"The 9/11 conspiracy is a perfect example, and was intended to be so. The perpetrators of that crime were already aware in advance that the best way to elude discovery of the true facts was to evoke the construction of conspiracy theories, which the general population would see as the imaginings of nutters. Thus it was possible to get general acceptance of the official story by default, even though it does not stand up to close scrutiny."
So we are asked to believe not only that the conspirators worked out a plan that could be kept secret, but also that the conspirators designed the secret so that anyone who leaked the secret would be disbelieved. And not just because the story looked implausible, but because the story would look just like a classic conspiracy theory.
This seems like a lot of extra trouble. What I think makes a lot more sense is to design a decoy conspiracy, which conspiracy theorists will easily believe and everyone else will regard as a joke. This will subsequently make it a lot harder for anyone who uncovers the real conspiracy to make it look plausible.
So even those who agree with derekcolman that the official story doesn't stand up to close scrutiny should try not to be misled by the false clues that the conspirators may have created, which are designed to distract even the most dedicated conspiracy theorists. In other words, even if there was a conspiracy, it isn't necessarily the one that the conspiracy theorists think they have uncovered.
Perhaps official stories never stand up to scrutiny. This is because officials always want to tidy up the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment