What I mean by that is that I don’t see everything as orchestrated or part of a secret global plot. I believe accidents can happen and that people can do terrible things unaided or completely of their own volition. But, all that said, I also believe that the rule “never let a crisis go to waste” is not an invention of Rahm Emanuel.
Political opportunism is rampant on all sides. And then there’s the just plain letting something bad happen to use for advancing agenda.
What I’m about to detail is all verifiable facts and not conjecture. I’m just going to lay it out then let you reach your own reasonable conclusions. I’ll also prime this topic with a response to 9/11 that has made less sense in retrospect and that is the invasion of Iraq that followed. Saddam Hussain was not at all involved in the attacks. The war cost the US trillions of dollars, 4,419 Americans lost their lives, 31,993 wounded, and that is not to mention the Iraqi losses. We traded that much blood and treasure for claims of there being WMDs—which our government knew were mostly or completely destroyed.
So what was the actual reason for regime change in Iraq?
But, before we answer, let’s get to some of the facts on 9/11. And, again, I’ll stick only to what is verified and not speculate beyond what is very easily corroborated with videos and news articles from the time. This is all things known according to official records, eyewitness accounts, and confessions on foreign television.
While the rest of the country watched 9/11 unfold in horror, five men were seen filming the burning World Trade Center towers from a white van, they were seen high-fiving, and appearing jovially celebratory from the New Jersey side. Their behavior was so totally alarming, and in contrast to what one may expect seeing the US under attack and with people literally being forced to jump to their deaths, that a concerned citizen reported it to authorities.
Trump said Muslims were celebrating in Jersey City. Not true. What he should have said is Mossad.
Later in the day the van was stopped by the police and these five men, Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari—dubbed the “Dancing Israelis”—were arrested.
These Israeli men were employed by Urban Moving Systems, a company that was also owned by Israeli national, Dominik Suter, and the men possessed items like $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock, they carried multiple foreign passports, maps highlighting New York City, and a box cutter like those used in the 9/11 hijackings, further FBI searches of this firm’s Weehawken offices uncovered a fraudulent operation with minimal evidence that it was a legitimate business. Add to it, 16 seized computers, and reports of anti-American sentiment among staff, including boasts about subverting U.S. media. Suter’s abrupt flight to Israel just before a second FBI interview, abandoning the premises with client property and phones left behind, only amplified suspicions.
Perhaps most damningly, in a 2001 Israeli TV interview on LaHadashot, one of the five men, Oded Ellner, chillingly stated they were placed in the U.S. specifically “to document the event,” a strange phrasing implying their prior awareness of the impending attacks. Which the FBI could not conclusively prove or disprove despite the months of detention and polygraphs, such led to the speculation—backed by a 2002 Forward report citing U.S. officials—that at least two of the five Israelis were Mossad operatives using the firm as a front. And officially to keep tabs on Arab extremists. I’ll let you judge if that is just a cover story or the truth.
Why we would ever believe him again, after the Iraq WMD lie…
Enter Benjamin Netanyahu. The day after the attacks, he was quoted in the NY Times as saying “it was very good” before he corrected himself and explained what he meant is that it would “generate immediate sympathy” that would benefit Israel. And it was a year to the day after this that he was pitching a war with Iraq to Congress, calling himself an “expert witness” and warning the legislative body of something that sounds so awfully familiar:
“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons—no question whatsoever.”
Netanyahu continued his case:
“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”
There was zero evidence found to support Netanyahu’s dire warnings about WMDs. I will let you decide if regime change in Iraq was an amazing success that has only led to peace and prosperity for the region. But 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq and Netanyahu was cheering this on—much like the Dancing Israelis. None of this says for certain that Mossad had foreknowledge or withheld vital intelligence so the attacks could continue and draw the US into Israel’s conflicts. But we did spend trillions for a war that did absolutely nothing to advance our national security interests.
Many of these men may do it all over again, but would they if they knew what they were actually fighting for?
