I'm not one to put much credence into conspiracy theories.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.
That's not to say I don't believe in cover ups or distortions that individuals may promote to protect their own deficiencies or lack of action.
Perhaps the biggest problem with some of these theories is that the internet has provided such a wide range of information that you can find a group or article to support any idea or view of history.
We naturally gravitate and give more weight to those articles that support our own pre-conceived ideas.
A well written article with a couple of eminent names thrown in can have us questioning some theory.
A quick google and you can have a completely opposite view.
How do you make sense of that?
The more you read, the more confused or more zealous you get. (I'm in the confused camp)
The more technical the article the more confusing for simple folk.
It becomes a case of 'my eminent person' is more credible than 'your eminent person'... but again that's largely based on a personal bias.
We discard or discredit views that don't fit with our concept of things.
In such cases it's not necessarily a case of... 'the more you read the more informed you become.'
History shows that there are numerous cases of folks swimming against the mainstream of thought that in the end have been vindicated....but that works as an argument for both sides of the conspiracy debate.
People can believe what they want to believe, or choose to believe...you'll struggle to change folks minds on a football forum with links at ten paces.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.
That's not to say I don't believe in cover ups or distortions that individuals may promote to protect their own deficiencies or lack of action.
Perhaps the biggest problem with some of these theories is that the internet has provided such a wide range of information that you can find a group or article to support any idea or view of history.
We naturally gravitate and give more weight to those articles that support our own pre-conceived ideas.
A well written article with a couple of eminent names thrown in can have us questioning some theory.
A quick google and you can have a completely opposite view.
How do you make sense of that?
The more you read, the more confused or more zealous you get. (I'm in the confused camp)
The more technical the article the more confusing for simple folk.
It becomes a case of 'my eminent person' is more credible than 'your eminent person'... but again that's largely based on a personal bias.
We discard or discredit views that don't fit with our concept of things.
In such cases it's not necessarily a case of... 'the more you read the more informed you become.'
History shows that there are numerous cases of folks swimming against the mainstream of thought that in the end have been vindicated....but that works as an argument for both sides of the conspiracy debate.
People can believe what they want to believe, or choose to believe...you'll struggle to change folks minds on a football forum with links at ten paces.