    Dimitris Yannopoulos has a bee in his bonnet, fair enough, there is much
    to be unsettled by. He takes particular umbrage at my use of the term
    ‘conspiracy theory’, and seems particularly upset by what he sees as my
    dismissive use of the term. But if he reads carefully, he will see that
    I am probably as hardcore a conspiracy theorist as he is – I disbelieve
    the official story. The difference between him and me is that he is
    probably more inclined to following the various threads of
    misinformation than I. For me, it becomes noise rather rapidly; so
    rather than add to it, I prefer to allude to it. But since he has
    brought it up, perhaps I can clarify some of the problems, as I see it,
    with Hardcore conspiracy theorist of the variety Dimitris has included
    in his message. Not that I would necessarily disagree that most of it is
    possible, but because protagonist sincerely believe they ‘prove’ their
    case, and anybody that holds any degree of skepticism is an ‘unbeliever’
    of the religious kind.

    But really, everyone has a theory about how the world we live in
    functions: Muslims have theories, Christians have theories, and
    different political factions have different theories. None of these
    theories are proven, none can claim to be objective ‘truth’, we all
    distill the facts through our worldview, under the influence of our
    teachers, and through the filter of the media we pay attention to. We
    can marvel at the ability of the various commentators who possess an
    uncanny knack of spotting the peculiarities of an official explanation,
    but it would be good if they were also able to spot the inconsistencies
    in the analysis of the peculiarity pickers.

    Now the sample provided by Dimitris is as tight, concise and logical
    expose’ about the recent events as we can find, but even here there are
    a few nuggets that only foster skepticism. This is quite apart from the
    lack of consideration about whether some of the inconsistencies in the
    official explanation could perhaps be a result of goofiness on the part
    of the ruling elite. The premise for the conclusion is therefore laid
    before any consideration is given to the evidence, such as it is. The
    possibility that some of the misinformation is post facto is hardly
    considered at all. That a conspiracy exists to milk the event for all it
    is worth, to further an agenda.

    So let us look at the premise, it is provided by the introduction: ‘Too
    many people saw the hand of MOSSAD’ in the first attacks, so these
    latest attacks serve to correct some of the mistakes made in that
    attack. Well, perhaps. One gets the feeling that all we are going to see
    in support of such a conclusion, are more peculiarities. The writer does
    not have a smoking gun, and the evidence he presents suggests that all
    he holds is a water pistol. Such a grandiose conclusion requires rather
    more evidence than is presented. While the peculiarities indicate that
    we should be on guard against misinformation, the misinformation seems
    to travel in both directions. One hardly ever comes across a theorist
    that proclaims, in bold letters, that they were wrong in their previous
    conclusions. When they are wrong, they quietly drop that line and pursue
    another.

    But the introduction also contains a rather unique gem; why did they go
    straight to the CCTV tapes at Luton? It is a pearl. Why indeed?

    In this introduction is the indication why theorist are both useful, and
    useless. They are useful because they stimulate inquiring minds, and
    useless because more often than not conclusions the evidence points to
    are overstated. Time and time again, one breathlessly reads an expose’
    that fails to deliver the knockout punch as required by the premise.
    There is not a single piece of information in the entire post that would
    lead one to conclude, not suspect, that MOSSAD had a hand in the
    bombing. Yet it is an expectation that is generated by the introduction.
    They then wonder why people distance themselves from this lunacy. They
    are not proving the theory but ensuring it will never even be seriously
    considered.

    It is not surprising at all, given that most of these pundits, like
    western journalist in Baghdad, never leave their rooms in pursuit of the
    story. They rely on information coming to them in neat emailbox drops.
    One wonders why none of these alternative investigative journalists
    cultivate contacts that can give them the inside scoop. It will enhance
    their credibility. There is not a monopoly of news coverage, skeptics
    can cover events as well. Perhaps it is hard work, and many will tell
    you that it is financially unrewarding.

    They must believe that there is no financial reward for reporting
    unpleasant truths. A perusal of some of the ‘9/11 truth’ websites
    reveals a readership that is possibly the most dedicated there is. The
    9/11 truth movement generates enormous funds, little of which is pent on
    gathering and collating physical evidence, interviewing witnesses and
    following the trail the evidence points to. It is a purely intellectual
    exercise, no legwork involved in it at all. It is well known that the
    steel from WTC 1&II was sent to China. But before it went, it sat in
    storage for several months at an undisclosed storage facility. Before it
    was shipped, it was probably smelted. None of these avenues of
    investigation was followed up by the hundreds of alternative
    investigative journalist. It was assumed that nobody would possibly get
    their hands on a piece, or pieces of, genuine WTC steel. They just sat
    in their rooms speculating. In order to investigate, you have to do more
    than speculate.

    Now Dimitris wants me to spend precious time reading and refuting his
    speculations. It is not possible to read it because if one starts
    reading, you finds oneself skipping whole segments because it is so
    familiar we assume we know about it all already. You read it once, then
    find you have to read it a thousand times, because it is reproduced a
    million times. This is the problem with conspiracy literature;
    duplication upon endless duplication. Repeating it a million times
    ad-nausea does not ‘prove’ anything. How many repetitive ZOG articles do
    we have to read before they realize that we got it already?

    But Dimitris wants us to refute what is hardly proven; that we should
    find the theories ‘far-fetched’. No, they are well within the realm of
    possibility, but probably not for the reasons put forward. They are
    flags to lines of inquiry that can be pursued (on bicycles, taxis or
    other means of transportation). They cannot be pursued by geeks sitting
    in their rooms at home. Talk is cheap, and to date, all it is, is cheap
    talk.

    Joh Domingo