks so much for putting all this stuff in one place...truly great work!! I'm reading it, ALL of it, and will read anything else you post as well.

Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: The monty hall problem simply explained.

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: Class on Conspiracy

Re: a couple of books

Re: a couple of books

A Few Obsessive Compulsive Disorderly People:

Re: a couple of books

Alice,

Who is online