Recent Headlines

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence
Investigate Waste, Fraud & Abuse at NIST
Entire February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist Devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy: The Case of 9/11/2001
Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers
Taboo News and Corporate Media by Peter Phillips
Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative
US Congressman Ed Markey gets a copy of 9/11 Nano Thermite Scientific report
Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for U.S. until 9/11
Drills successful planting bombs in 10 buildings, including DHS offices: GAO
Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’
Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?
29 Engineers: Only Explosives Can Explain 9/11 World Trade Center Destruction
Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11
Naval "National Center for Energetics" Records Of Pre-9/11 Nano-Energetic Materials Development, Nonexistent Or Destroyed
Much Of 9/11 Commission's Findings Cite Intelligence Garnered By Torture
New York Senator Gillibrand Supports New 9/11 Investigation
Daniel Sunjata: Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit...
Vice President Biden receives Thermitic Material paper
Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters
Marie-Paule Pileni (Bentham Open) and nano-technology
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

See no evil

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

See no evil

By David Cogswell

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3001.shtml

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Feb 27, 2008, 00:53

I recently had a conversation with a person I'll just call "a successful writer," and when I mentioned an idea that he classified as "conspiracy theory" he said this: "The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they really take a toll on readership. Many people write you off as a conspiracy nut and the result is that you don't get to have your voice in the mainstream dialogue."

Now that gave me pause. It was a slap in the face that forced me to confront the question: Why write? I had to consider the question of whether I want to participate in a dialogue in which one must wear blinders and observe strict boundaries to the free flow of logical discourse or thought. Must I stymie the flow of rational thought whenever I reach a point deemed unacceptable by the establishment? Let's be clear with our terms. The term "conspiracy theory" is not a literal description, it's a label for ideas that cross certain borders, in particular, ideas that suggest abuses of power and illegal activity by people in high places. Conspiracy theory is the label for forbidden thought. The problem with "going there" is not just that one can be proven wrong. It is that it is forbidden to even think about it or discuss it. If one disobeys, one is exiled from the community.

Well Said Mike!

"Many people write you off as a conspiracy nut and the result is that you don't get to have your voice in the mainstream dialogue."

Hopefully soon, anyone regurgitating the "official conspiracy theory" will be written off as a conspiracy nut.

HERE COMES THE BANDWAGON!