And then there’s October 7th. Netanyahu has called this Israel’s 9/11 and maybe this an admission. Recently, before his untimely death, Charlie Kirk made an observation in a discussion with Patrick Bet-David about the incredible security perimeter around Gaza and surveillance, expressing disbelief that it could be breeched and openly pondering if an order given to stand down. This, wasn’t just speculation. Israeli intelligence had the Hamas incursion plan a full year before and didn’t act, according to the New York Times, and on the night of the attacks former IDF guards have said they were told not to do their routine patrols.
So was the terrorist attack on 9/11 allowed to happen to generate sympathy to later be exploited to further Netanyahu’s agenda as far as Iraq? And as an order given to stand down on October 7th, likewise, benefits the ultimate aim of Likud which is written in the original 1977 party platform, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the first Israeli Prime Minister born in what had been called Mandatory Palestine, was assassinated by a radical Zionist settler for seeking a peaceful resolution.
Maybe some see terrorists. I see a mother and a child, their lives as important as any other.
The recurring exploitation of crises like 9/11 and October 7th, paired with a history of deceptive hasbara, casts doubt on the credibility of official explanations, urging us to further scrutinize the manipulative tactics of those who may prioritize self-serving agendas over truth.
It has been twenty-four years since 9/11. I recall working in town, for a painter, hearing for the first time—and right after seeing the image of smoke pouring from the WTC and the airliner striking the second tower. The tenant of the house where we were working let us watch on his television. This was a moment of great uncertainty about what would happen next. By the end of the day my car battery drained from the radio blaring so I could hear the reports while we worked on the house exterior.
Much has changed since that surreal day in the fall. I went to college, and have worked various jobs—left the Mennonite tradition—got married, became a dad—witnessed the birth of my daughter and many things that twenty something version of me could not have imagined. And while I still drive Ford products and vote for the same party (albeit grudgingly), my worldview and perspective have evolved dramatically since the fateful day in September 2001. Many things I once thought were impossible are now possible and even likely.
I decided to write this reflection partly for anniversary and partly because Facebook has been flooding my feed with pictures of 9/11 and it is weird. It’s as if some bot farm is tasked with putting this in the forefront of our minds and one can only imagine why. It is most likely an attempt to feed availability heuristic, to keep the 9/11 attacks vivid in our minds—and possibly for the coming war with Iran. A propaganda campaign of those who understand that many Americans have blamed all Muslims for what happened on that day. Maybe the powers that be want to squeeze just one more war out of this day America stood still?
Maybe it’s just that I tripped the algorithms by responding to too many of the repeated claims about melted steel?
We live in the post-information age—a time when we may very soon not even be able to believe our own eyes due to advancement in AI technology, where our institutions have failed us and no source can be trusted. The mistrusted is earned. But the feeling can be misdirected and counterproductive. At the very least we should not just believe a claim we have heard because it fits our narrative. We may never know the full truth. However, we can do a better job forming our theories by employing a broader base of scientific understanding or real world experience to calibrate our judgment.
There is no doubt that the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy, we simply disagree on the full scope and nature of it. It was clearly used as an excuse to pass the Patriot Act and to invade Iraq. There’s evidence that Mossad knew in advance with the “dancing Israelis” reports and suspicious shorting of airline stocks before the attacks. However, it is as clear that Osama Bin Laden planned these attacks as a response to US wars and that—from an engineering standpoint—nothing is inexplicable about the events of 9/11 being caused by fuel-laden commercial jets.
The Conspiracy Condensed
Typical 9/11 conspiracies center around a mix of claims about melted steel, witnesses who heard explosions, an insurance policy bought before the events, or asking about how three buildings collapsed despite only two being hit by the 767s. They’ll claim all of the buildings were rigged with thermite and explosives, even that the aircraft were holograms. There is simply no way for me to address all of the theories and claims being made. There are excellent resources that provide detailed analysis and in-depth explanations. This list below is intended to only address a few engineering or physics related claims, not to make a complete and comprehensive response to all questions related to the 9/11 attack.
“Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”
This meme, used as part of the controlled demolition conspiracy narrative, is the very definition of a strawman argument. Nobody has ever said the buildings fell because the steel beams completely melted. But what can happen is that steel, heated by an intense fire and with heat protection material knocked off, will lose significant tensile strength. Ane a little bit of deflection—especially to a structure that was already severely damaged by an enormous jet hitting it—is all that is needed to explain a cascading failure and collapse.
“Buildings don’t collapse from fire”
This is not only another strawman, but it proves that most people repeating these claims don’t do any research nor do they think things through. High rise buildings have collapsed without fires, from design flaws or unaccounted for loads, and the list includes the 2012 spontaneous collapse of the Vieira Fazenda office block—which was due to unauthorized renovations that had removed key support columns and failure. Interestingly, two adjacent buildings, hit by debris during the collapse, likewise were reduced to piles of rubble. Then we have Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida, also in Brazil, that fell from just fire in 2018.
So, yes, buildings can collapse from just fire alone. However, in the case of the WTC, fire alone is not a requirement. Clearly the Twin Towers were struck by commercial airliners prior to the collapse, this doing an immense amount of structural damage, and that the reason why raging fires brought them down in the aftermath. As someone who works in an engineering related field, this is not hard to understand, we deal with sheer loads and also see the results of loads not being fully accounted for. There are no totally indestructible buildings, all are designed for a certain set of requirements and will collapse once the limits are exceeded.
“Empire State Building got hit and didn’t fall”
Next up is the comparisons by those who are clueless about structural engineering and failed physics. Back in 1945 a pilot, who was lost in the fog, slammed a B-25 bomber into New York City’s most iconic skyscraper. It didn’t bring down the tower and this fact is used as proof that the WTC couldn’t fall due to being struck by a much larger faster aircraft.
Different size, speed and building designs more than explain the results.
This, of course, is absurdity akin to saying that since a bicycle can’t go through a brick wall nor can a semi truck. Or that if you can catch a falling baby you should be able to catch a full-grown man.
I’ll let Grok explain:
In 1945, a B-25 Mitchell (35,000 lbs, ~272 mph) struck the Empire State Building with ~86.6 million ft-lbs of kinetic energy, causing localized damage due to its small size and modest speed. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand a Boeing 707-320B (336,000 lbs, 180 mph) impact, delivering ~3.64 billion ft-lbs, assuming a low-speed accidental collision. However, the Boeing 767-200ERs used in the 9/11 attacks (395,000 lbs) hit at 470 mph (Flight 11, ~29.2 billion ft-lbs) and 590 mph (Flight 175, ~46.0 billion ft-lbs), producing exponentially greater energy—approximately 8 and 12.6 times the 707’s, respectively—due to their higher speeds and slightly larger mass, compounded by massive fuel loads that caused devastating fires and structural collapse far beyond the WTC’s design capacity.
Do people really not understand that there’s a difference between the force of a baseball tossed and one thrown at 100 mph? Randy Johnson exploded a bird with a pitch and it wasn’t because the ball was rigged with C-4 or thermite. What is amazing is that these towers withstood the impact and stood for nearly an hour afterwards. Furthermore, a relatively small bomber hitting a completely different kind of structure is absolutely not a valid comparison. The WTC and Empire State Buildings rely on completely different designs—a 1957 Chevrolet and a brand new Toyota Prius are both cars, but do we truly expect them to act exactly the same in an impact?
“So, what about Building 7?”
What about it? The smarty-pants response to the analysis above is to bring up Building 7 which was never hit by an airplane. This is yet another case of half-truth. Sure, there was never a direct hit by a fuel-laden airliner and yet there was an impact of a collapsing tower and a resulting fire. Due to inoperable sprinklers and because available firefighting assets were pinned down elsewhere, there were fires on four different floors that raged out of control for almost seven hours. This, obviously, goes well-beyond any scenario a typical building is designed for. It really isn’t a big surprise that one fire heated structural column would buckle and lead to a chain of nearly simultaneous failures throughout the building. Once one goes the others (having also been weakened by fire) given weight is shifted to them by the failures down the line and as fast as the load is transferred.
