Conspiracy theories on the Internet and on the loose

We used to hear conspiracy theorists confidently telling us that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by agents of the Mafia/J. Edgar Hoover/Fidel Castro and so on) or that Elvis faked his own death. The “old school” conspiracy theorist didn’t pussyfoot around asking if things smelt fishy, suggesting that all was not right, calling for further investigation and so on. They came right out with it. By contrast, most 9-11 conspiracy theorists are amazingly cautious. They are long on finding holes in the official story, but short on the details of their own positive story.

It’s something to do with the US Government and perhaps something to do with the Middle East is the most common line. So, they call for more information and for further investigation. This was a sensible reaction in 2002. But we’ve had over five years of further investigation and the release of more information. It’s high time for 9-11 conspiracy theorists to put their cards on the table.

Even when 9-11 conspiracy theorists advertise positive views, these often turn out not to be as positive as their advertising suggests. Loose Change advocates the controlled demolition theory of the collapse of the World Trade Center, as do Steven E. Jones (PDF 4.77MB) and David Ray Griffin. However, the vast majority of their respective discussions concerns alleged problems with the al-Qaida-flew-planes-into-the-towers-causing-fires-and-causing-them-to-collapse theory.

All of these sources have much to say about problems with the received view, but they actually have very little to say in support of controlled demolition. Their main point is that the collapses look like a controlled demolition (or at least they do up until the point that you consult a demolitions expert (PDF 56KB) such as Brent Blanchard, when a variety of differences become apparent. Apart from that the controlled demolition theorists have produced nothing. Not a skerrick of evidence of preparations for a demolition, despite the fact that preparations would have to have taken weeks and would have to have been observed by many thousands of people.

It’s all very well to find fault with the official story. This is a useful exercise to conduct, to an extent. But rational people can’t actually be expected to accept a conspiracy theory unless they are presented with a clear version of that conspiracy theory backed up with evidence in favour of that conspiracy theory (as opposed to mere evidence of flaws in the official story).

This is something that old style conspiracy theorists understood. Internet conspiracy theorists seem to be so caught up in fights with officialdom, counter-conspiracy theorists and other conspiracy theorists that they have lost sight of this basic point. The truth may be out there, but telling us what it isn’t is no substitute for telling us what it is.