Robert Bidinotto's article, “It’s a Conspiracy”, is now on the web. (An earlier
version, preceding the TNI print version, was posted on his blog, where I first
wrote a response. The TNI link is below.) I sent the following comments to
Bidinotto and the editors and publishers of TNI,

_____________


To the Editors and Publisher:

Comments on Bidinotto’s “It’s a Conspiracy”


An article like Bidinotto’s “It’s a Conspiracy”, in an objectivist
magazine, can only be taken seriously if it were intended as a parody —
a parody of an article written with unchecked premises and unexamined
prejudices, aiming to dismiss rather than dispute, to intimidate rather
than inform, to ridicule rather than reason. The article rests its whole
case on a key term that it never defines explicitly. Yet the meaning
implicit in the article is: “A conspiracy theory is a theory that
challenges the official, mainstream, conventional, orthodox version”,
with the assumption that all alternate theories are false. By this
definition, objectivism’s challenge of the mainstream is a “conspiracy
theory”, and so is Bidinotto’s own “Eco-not”.

Thus, the article begs the question (in regards to 9/11):

All conspiracy theories are false and should be ignored (rejected,
dismissed, ridiculed).
Alternatives to the official mainstream version of the 9/11 events are
all conspiracy theories.
Therefore, all 9/11 conspiracy theories are false and should be ignored.

The unproved premise, assumed to be true, is: All conspiracy theories
are false. Nowhere in the article is there refutation of any of the
offered examples of conspiracy theories. Even if most of the examples
can be proved to be false, it doesn't show that all “conspiracy
theories” are false, merely by being labeled as such.

The article, by not defining “conspiracy theory”, finds it easier to
convey a pejorative connotation — such that by merely labeling as a
“conspiracy theory”, it tries to automatically make any criticism of the
official theory be unworthy of respect and consideration.

It’s evident that the article’s main object of attack and ridicule is
anyone who does not accept, but, instead, challenges the official
government version of what happened on 9/11. The inclusion of “UFO
aliens”, “JFK”, “Diana”, etc. (theories about which rest on very little
evidence), are only attempts to muddy the waters of 9/11. (That the
Roosevelt administration and their supporters were complicit in the
Pearl Harbor attack is becoming even more evident and documented; see
Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.)

The psycho-social explanations proposed in the article about why people
believe in conspiracy theories are part of the distraction from the real
issue of whether a particular theory is true or false or undetermined.
The far-fetched and disparaging characterizations also form part of the
overall intimidation. But the characterizations are, at best, only
over-generalizations of the worst cranks of any movement, and attempt to
dismiss the possibility that there might be rational, independent
investigators and critics of official theories who are seeking the truth
about the multitude of suspicious and contradictory claims in the
official version.

Bidinotto's article is merely a featherweight answer against the
mountain ranges of evidence compiled by scholars, scientists, and
researchers in dozens of heavily referenced books (as well as on scores
of websites devoted to investigating and exposing the official version
of 9/11, which itself is actually also a “conspiracy theory”). It is
clear that the article is an uncritical acceptance of, and unqualified
support for the mainstream conspiracy theory.

I, myself, have studied, and am studying, several of the leading works,
which any 9/11 truth seeker (or political historian) should consult
rather than unquestioningly accept the government official version (as
endorsed by the biased 9/11 Commission Report, which I've also read).
Did the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 look counter-intuitive, unlike
all falling structures you may have seen in your life, except in
controlled demolitions? See video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9+11+mysteries&hl\
=en
Was it multiple coincidences and massive incompetence that made the
American air defense break down, incredibly, only on that morning? See
my post of all the coincidences, at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Owl_objectivists/message/204

Begin with this empirical evidence and start your own investigation.
That was how I began. Among the works I've studied are:

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions by David Ray Griffin
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration
and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin
The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism by
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
The War on Freedom: How and Why America Was Attacked, September 11, 2001
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 by Barrie Zwicker
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of
the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert
9/11: Press For Truth by Paul Thompson, et. al.


In short, “It’s a Conspiracy” fails in argument to persuade the
independent thinker to dismiss and ignore the critical theories about
9/11. Instead, the article tries to use ridicule and intimidation to
discourage the reader from investigating the truth. (An intriguing point
of departure to pursue would be: why does the author want to accept the
official version so unquestioningly? Did he not, at one time, question
and reject the official, conventional version of morality: altruism? Did
he not also become an “Eco-not”?)

The article’s only attempt to answer the critics of the official version
of 9/11 is his reference to the Popular Mechanic’s straw-man, me-too-ing
article, which has, in turn, been refuted by many 9/11 investigators:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm
http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html

"It's a Conspiracy" reminds me of the many anti-Rand articles, whose
authors read very little of Rand, but who try not to refute her ideas,
but to misrepresent, smear, and ridicule them so as to discourage people
from reading her works for themselves. That the "...Conspiracy" article
was written by an objectivist intellectual and published in an
objectivist magazine is either a huge unfunny joke, or is a sign of
incipient corruption that truth-seekers should expose and condemn before
it spreads. The truth, or lies, of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory
are vitally important -- important because wars are being fought with
its justification, lives and wealth lost, and liberty infringed because
of it.


Monart Pon


______________


Bidinotto's “It’s a Conspiracy” is posted at
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1820-conspiracy_theory.aspx