Conspiracy Theories That Demand the Truth (10/18/06)
by Dean Hartwell
Recently, Bill Maher, who is right on just about every other issue, used part of his show, Real Time, to mock conspiracy theories. He said that the government could not bungle its response to Hurricane Katrina AND conspire to attack the United States on 9/11.
Like so many in the mainstream media (including the otherwise fabulous The Week, which in its September 22, 2006 edition called believers of conspiracy theories “nuts”[1]), Maher misunderstands how conspiracies take place. A conspiracy is a plan between two or more individuals to commit a crime. Focusing on the key word “plan,” the participants work together well ahead of the crime to make it work.
Those who disagree with conspiracy theories, whether it be 9/11, the Kennedy assassinations, or whether we landed on the moon, bring up the same arguments. While sometimes the arguments work against weak conspiracy theories (like the allegedly fake moon landing), they fall flat when the evidence for the conspiracy theory stands tall.
A frequently heard criticism of conspiracy theories is that “someone would talk.” They mean to say that someone within the conspiracy would reveal the truth to the world about what had happened. There are several things wrong with this argument.
For one, people chosen for conspiracies are not picked at random. Masterminds of secret plans do not trust the secrets with those whom they do not know and with those whom they have doubts about. Participants are already loyal to the cause, for there is no time to educate them about it. This loyalty, and the fear of being outed as a traitor, deter against leaks.
Perhaps the conspiracy theory critics are thinking about other instances in which people from secretive groups have talked. A friend told me about an occasion in which several tourists from the United States visited a South American nation. Many did not know one another ahead of time but they wound up traveling together. Someone in the group discovered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of money. Others in the group found out about it and they all decided to split the money. With no loyalty to bring them together and with the randomness in how they got to be together, someone talked to the authorities.
For another, several groups of people, loyal to one another, have kept secrets in the United States. Hundreds kept quiet about the hydrogen bomb for years before we used it on Japan. The masterminds fed limited information to all of those who helped to build the bomb so that most of them had no idea what they were building.
Likewise, for similar reasons, other groups kept the secrets about the U-2 spy plane and the B-2 bomber before they appeared publicly. As for the U-2, it was sent to spy on the then-Soviet Union and it crashed there. The Soviets did not have surface-to-air missiles to stop the U-2 and had to rely upon radars and laser beams, a confirmation that no leak had occurred.[2]
And, if someone does talk, how do we know if they are legitimate or not? Maybe they just want their fifteen minutes of fame. For example, a man named James Files confessed a number of years ago to shooting President Kennedy from the “grassy knoll” in Dealey Plaza in Dallas. Believers in the non-conspiratorial theory were quick to denounce him.[3] Some Internet sites believe him. The key is that there is no consensus. So what do conspirators have to worry about, anyway?
Some say the government performed incompetently in handling Hurricane Katrina. While it is true that the government performed poorly at all levels to respond to this disaster, it is also true that many of our leaders did not care about it too much.
President Bush, when alerted about the Hurricane (which he should have known was going to hit), continued his golf game and political campaigning.[4] His FEMA director, Mike Brown, was allegedly busy complaining that he could not service at a restaurant when informed of the magnitude of the disaster.[5] Secretary of State Condi Rice was buying a new pair of shoes and couldn’t be bothered.[6]
This was not the only hurricane during Bush’s time in office. In President Bush’s brother’s home state of Florida, the federal government responded promptly when hurricanes struck there. It seems the government can be competent when it wants to be. After all, the government (via the CIA) has overthrown several foreign leaders, such as Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973, with little outcry from the world. The key is not so much competence but the degree of concern the government has in the outcome of its actions.
Conspiracies happen on a daily basis in the United States. One person cannot pull off certain crimes without some help. How do drug dealers know if the cops are coming? They rely on “look-outs” to stall and to hassle suspicious-looking people. I would know.
Years ago, I walked back home through an unfamiliar section of Long Beach. A black man approached me (a white man) and asked if I was a cop. He kept harassing me until I finally convinced him that my presence in “his” neighborhood was the result of a wrong turn. In any event, if he talked to a drug dealer about screening pedestrians who might work for the police, they conspired to work on drug deals. If they convince a police officer to avoid areas with high drug dealing, then the government becomes a participant.
Opponents of conspiracy theories have never explained to me whether they believe the official theory about 9/11. With nineteen hijackers allegedly working with Osama bin Laden to strike the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and possibly the White House, it sounds like a conspiracy to me. Perhaps these critics mean to say that they do not like certain kinds of conspiracy theories.
Unlike run-of-the-mill criminals, conspirators are a lot smarter. They don’t leave around memos or e-mails confirming the deal to commit crimes. They have apparent alibis. The really smart ones make someone else do the dirty work, just in case someone is watching. So don’t expect a whole lot of such obvious evidence from those of us who sometimes believe a conspiracy has acted to assassinate a leader or kill thousands of civilians.
Look for situations that simply cannot be explained any other reasonable way. Consider the eighteen-and-one-half minute gap in one of the “Watergate” tapes made by President Nixon in a conversation with aide H.R. Haldeman. Secretary Rose Mary Woods said she “accidentally” erased some of the tape and demonstrated in a famous picture how that could have happened. See for yourself whether you believe this explanation at this footnote.[7]
Experts have confirmed that the tape was erased in at least five segments by hand operation rather than foot controls, as Woods claimed.[8] We know the erasing was intentional and we know that Nixon and Haldeman were not discussing the Washington Redskins’ upcoming season. Even if we do not know what the tape says, we can conclude that Nixon and company covered it up to avoid embarrassment or perhaps even criminal activity.
Read the official stories, like the Warren Report and the 9/11 Report. See if the theory advanced makes any sense to you. Do you believe that a suicide hijacker would deliberately hit one side of the Pentagon when the other side would have killed ten times the amount of people? Do you believe the City of New York and the FBI had to send the debris from the World Trade Centers to Asia promptly, instead of submitting it for evidence? Do you believe two tiny fires in World Trade Center 7 could bring down the whole building?
Think for yourself. If, for some reason, these official theories don’t work for you, you are in the same spot that we who believe in conspiracy theories are in. There is nothing wrong with demanding answers to the questions that trouble us.