Another CT hit piece

Be the 1st to vote.

As 9/11 approaches, the shills are out warning of the dangers of thinking for oneself. I made a comment…you should too! It might even get published (watch for ghosting).

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. Thanks to the CIA and those that made it a pejorative, I have invented a new name: fakeologist.

I study media fakery. I let the reader make his own conclusions. Mine indicate that there is rampant manufacturing of news as entertainment by the same process.

Incidentally, a conspiracy is required in order to bring a charge and therefore a case to court. To prove or disprove the the case, a theory must be established.

Therefore, all those involved in the law are conspiracy theorists. Does that make them kooks too?

Your article did nothing to move me from my position that 9/11, NASA, and nuclear are all frauds. Pity thinking people get scared by articles like yours before investigating for themselves.

For every major event, there is usually a theory that argues it was due to a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are seemingly more popular than ever, so how do supposedly rational people get caught in their tangled webs?

via Conspiracy theories: the science behind belief in secret plots | Dean Burnett | Science | theguardian.com….

Update: 16:00h

Here’s another really weak conspiracy piece on Christians: www.salon.com…

Another one saying Syria “truthers” are nuts:

blog.foreignpolicy.com…

They’re really cranking up the anti-conspiracy stuff with 9/11 coming this week.

3 thoughts on “Another CT hit piece

  1. lux

    The author says, “Conspiracy theories are seemingly more popular than ever” which would mean that the author’s way of viewing the world, i.e., with head firmly planted up into a dark place, must therefore be LESS popular than ever. I think he’s right about that. 🙂

Leave a Reply