Anytime a government person tells me something, I do not automatically believe everything they say and take them at face value. Have you ever listen to Josh Earnest do a Q & A after a press release? It's festival of pretzel logic and linguistic gymnastics. Cringe worthy even. History has proven over and over our government lies to us. 935 times the GWB administration went on TV, and to the UN, and LIED to everybody, the entire world about Iraq's WMD's. That is fact, is it not?

It's seems popular now days, if not intellectually lazy, to label people as conspiracy theorists when we do not agree with them. That bastion of universally accepted truth, you know the one most college professors won't let you cite in your home work, Wikipedia say's the first recorded use of the term appeared in 1909, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#History

“The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event", and cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example.[19][20] Currently, conspiracy theories are widely present on the Web, in the forms of blogs and YouTube videos. “

Stop and think for a moment, our founding fathers CONSPIRED against the British government, to over throw their rule of the American colonies, by violent revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a document that published what the conspirators had discussed in private, as the reasons for their revolt against British rule, which were CRIMES of injustice committed against the colonists by British, and the East India Trading company, a quasi extension of the British empire (one of the first, truly, multinational corporations).

That's not a conspiracy theory, historians and historical documents prove they CONSPIRED against the British crown. I reckon that would be consider a conspiracy fact, not theory, correct? But it's never presented that way, is it?

I won't engage in making the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, but I will question the PHYSICS that have been ruled by the 9/11 commission, as the main culprit, reason for 3 buildings turning into dust, by fire, and the “pancake theory” in the 9/11 report is completely debunked by simple physics. Gravity doesn't work that way.

For example, a large chunk of concrete and steal, that weighs tons, does not travel horizontally more than 600 yards, at a speed over over 60 miles an hour, and get lodged into the side of another building, half way up, because of gravity, without some external FORCE. It completely violates the LAWS of gravity. (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/first2nd_lawsf_m...) This is basic kids stuff physics here, my goodness.

Now, stop and think for a moment, it used to be conspiracy theory that the CIA engaged in experiments with giving people LSD. Gee, go figure, the MKULTRA conspiracy theory turned out to be conspiracy fact.

If I'm not mistaken, the CIA back in 1967 coined the term “Conspiracy Theorist”, which was documented by the dispatch published by the CIA as a result of the New York Times FOIA request in 1976, regarding the Warren Commission investigation in the JFK assassination. (I won't go there)

Specifically it read:

“2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by …  propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.“

The purpose of labeling critics of the administration's official narrative conspiracy theorists, is simply to stop the discussion and limit debate, period. To re-direct public inquiry, especially with “elite contacts", (politicians and editors). At least according to this CIA dispatch.

Have you ever read William Blum's book, “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II“? (http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/ )

A former state department employee, he documents quite a number of “interventions” by our government, most, if not all, of which were illegal. That's not conspiracy theory, it's historical fact.

From his web site about the book.

“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out… invasions … bombings … overthrowing governments … occupations … suppressing movements for social change … assassinating political leaders … perverting elections … manipulating labor unions … manufacturing “news” … death squads … torture … biological warfare … depleted uranium … drug trafficking … mercenaries …
It’s not a pretty picture. It’s enough to give imperialism a bad name.
Read the full details in: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.

“Far and away the best book on the topic.” – Noam Chomsky
“I enjoyed it immensely.” – Gore Vidal
“I bought several more copies to circulate to friends with the hope of shedding new light and understanding on their political outlooks.” – Oliver Stone
“A very valuable book. The research and organization are extremely impressive.” – A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief
“A very useful piece of work, daunting in scope, important.” –Thomas Powers, author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
“Each chapter I read made me more and more angry.” – Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of the anti-nuclear and environmental movements

I've got a digital copy and wow, it's pretty intense. Did you know the US invaded the Soviet Union in 1918? The NYT was a propaganda machine that supported it. Hmm, what does that tell you? What do you know about the interventions listed in the table of contents? What did our “papers of record” and MSM tell the American public about these interventions? Why does the US government usually wind up either directly, or indirectly, supporting right wing, Fascist military dictatorships, especially in Latin America? Chile anyone?

These interventions have all been crimes committed by our government. I wasn't around for many of the early interventions but those in the 70's and onward, I have memories of being told one thing by my government and MSM, and have learned since, the truth is quite different.

What do you know about the Honduran coup of 2009? Or about Mrs. Clinton's subversion of a democratically elected president, that was illegally removed from office and the US didn't do anything to correct the illegal coup. Matter of fact, the US, and Mrs. Clinton especially, help cement the coup into place, which indirectly resulted in Honduras becoming the murder capital of the world.

