TIME SENSITIVE : Activists Called To Action : Meeting the Censors


Wednesday,May 25th 2011, 6:30pm
At the site of the 9/11 memorial, a forum is being held called, "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Why They Exist and What Role They Play in Society."


"Professors Kathryn Olmsted and Michael Barkun address broader questions of why conspiracy theories exist and how they should be viewed in the context of post-9/11 communities. Both have written books on the subject and will discuss the psychological underpinnings of these theories, their historical roles in shaping public opinion and how we should view or evaluate their relevance today".

Here's a video of Prof. Olmsted talking about her book on Conspiracy's.


ANYONE SHOWING UP SHOULD HAVE GOOD SOURCED MATERIAL>. BRING PAPERS and JUMP DRIVES with Data for the Speakers, should you engage them in debate.

So what are the 4 or 5 essential points/documents that activists should bring? Please provide links in this thread for the brave.

Just point out where they are wrong

See, it's so easy. They always use the same false talking points.

We are conspiracy theorists, first you state that this is a smack-down word only used for mythkeepers. Conspiracies do exist. A theory is a modell to explain the world.
We have an agenda. No we did not, most of us once believed the official narrative.
All conspirary theories get lured together and are equally silly. No matter what you think of aliens, Ufos, Moonhoaxing, the Yeti, real-politics are common field for conspiracies, as revealed with Iran-Contra, Tonkin, OP Northwoods, so it's fair so say that real-politics conspiracies do exists and we have all the right to examine theories about them.
Conspiracy theories offer a simple world view. This is true for the official one, SCAD's conspiracy theories scare people to death.
You can not convince a conspiracy theorists with facts. This is true for the official narrative believers. No fact against their belief will be accepted.
Our main talking points were dismissed by...- no, they were not. Strawmen are usually debunked, but our main, scientifical points were not. Cherrypicking and "This and That" is no evidence for falsification. In fact most official narrative puppets will bring up the whole bunch of claims even NIST jumped away from. This is not science, it is belief. Point that out.
All of the points conspiracy theorists engage are minor, in an event like 9/11 or JFK you always will find irregularities or inconsitencies. Bullshit. This is the meta-holying of the official narrative, there is just no argument against it, you have to point that out, because it means they make a self-immunisation of their thoughts.

Did I forgot one?

For the academic people just point to:

Papers Listed in the February 2010 Issue, American Behavioral Scientist:

Matthew T. Witt and Alexander Kouzmin, "Sense Making Under 'Holographic' Conditions: Framing SCAD Research." American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 783-794.

Lance deHaven-Smith, "Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government.," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 795-825.

Christopher L. Hinson. "Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy." American Behavioral Scientist, 2010 53: 826-847.

Laurie A. Manwell, "In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 848-884.

Kym Thorne and Alexander Kouzmin, "The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent Legislation and Oligarchic Isomorphism in the 'Politics of Fear' and State Crime(s) Against Democracy (SCADs)," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 885-920

Matthew T. Witt, "Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 921-939.

Essential to challenge them on definition of 'conspiracy'

'Conspiracy theorist' has been used as a pejorative, a smear, a conversation stopper.
It implies a person is irrational, a lightweight, credulous, not to be taken seriously.
This phrase is the single biggest tool used to block huge numbers of people taking a closer look at official narratives.
I spoke to a guy in an architect firm who had signed up to AE911. He told me a majority of his associates at the firm had serious issues with the official narrative. I asked him why more of his peers didn't sign up? His reply: They are terrified of being smeared as 'conspiracy theorists' and what that will mean for their careers.' One brave soul signed up - eight others would like to sign but hesitate for fear of what that step would mean for their careers .....

We need to find a way to de-fang this 'conspiracy theorist' tool wielded by official story apologists.
The best thing is education, education, education.

The most important thing is to draw a distinction between
- real conspiracies (Enron, Iran-Contra, sexing up of Downing Street documents)
- nonsense conspiracies (aliens, UFO's, moon hoaxes)

This is the difference between Bush and Blair's conspiracy theory about Iraqis conspiring to hide MD all over Iraq: that was proved false.
A theory that little green aliens are hovering above us in UFO's. In Britain the Ministry of defence is the source of most of the UFO stories - it periodically 'opens its files' to a willing media about UFOs - thus keeping the crazy conspiracy alive making out most citizens are crazed conspiracy theorists.

One of Tony Blair's conspiracy theories....:

"Iraq oil claim is absurd conspiracy theory" - Tony Blair


...'' And how it turned out power brokers were colluding/co-operating/conspiring to further oil/business strategies......:

"Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq"


Excellent article on CT's by Dr Floyd Webster Rudmin of Psychology dept at a Norwegian university


"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. "

Well worth reading this article before attending the NY lecture.

Everyone living in or near...

... New York *please* consider attending this event with some prepared comments.

What gives?

When I filled out the sign-up form for this event on their website, via the link above, I received a confirmation e-mail from info@911memorial.org--but it said the time of the event was 2:30 PM on the 25th, rather than 6:30 PM. When I replied to this confirmation e-mail to seek clarification regarding which time was correct, it was bounced back to me, and I got a message saying the user was unknown. When I went back to their website, I looked again on their contact page, saw the e-mail address info@national911memorial.org, and thought I would try directing my query there. This time my message was bounced back as well, with the explanation that that e-mail account is full.

As things stand, I'm not sure which time is correct, as it still says 6:30 PM on the website. And I'm not sure if I'll be able to get through to clear things up. Fact is, 2:30 just wouldn't work for me. But I'd be interested to know what kind of replies others may have received, for any who likewise have tried to RSVP for this event.

There is one option

of action which would be absolutely devastating.. and that would be to bring several signatories of NYCCAN (survivors, family members, first reponders), and ask the host / lecturer if he/she would be willing to apply their deprecatory 'psychoanalysis' on them, or if they are entitled to something better than a blatant cover-up. They would be unlikely to bring up questionable theories, too, which would only have an adverse effect.

BTW, this 'museum' is the most likely candidate for a Sunstein-type project I've seen yet. It's very formal, and seems uncannily preoccupied with countering 'conspiracy theories'.

In fact, it seems similar to the Texas Schoolbook Repository Museum, doesn't it? History is (re)written by the victors. This is a battle for ownership of the 9/11 narrative.

An excellent suggestion... However...

... not many people following this site seem to be from or around NYC.

The 9/11 memorial can't even

The 9/11 memorial can't even get their buildings straight:


Also, as SnowCrash said, if someone from BuildingWhat or NYCCAN would be able to get involved that would be great.