So, You Believe In Conspiracy Theories, Do You? You Probably Also Think You're The Emperor Of Pluto


Charlie Brooker
The Guardian,
Monday July 14, 2008

I've got a theory - an untested, unprovable theory - that the more interesting your life is at any given point, the less lurid and spectacular your dreams will be. Think of it as a balancing procedure carried out by the brain to stop you getting bored to death.

If your waking life is mundane, it'll inject some thrills into your night-time imaginings to maintain a healthy overall fun quotient. So if you work in a cardboard box factory, and your job is to stare at the side of each box as it passes along a conveyor belt, to ensure they're all uniform and boxy enough - and you do this all day, every day, until your mind grows so dissociated and numb you can scarcely tell where the cardboard ends and your body begins - when your daily routine is THAT dull, chances are you'll spend each night dreaming you're the Emperor of Pluto, wrestling a 6ft green jaguar during a meteor storm in the desert just outside Vegas.

All well and good in the world of dreams. But if you continue to believe you're the Emperor of Pluto after you've woken up, and you go into work and start knocking the boxes around with a homemade sceptre while screaming about your birthright, you're in trouble.

I mention this because recently I've found myself bumping into people - intelligent, level-headed people - who are sincerely prepared to entertain the notion that there might be something in some of the less lurid 9/11 conspiracy theories doing the rounds. They mumble about the "controlled demolition" of WTC 7 (oft referred to as "the third tower"), or posit the notion that the Bush administration knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen anyway. I mean, you never know, right? Right? And did I tell you I'm the Emperor of Pluto?

The glaring problem - and it's glaring in 6,000 watt neon, so vivid and intense you can see it from space with your eyes glued shut - is that with any 9/11 conspiracy theory you care to babble can be summed up in one word: paperwork.

Imagine the paperwork. Imagine the level of planning, recruitment, coordination, control, and unbelievable nerve required to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. Really picture it in detail. At the very least you're talking about hiring hundreds of civil servants cold-hearted enough to turn a blind eye to the murder of thousands of their fellow countrymen. If you were dealing with faultless, emotionless robots - maybe. But this almighty conspiracy was presumably hatched and executed by fallible humans. And if there's one thing we know about humans, it's that our inherent unreliability will always derail the simplest of schemes.

It's hard enough to successfully operate a video shop with a staff of three, for Christ's sake, let alone slaughter thousands and convince the world someone else was to blame.

That's just one broad objection to all the bullshit theories. But try suggesting it to someone in the midst of a 9/11 fairytale reverie, and they'll pull a face and say, "Yeah, but ... " and start banging on about some easily misinterpreted detail that "makes you think" (when it doesn't) or "contradicts the official story" (when you misinterpret it). Like nutbag creationists, they fixate on thinly spread, cherry-picked nuggets of "evidence" and ignore the thundering mass of data pointing the other way.

And when repeatedly pressed on that one, basic, overall point - that a conspiracy this huge would be impossible to pull off - they huff and whine and claim that unless you've sat through every nanosecond of Loose Change (the conspiracy flick du jour) and personally refuted every one of its carefully spun "findings" before their very eyes, using a spirit level and calculator, you have no right to an opinion on the subject.

Oh yeah? So if my four-year-old nephew tells me there's a magic leprechaun in the garden I have to spend a week meticulously peering underneath each individual blade of grass before I can tell him he's wrong, do I?

Look hard enough, and dementedly enough, and you can find "proof" that Kevin Bacon was responsible for 9/11 - or the 1987 Zeebrugge ferry disaster, come to that. It'd certainly make for a more interesting story, which is precisely why several thousand well-meaning people would go out of their way to believe it. Throughout my twenties I earnestly believed Oliver Stone's account of the JFK assassination. Partly because of the compelling (albeit wildly selective) way the "evidence" was blended with fiction in his 1991 movie - but mainly because I WANTED to believe it. Believing it made me feel important.

Embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you're part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgen and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time. You've seen through the matrix! At last you're alive! You ARE the Emperor of Pluto after all!

Except - ahem - you're only deluding yourself, your majesty. Because to believe the "system" is trying to control you is to believe it considers you worth controlling in the first place. The reality - that "the man" is scarcely competent enough to control his own bowels, and doesn't give a toss about you anyway - is depressing and emasculating; just another day in the cardboard box factory. And that's no place for an imaginary emperor, now, is it?

It's one thing...

To write hit-pieces like this (which all sound the same to me), and it's another thing for whoever is writing the piece to actually state our entire case, and THEN refute what we're saying. We have yet to see that. Also, it's very rare for them to state anything other than our theories.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

All hail the Emperor of Denialand

It sounds like Charlie Brooker is the exalted Emperor of Denialand. He’s willing to look past all this evidence,
and he’s willing to ignore the fact that all through history, people in power have conspired to deceive the masses for political gain. The difference in the case of 9/11 is the pure scope of the crime, although it’s arguable that Hitler and Stalin conspired to do much worse secretly.
He is able to deny this evidence because he hasn’t the imagination to comprehend that it is not only possible, but inevitable that certain people could conceive and execute such a plan if properly motivated.
If the Emperor could only imagine who stood to benefit from this monumental crime (think PNAC) and if he understood the motives of certain members of the extreme right wing of the American power elite, maybe he would empathize with those of us who feel compelled to ask difficult questions.
But in Denialand, it is easier to focus on a detail that seems like an obstacle then build a whole case around it. This time it’s the so-called paperwork, the planning and execution of the crime. Yes it may be a complex and complicated conspiracy but it’s not impossible with the proper motivation and skills. If it’s possible to conceive, it’s possible to execute.
The other argument that is popular in Denialand is that humans are unable to keep secrets and that some guilt ridden person would confess. Obviously in Denialand, there are no crime organizations or secret societies but in the real world, “omerta” or a code of silence is quite common.

God that's UGLY

I posted this comment:

This Video Interview is as important as the Zapruder Film.

An interview with a manager at the Office of Emergency Management who was in Bldg 7 before it was imploded. His testimony proves that the Third Tower was taken down with explosives. It also proves that there is a concerted effort to keep people from knowing the truth. It also proves Charlie Brooker is either very ignorant or a conning liar.

Be sure to watch both parts. BRACE YOURSELF!

Jon, when I first read that

Jon, when I first read that you don't believe in CD; for me it was like a minister telling me he doesn't believe in God. At this stage I don't think there is anyone that can change your mind on this. I read a recent post of yours stating that this is used to ridicule us as it is so easy to refute. Verily I say to you, as soon as the NIST releases its report that fires caused the collapse, they will be the laughing stock of the world, and i can't wait.


Isn't a religion. I'm not a priest. I am an every day American who if we weren't lied to about 9/11, would probably be on an island somewhere enjoying life.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Who is Charlie Brooker?

On October 24, 2004, he wrote a column on George W. Bush and the forthcoming 2004 US Presidential Election which concluded:
“ John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, Jr. - where are you now that we need you? ”
The remark was picked up by the Drudge Report website, which ran it as a headline. The matter was immediately referred to the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., who allegedly contacted both Drudge and Brooker over what was regarded by some to be an incitement to murder the President, although in the introduction to his book Dawn of the Dumb, Brooker denies that the secret service ever contacted him, saying that "they have better things to do".[5]
The Guardian quickly withdrew the article from its website and published and endorsed Brooker's apology.[6] He has since commented about the remark in the column stating:
“ I ended a Screen Burn column by recycling a very old tasteless joke (a variant of a graffiti I first saw during the Thatcher years), and within minutes half the internet seemed convinced The Guardian was officially calling for assassination. My inbox overflowed with blood-curdling death threats, and it was all very unfunny indeed - a bit like recounting a rude joke at a dinner party, only to be told you hadn't recounted a joke at all, but molested the host's children, and suddenly everyone was punching you and you weren't going to get any pudding. I've had better weekends. [7] ”

Maybe this hit piece is to make amends for the other HIT piece.

Maybe not. It doesn't matter. Even though he makes provocative comments, he is in the mainstream media. He is a comedy writer.

When it comes to smart comedians, I will go with George Carlin. He was the best.

He was cynical about a new investigation, but he questioned the official 911 conspiracy theory.

Thanks to JR for getting this priceless video. Great work!

>>Maybe this hit piece is to

>>Maybe this hit piece is to make amends for the other HIT piece. Maybe not. It doesn't matter.

It's interesting to see -- thanks for the excerpt and research -- because it tells us that something is up. Either he's stupid enough to have told that sort of a "joke", in which case he's an idiot, or he's not, in which case he's part of the propaganda team.

Either way, this tells us the UK press is still *working* to try to clean up the BBC mess.