Thermite is silent. The conspiracy theories contradict each other. And this is another frequent problem with these theories and points to motivated reasoning rather than honest inquiry or an unbending quest to find truth. So the so-called truthers who claim thermite was used and then cite the sound of explosions as proof are incoherent and unwittingly debunking themselves.
When all else fails just make stuff up, right? And that’s what conspiracy theory truthers do. Nevermind the eyewitness testimony or the actual videos, they’ll just say that those airliners don’t exist and no debris was ever found. That’s just false.
But first an anecdote.
Kee Bird, a B-29 Superfortress, was left in the Artic during the Cold War after making an emergency landing in 1947. Decades later, in the 1990s, a team of enthusiasts decided to dig this intact WW2 relic out of the ice and bring it home. Unfortunately, nearly ready to fly, catastrophe struck their mission, a space heater was tipped over and a fire started in the hull. The aluminum beast melted in half and the recovery effort doomed. It was the first I thought about the fact that such a big heavy thing could just melt away into a puddle.
Kee Bird Saudia Flight 163Fire can rip through and completely destroy an aluminum aircraft.
Airliners are big, but they are also made out of lightweight materials. After velocity took them through those outer steel structure of the impact zones, they were most likely as smashed as a crushed soda can. Much of the structure likely stayed within the burning buildings and was then melted away in the intense heat. But some of the heavier parts did go through, like the landing gear and an engine found scattered below. Commuters saw an airliner flying into the Pentagon and it clipped poles coming in, but of course not much remained recognizable as an airliner after it hit a reinforced concrete wall.
A few large pieces, engine, landing gear and a chunk of the fuselage went all the way through.
“But what about the passport found?”
They say fact is stranger than fiction and a passport of a hijacker being found may fit in that category. This has been used as proof of conspiracy and yet this is the least likely thing someone would come up with fabricating a narrative. Seriously. If they were pulling off a false flag on this scale I am fairly certain they would do better to make the details of their investigation seem plausible. The key is, nobody has ever said this is all that was found and in the violence of the collision it is possible that parts of the aircraft severed off and came through relatively intact. It is similar to straw found stuck in trees after a tornado. Yes, it is counterintuitive, but weird enough that it is unlikely to be part of a cover-up lie meant to convince us of nothing suspicious in the attacks.
“You forgot about the molten metal”
One of the frustrating aspects of rebutting a conspiracy theory is that regardless of how thoroughly one refutes various claims, the conversation will always be circular. This is because the evidence is not actually what matters. With conspiracy theory thinking the theory is what comes first. Evidence is accepted or rejected entirely based on if it fits the overall theory rather than the other way around. And thus when every point is answered there will always be yet another anomaly found. There’s simply no way to answer everything all at once: “A man who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
One of these small items and yet helpful to demonstrate a point is what appeared to be molten metal that was dripping from one of the towers before it fell. This goes back to the controlled demolition theories involving use of thermite. And just shows how such endless possibilities exist in a scene so big to come up with the unexplained. Looking at the WTC towers from the outside they do not look complicated. And yet, within them were many utility spaces and even electrical transformers to keep things running. There are many possibilities to explain these drips coming out the window that do not require a controlled demolition—perhaps an airliner made out of aluminum that became lodged within the structure?
This stream is assumed to be steel by truthers, but likely from the aluminum of the aircraft—see video link above.
One of the things being claimed by truthers is that aluminum doesn’t glow orange when molten. This is possible to keep their favorite theory alive after someone pointed out the obvious. But, while it is true that aluminum silvers when poured in small amounts or is white at the temperatures where it initially becomes molten due to reflectivity, there is a red glow becomes visible as more heat is applied and it pours red like any other metal when there’s enough heat or volume. So it is misinformation. An inferno from burning office furniture doused with tons of jet fuel will produce more than enough heat to cause an orange glow. So again the theory is based on incomplete knowledge and on pre-drawn conclusions rather than an open inquiry or honest pursuit of the truth.
“Bu-but explosion sounds…”
But eyewitness testimony and description is certainly evidence that can’t be dismissed—so what about the sound of explosions?
