Conspiracy Theory: Correcting a Common Misunderstanding
Skepticism-skeptics think a true conspiracy must use the best possible plan, or thereabouts. But most conspiracies are carried out by quasi-state elements, so we can expect “good enough for government work”… And have you read court transcripts of private criminal conspiracies? Those are “stranger than fiction”, too (and often hilarious!).
Here is an example of typical criticism:
… when you read a couple of conspiracy theories, you start to notice a common flaw in most of them (apart from the fact that they’re usually driven by paranoia rather than fact). The flaw is that they fall apart if you reverse them. Usually, people take an event and work backwards to form a theory about what group planned it as a conspiracy. However, if you work from the opposite direction by taking the alleged group and asking if the event is the best way to fulfill their aims, the answer is almost always no. That’s how you debunk most conspiracy theories, simply reverse the process and work from plan to event, rather than an event to plan.
The smartest people are in the private sector. And there are always multiple, conflicting conspiracies (not all of them known). Conspiracism is driven not by paranoia but by cold logic (call it praxeology, not paranoia). And there are often multiple goals (not all of them known). Some conspiracies involve dupes or secretly assisting ostensible enemies (beyond just stifling foreknowledge).
For example, take one of the most famous conspiracy theories, the idea that the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre was an inside job by the US government. The theory is that the planes themselves could not demolish the Twin Towers, so explosives were planted inside them by the US government in order to provide a justification for the War on Terror. Now reverse the theory and work from the planning to the event. Imagine you are President Bush and you want to go to war in Iraq. To be honest, America isn’t exactly the most peaceful of nations and has been at war for most of its history so this isn’t too hard of a sell. No offence to any Americans reading this, but it’s not Sweden or Switzerland, invading a third world country isn’t much of a new step.
That’s just silly. The Spanish-American War needed casus belli, too. First, you write the Patriot Act, buy the bombs. And then “Never allow a crisis to go to waste“.
Nor is it clear why planes are essential to the plan. Surely when devising this plan they checked as to whether or not a plane actually can destroy the Twin Towers. If, as the conspiracy theorists claim, it cannot, why would they still use planes? If (as the meme mocks) jet fuel can’t melt steel beams, why would the CIA do it anyway and hope no one noticed? If explosives are the only way to destroy the building why not just claim that the terrorists planted the explosives?
Once again, it’s easier to secretly help the opposition succeed. This way, the basic story is unimpeachable.
If the whole point of 9/11 was to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, then why not use terrorists with an actual connection to Iraq? Why have 15 (out of 20) Saudi terrorists, if it’s really Iraq and Afghanistan you want to invade? Invading Iraq is by no means the natural conclusion from 9/11 so if it really was a false flag, they were making quite a leap of faith.
You work with what you have. And it didn’t end with Iraq, either.
The other bits of supposed evidence, when reversed, actually weaken the claim that there was a conspiracy. Another question that theorists ask is how did building 7 collapse if it wasn’t hit by an airplane? Actually, this proves that there was no conspiracy, because why would the CIA destroy a building and just hope that no one noticed there was no reason for it to collapse? Surely if they are going to fake an attack, they’ll fake an explanation too? Conspiracy theorists seem to view the CIA as evil geniuses and complete idiots at the same time.
Exactly! Conspiracy theorists do view “the CIA” as evil geniuses and complete idiots at the same time. Thank you!
And sloppy, half-baked plans by different groups, with improvisations on the fly, are exactly what we expect. (There is plenty of great material out there on Building Seven, for those interested.)
Then there is the matter that in order to execute this plan, you need to get the co-operation of the main security agencies pretty much as soon as you assume office. You will then need thousands of people to carry out the plan and hope that not a single one of them reveals your plans or has any qualms about murdering thousands of their fellow citizens. You will need everyone to completely ignore basic physics and engineering (if it is true that building don’t fall like that and planes alone couldn’t make them fall).
This criticism ignores the history of many proven conspiracies, including genocides, etc. kept quiet (or even universally ignored once known, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident — now known to be faked, CIA wars, CIA drug-pushing, etc.) and stovepiping. It ignores all the people killed for knowing too much. It ignores the extended screening and soul-corrupting process of even being in a position to know details.
Do you have any idea how many people had to keep quiet about the Manhattan Project? (And funnily enough, the extreme secrecy was counterproductive, causing the Soviets to start their own atomic bomb project.)
Often, the more brazen the actors, the sillier the lies. As if to say: “Oh yeah? Well, what are you going to do about it?!” (Even assuming people really care in the long term.) Besides, the government’s account of events wins by default, for obvious reasons.
And forget about the science of engineering. How about recorded TV reporting on the collapse of the towers before it even happened, huh?
To be clear, I am no expert on 9\11 or other, similar examples, but it’s impossible to know the full story behind most events, anyway (and who cares?). What is important here is the general perspective of realism, honest ignorance coupled with distrust of known liars (both certain actors and state institutions), contempt for academia, and “media criticism” gained by yet another illustration, yet another official story full of holes.
(This deserves more, but something is better than nothing.)