I wrote about it at the great orange waste land. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/22/1462562/-Hillary-s-Hurrah-in-Ho...). Mrs. Clinton's SOS e-mails reveal quite a bit of damaging information, not only about Honduras, but Libya as well. Bring it up and what happens, immediately you are attacked for lying or some other bullshit excuse to re-direct debate or shut it down all together. Fucking Conspiracy Theorist!

Wall Street bankers conspired to rig the LIBOR interest rate, and were found guilty. Even that bastion of truth, the New York Times agrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/dealbook/two-former-traders-f...)

“As the jury foreman began reading out the verdicts on the 19 counts of fraud and conspiracy against Mr. Allen and the nine for Mr. Conti, Mr. Allen slumped low in his chair, his chin resting on his left fist. As the guilty verdicts slowly tallied all 28 counts, he stared off to his right, away from the jury seated to his left. “ (Bold emphasis mine)

Now, since we probably both agree that climate change is real, man made or at least heavily influenced at a bare minimum, would it be conspiracy to say that the Koch brothers are conspiring to disprove climate change science? Since I'm assuming we basically agree about climate change, would you label me a conspiracy theorist about the Koch brothers secretly funding climate change denial groups?

If I provide links, such as this one from GreenPeace, would my credibility increase or decrease in your view, in terms of whether or not I'm a conspiracy theorist about the Koch Bothers? (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-indust...)

From the Article:

“Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was “the biggest company you’ve never heard of.” Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $79 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network.

Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.
Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they’ve made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It’s timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they’re up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires’ destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.”

Since we basically agree about climate change, I'm assuming we might agree that the Koch bothers have engaged in a conspiracy, to purposely miss-inform the American public against our own best interest, and purely for their own private interests. They could care less about the “general welfare of the people” of this country. Would you label me a conspiracy theorist, when we agree?

Obviously Greenpeace is a biased organization regarding climate science. They believe it 110%, no questions asked. Believers, zealots, if you will. (I don't really believe they are actually zealots, but it could be construed that way.)

It would be a conspiracy theory to “speculate” that organizations such a Greenpeace, and other climate science advocate groups have engaged in some type of conspiracy to enlist 90% of climate scientist around the world, to defraud the world population into believing that climate change is man made, so it will benefit their science industries and “green” industries, in direct competition with fossil fuels industries, all motivated by profit. Is that crazy or what?

That would be a big fat conspiracy theory, in my view, because I have ZERO evidence, only wild ass “speculation”. Only dots and crazy ass links with ZERO evidence / reporting, to support any claim what so ever. Right?

In terms of 9/11, there is evidence that specifically refutes the “PHYSICS” claimed in the 9/11 commission report. The laws of physic's it's self disproves the physics laid out in the 9/11 commission report. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is fact. Who and why the report says what it says, I won't speculate on that topic, I do not have enough information to make a reasoned claim, for anything, yet. I won't rule out possible wrong doing by government officials. It's certainly happened before, and would be, well, not very intellectually rigorous to believe it won't happen again.

Was it an inside job? I can only SPECULATE, I do not have a valid theory nor any evidence to support such a claim. There are in fact, a large number of questions still unanswered questions regard 9/11, which I won't go into here. I don't have solid answers for you, but I will question the PHYSICS, which is testable, and provable, and does not rely only on theory. (until we can test it that is)

If one is to consider oneself as opened minded, does that mean I should just shut down debate because someone has a “theory", that hasn't been proven? Should we not investigate, any crazy ass theory to it's logical, factual conclusion (well not every crazy ass theory, that was snark), if not for the simple reason to disprove the theory, so more effort can be spent further investigating and discovering the truth? Do we not seek the truth? Even if it means something ugly? Are we to just roll over and let them stick it to us, with out any lubricant?

The fairness doctrine has been eliminated from our public airwaves. A high concentration of media companies has taken place. The rise of “infotainment” presented as new has dramatically increased. Our government routinely lies to us. Media lie to us. Trump is an "elite consensus" media fueled phenomenon. Even a CBS executive said about Trump, to paraphrase, he might be bad for the country but he is good for business. Where this executive's loyalty to their country? Why has he not exposed Trump or this FACT that the media are making a killing financially by the rise of Trump?

As the YTY reports:
https://youtu.be/2ukGvwZ1fS4

Is that conspiracy theory? Are we being told the truth, how do we know if we don't investigate? Our media has lied, and allowed our administration / government to lie straight through their teeth, and they don't speak up? Now days anyone who does speak up is a conspiracy theorist or a Putin apologist. Look at how many journalist have been sidelined because the generated too much “Flak” against the elite consensus, official narrative. Just look at how many news anchors have either been let go or have left MSNBC and other news channels for speaking out against the “official narrative".

In this new beautiful, Bluegrass ocean (I'm assuming) of unbounded, unregulated though in which I now find myself, I would hope that theories could be discussed, dissected, investigated, proven or dis proven, without “the bounding of debate”, constraining our speech and writings, that comes with intellectually lazy labels such as conspiracy theorist.

Gee, some scientist theorized that certain neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Did the scientific community shut down the debate about the speed of neutrinos? Hell no, not only did they call bullshit, they TESTED the theory and disproved it, but discovered that some neutrinos shape shift into new neutrinos.

As The New Scientist reports in 2012:
(https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-ligh...)

"The faster-than-light neutrino saga is officially over. Today, at the Neutrino 2012 conference in Kyoto, Japan, the OPERA collaboration announced that according to their latest measurements, neutrinos travel at almost exactly the speed of light."
...
“With the dust settling, OPERA is getting back to its real job: finding tau neutrinos. This week the team also announced that they have found the second-ever instance of a muon neutrino morphing into a tau neutrino, strengthening the case that neutrinos have mass.”

Which, helps supports another “theory”, that neutrinos actually have mass. That's pretty fucking cool if you ask me! I dig that kind of shit.

Anyway, my point, is labeling one a conspiracy theorist is just engaging in the bounding of debate, which I hope doesn't happen in this beautiful Blue Green place, like it did in the great orange waste land.

Einstein was crazy, at least some thought, until he proved he wasn't. At least give people a chance to prove their theories before we shut down all debate, discussion, because we don't agree or think their crazy. Sometimes, crazy is not so crazy. The earth has for the most part, always been round, (not a perfect circle, fuck!) but not everyone believed that. My goodness this is the 21st century

Maybe the our new, and wonderful Blue caretakers might consider a section, I don't know, called Crazy Corner, specifically set up where writers / investigators / theorist can theorize, and then prove or disprove their crazy theories, what ever they may be. And then maybe, one of the many great writers that have moved beyond the great orange waste land of bounded debate, thought, discussion, can write about theories from the Crazy Corner that have been proven or dis proven, and that story can make the main content section or rec list or what ever.

Over time one would develop a library of both, proven and dis proven conspiracy theories, readily available for reading? (Clicks and eye balls) Maybe dis proven could be regulated to the Wall of Shame or Hookie Hoaxes or simply Debunked Theories, so we don't “shame” people. Do we shame scientist for dis proven their theories? As noted above, sometimes we make new discoveries disproving other theories, which, has value for society.

If a writer publishes something crazy, instead of banning them, re-purpose the published article to the Crazy Corner, until they prove their theory. The community can weight in an be the final arbitrator (jury if you will) of facts, that prove or dis prove someone's theory, no? I think it could be a popular place with lively discussions, if we remain rooted in the scientific method.

To make a long story, a little longer, proving or dis proving theories, whether a conspiracy is involved or not, has real value for our society. How we go about it, speaks to how open-minded, and most importantly in my view, how committed to the truth we truly are. Can you handle the truth?

We can physically test the “pancake” theory, that the top floors of the towers had enough mass, weight and force to crush the bottom floors into dust. There are plenty of building around the world targeted for demolition, which could be utilized as “test” case scenarios. So it's possible to test the theory, just rather expensive for me to do so. However, less scientific, but none the less valid, are the many of building demolition fail videos on you tube, that one can see, generally, dis prove the “general relativity” of the pancake theory postulated in the 9/11 commission report. It's not irrefutable, not by a long shot, but there is enough visual evidence to peak ones interest and question what we've been told, which has more holes in it than a screen door left wide open, on a windy day. I'm just saying.....

The Crazy Corner, kind of catchy don't ya think?

PEACE!

PS: I have no intention of writing about 9/11 or any conspiracy theories surrounding it. We have bigger fish to fry, and get Bernie in the White house, no? Maybe some day we, as a country, will come together and have truth and reconciliation commission and know the truth of what really happen, who, what, why, blah blah blah. Until then, I don't want to engage in conspiracy theories, unless were sitting around, hanging out, legally smoking a bowl together. (LOL)