First, though, as a child I had witnessed an in-flight breakup of a twin engined airplane and from the ground it was really hard for us to interpret at first what exactly we were seeing above. Initially we heard the sound of what had appeared to be a laboring pair of small aircraft engines. Then, as we had started to observe like inquisitive boys do, what happened next didn’t make a whole lot of sense. The engines wound out and what was one airplane appeared to be two stunt planes doing acrobatics. It wasn’t until we saw papers raining down on the highway as we drove home that we understood the full weight of this horrific circumstance.
All that to explain that it is hard to find the right words for an experience way outside of our ordinary. I mean it’s absolutely nutty to think that a building owner saying “pull it” to the firefighters can mean anything other than an acknowledgement of the risk of this building—with uncontrolled fires raging on four floors for seven hours—may also end up collapsing. No, we’ll just pretend that a co-conspirator would just blurt this out for all to hear it. More likely is the obvious, he was saying to pull out those trying to save the building.
Finally we get to the sounds described as “explosions” in interviews. Going back to confusion about what we saw and heard the Sunday an overloaded airplane came apart over us in the church parking lot—we sometimes just don’t have the most correct or precise technical language. And, while there are theories on aluminum explosion, what is most likely is that people heard the incredible sound of the tons of steel and concrete smashing floor by floor. What is an explosion sound other than a pressure wave—a pressure wave which can easily be caused by the compressed air being forced throughout as the floors collapse one into the next?
All that steel and concrete would make such an incredible sound
The Johnstown flood was said to have had a sound like a “thunderous rumble” as a 40 high wave of water and debris flowed down into the city through a valley where the dam once stood. We wouldn’t assume that they heard literal thunderclaps any more than we would assume thunder is actual claps. The vocabulary for such large and catastrophic events just doesn’t exist. The scale of 9/11 was incredible, a size that was far outside anything else most of experienced, booms, pops or bangs don’t even come close to the noise this would’ve made.
Conclusion: Questioning Wisely in an Age of Doubt
In the shadow of 9/11’s enduring impact, we’re left navigating a world where truth is increasingly elusive, shaped by distrust in institutions and amplified by algorithms that exploit our biases. The “jet fuel can’t melt steel” slogan, while being as catchy as a fire on jet fuel soaked office furniture, oversimplifies complex engineering realities and distracts from more plausible questions about the events—like the foreknowledge suggested by suspicious stock trades or the “dancing Israelis” reports. These deserve scrutiny, but not at the cost of credibility through ungrounded claims of holograms or silent thermite. It’s not that we shouldn’t question the official narrative; we must, but in a way that anchors our skepticism in reason and evidence, not sensationalism.
The real conspiracy may lie not in secretly rigged explosives, but in how 9/11’s trauma has been leveraged to justify policies like the Patriot Act or deadly wars that reshaped the Middle East. By focusing on half-truths, we risk playing into a cover-up that thrives on distraction—and aid our corrupted institutions which very much love to paint reasonable objections together with kooks—we’re also missing the broader, more probable truths hidden in plain sight. Let’s instead honor the pursuit of truth by questioning wisely, and ensuring our doubts don’t undermine the very clarity we seek.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Anaïs Nin
In today’s world, discerning what is real from what is manufactured is a formidable challenge. Suspicion abounds, particularly among the political right, that groups like Patriot Front—openly fascist—are not grassroots movements but rather orchestrated operations, possibly by federal agencies. The MAGA base can’t even spell the word “fascism” let alone embrace it as a guiding philosophy. Yet, this suspicion fuels the leftist “anti-fascism” narrative, which is wielded as a justification for aggressive tactics and bullying.
Fear is a potent tool for control, and political operatives exploit it to manipulate public sentiment. When voter turnout wanes in critical demographics, staged provocations—such as groups wielding tiki torches to “Unite the Right”—can galvanize a larger, more powerful group into action. These events often attract a few genuine extremists, but their true purpose is to provoke a broader reaction.
A pony motor.
This strategy mirrors the “pony motor” in early diesel engines, where a smaller gasoline engine was used to heat and start the larger one. Similarly, false flag operations—whether orchestrated or permitted—serve as catalysts for sweeping agendas, such as justifying military invasions of countries or enacting restrictive laws. While I’m not convinced that 9/11 was a government-orchestrated plot, evidence suggests some knew in advance and that it was exploited to advance a wishlist of wars against unrelated nations and to pass laws that would not have prevented the attack. This reflects the mechanics of how to “manufacture consent” in our modern democracies—where fear is leveraged to unify and control populations.
The creation of a common enemy is a time-tested method for fostering unity. During the Cold War, the specter of communism was used to rally the public. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Islamic terrorism became the new focal point. The 9/11 attacks, likely executed in part by Osama bin Laden’s organization, were real but were exploited to amplify fear. Domestically, this pattern persists: Democrats emphasize the threat of right-wing extremism, while Republicans fixate on “wokeism” and DEI initiatives. These are deliberate strategies, rallying points designed to consolidate support. Even more effective is provoking hatred from opponents—forcing one’s base to fight for survival and justifying the consolidation of power.
What do you think the point of The Handmaid’s Tale really is?
We Create Our Own Enemies
This dynamic extends beyond politics into cultural and religious identities. Jewish identity, for example, is partly shaped by what’s known as “Masada syndrome,” a collective memory of the Jewish defenders at Masada in Roman Judea (later renamed Syria Palaestina in 135 CE), who chose suicide over captivity. This narrative of the siege mentality is reinforced during the Passover celebration with texts proclaiming to the faithful, “In every generation, they rise up against us to destroy us.” Such beliefs foster an “us against the world” mentality, where hatred is seen as inevitable, reinforcing group cohesion.
Similarly, in the Anabaptist tradition that I grew up in, the reading of Martyrs Mirror cultivates a persecution complex. Likewise, Kanye West’s controversial remark about slavery—“When you hear about slavery for 400 years… that sounds like a choice”—touches on a deeper truth about locus of control. As my mother would say, “You can’t stop a bird from landing on your head, but you can stop it from building a nest.” Paranoia and defensiveness can alienate others or invite their suspicion, while believing you’re inherently excluded can lead to antisocial or even criminal behavior. It’s as if we seek to validate the fears that define our identity.
This pattern is evident in contemporary conflicts. Hamas, for instance, was probably willing to sacrifice innocent lives in Gaza to highlight the Palestinian plight—anticipating Israel’s brutal and disproportionate response. Yet, why does Israel fall into this trap? One possibility is that it aligns with certain political goals. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, facing corruption charges, may benefit from war as a distraction. The Likud party’s vision of a Greater Israel—encompassing Palestinian territories, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt—could also be a factor. Some speculate this violence is a deliberate provocation to unify Jews through fear, and possibly tied to messianic expectations.
Netanyahu is a Revisionist Zionist, this is their long-term plan.
This self-fulfilling prophecy is reflected in online discussions, such as an Israeli subreddit where users lament being hated globally. They attribute this to irrational antisemitism, dismissing the role of the Israel Defense Forces’ actions, such as killing children, which fuel international outrage. This mindset—“They’ll hate us regardless, so we might as well give them a reason”—makes them vulnerable to exploitation by corrupt leaders like Netanyahu.
Breaking the Fear and Control Cycle
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death.
Proverbs 14:27 ESV
We must guard against siege mentalities like Masada syndrome. By convincing ourselves that the world is inherently against us, we risk acting in ways that bring about the very persecution we fear. Focusing on external threats to define our identity can lead us to become what we dread, fulfilling a prophecy of our own making due to our own unacceptable actions.
Breaking this cycle requires rejecting fear-based narratives and fostering a sense of agency over our own actions and beliefs.
To guard against exploitation, we must shift our focus from the fear of man to the fear of God.
Human fears—stoked by manufactured enemies and self-fulfilling prophecies—keep us trapped in cycles of division and control. A reverent fear of a perfect moral agent beyond us offers a higher perspective, grounding us in principles of justice, compassion, and accountability. By prioritizing a divine wisdom earthly manipulation, we become less susceptible to the provocative tactics of those who thrive on our fear, fostering a resilience that unites rather than divides. Establishment of this spiritual foundation empowers us to reject their deadly paranoia and act with clarity, so we break free from those divisive narratives that political systems use exploit to consolidate power.
Conspiracies happen all of the time. It is not a surprise that people plot evil schemes and would be more strange if they did not. But it doesn’t mean that everything that happens is a conspiracy. Being old enough to recall the black helicopter theories and warnings of imminent UN takeover. Who can forget the FEMA camp claims and those pictures of ‘coffins’ Barack Obama’s administration would soon be loading us into? Strangely many dates come and go, but none of those who push these wild global plots come forward later and say, “You know, I may have been wrong about JFK being the Antichrist… “
Wild conspiracy theories are about political ideology more than evidence. It is oftentimes a product of those who feel disempowered and seek uncomplicated explanations. The left, for example, hallucinates nebulous things like systemic racism or white privilege. Not entirely claims without any merit and yet if it is used to explain every outcome—if you see it lurking behind everything people do—then stop, get some help! The fringe right likewise, turns to fantasy when reality is too hard for their simple minds to understand. Inflation can’t just be about the Fed printing trillions of dollars devaluing currency, no it must be fires at food processing facilities!
There is always a motivated misunderstanding of evidence that is involved beneath this kind of claim—a misuse of statistics and facts to form grandiose theories.
The common thread of conspiracy theories is that they can’t be disproven. They are all established on faith, firm belief evidence connecting all the dots can be found and can shape-shift as needed. If one part can be disproven they can simply move the goalposts or deny the evidence is legitimate. If someone does not want to believe that the moon landing happened you could show a Saturn V rocket, introduce them to one of the astronauts, thoroughly explain all of the alleged irregularities they see and they’ll still believe that it was faked.
It is a matter of political orientation, not facts or plausibility, and stems from assumptions and a general mistrust of the system.
To the conspiracy-minded folks, everything becomes a conspiracy, there can never be an accident, or a lone wolf attack, no such thing as coincidence in their world. Sandy Hook couldn’t be a deranged (drugged out) Adam Lanza. No, to Alex Jones it must’ve been a false flag with the casualties being crisis actors rather than real people. And some of those hunch I understand, this is what happens when every tragedy is treated cynically as an opportunity by control-freak politicians.
The real issue I have with Q-Anon, where all is a hidden criminal plot (and everything is going according to the plan) is how it sucks the oxygen out of the room for discussion of real observable corruption. The far-flung theories, worse, are used to discredit those reasonable concerns about the expansion of government power and proliferation of unaccountable agencies. We should be far more concerned with what those with power are ‘legally’ doing in plain sight—and not giving them cover of cockamamie theories they happily use to dismiss us all as crackpots.
That’s the irony here, the conspiracy theorist is aiding the conspiracy. For example, fact-checks of “Covid is a bioweapon” were used to strawman the reasonable questions about a possible Wuhan lab-leak. This is why we couldn’t have a serious conversation.
So why do the kooks need to speculate so far beyond the evidence? Why can’t they stick to what is known or factual, the most plausible explanation, rather than always having to gallop to the craziest possible conclusion? In some cases it might just be stupidity, that they simply aren’t very good at tracking normal human motivation. But in many cases, it is just a form of resentment, they are unserious people—with a massive inferiority complex—who both need to distinguish themselves and also discredit those who did attain more.
It is basically the working-class equivalent of pulling the race-card.
And yet this is not entirely without cause.
They’ve endured globalism, they have seen their jobs outsourced, prices rise and wages stagnate. This was not the America that was promised to them. A place where their own dreams would be the limit. They see things going the wrong way, opportunities drying up for people like them, as a flood of new faces replace the familiar. There has been a sort of conspiracy against them, but not in the way they imagine. Yes, in many ways, they have been screwed over by their betters—so perhaps that is where the deep suspicion originates?
Irregular Ideation 