About In This Together.
I’m Ian Davis and I’m one of those conspiracy theorists.
When your eyes have rolled back, assuming you’re still on this page, which of course you are because otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this, I’d love the opportunity to clarify that statement.
The term “conspiracy” is a perfectly sound legal concept used to describe a crime committed by two or more individuals. It refers to a plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. It merely considers the action of plotting or conspiring.
And yet when I said I’m a conspiracy theorist that is probably not what sprang to mind, is it?
You probably thought I’d got a kangaroo loose in the top paddock and a plan to convince you that Obama is an Alien, the Queen is a lizard and the only thing between us and the apocalypse is our ability to cover our heads in lettuce and sing a rousing rendition of “Keep The Red Flag Flying” to stop our brains being melted by space rays (give me time.)
Yet, had I said the same in August 1964, you probably wouldn’t have assumed anything other than I was expressing a concern about the possible existence of unlawful or harmful plots. Something that pretty much every person on earth accepted as entirely plausible.
So why, today, does the term “conspiracy theorist” imply some sort of lunacy?
In September 1964 the Warren Commission Report into the alleged plot to assassinate President Kennedy was published. More pertinently, as the report was released, the C.I.A sent a directive to its bureaus called Countering Criticism of The Warren Commission Report.
In that directive the C.I.A outlined a number of techniques that “should” be used to counter any criticism of the state’s narrative of events.
These included the planned repetition of statements such as “no new significant evidence has emerged” no matter who was highlighting such evidence or how much there was of it; stating that critics overvalue some elements and ignore others; suggesting that it would be impossible to conceal a large scale conspiracy in a democracy; suggesting that critics are afflicted with an overabundance of intellectual pride and “fall in love” with theories;
The directive also instructed people to “employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics.”
Honestly! I shit you not.
Of course many will say that this is manna from heaven for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. Which of course it is. Not least of all for the fact that we see these techniques in operation whenever a startled conspiracy theorists slips through the security net and gets themselves into the mainstream media (usually to be slandered of course.)
But the point is this. There is documented evidence that the C.I.A issued this directive. Follow the link and read it for yourself.
Now conspiracy theory is a broad church and, just like any other church, it has its fair share of zealots and, to be frank, nutters.
However the vast majority are not. They come from any and all walks of life ranging from 4 star Generals to working class monkeys like me. They are not unified by any one political, religious or intellectual dogma. Generally speaking the only unifying factor is a shared moment of realisation.
All, no matter who they are or where they come from, arrive at the singular realization that the official story does not add up. The balance of evidence suggests that what they are being told is the truth is, in fact, a lie.
My moment came shortly after another, far more shocking one.
I stood with my colleagues on September the 11th 2001 watching, in utter horror, as the twin towers and building 7 collapsed. Immediately I felt a sense of unease. What I had witnessed appeared to me to be a controlled demolition.
I couldn’t imagine how the terrorists had managed to plant the charges but, my senses told me, they must have done so.
Like many conspiracy theorists I’m just a normal bloke doing an ordinary job. I am not an engineer or a demolitions expert, I don’t have a fantastic grasp of structural collapse theory or thermite explosives but, on that day, stood in slack jawed bewilderment with my friends and colleagues, I had a gut instinct that something was very wrong.
My concerns deepened as I, along with nearly every other person in the western world, scoured the news about those terrible events. As the investigation was rolled out by the media I could scarcely believe that not a single voice was heard even asking the question if explosives had been used. This seemed like such an obvious issue and yet, apparently, nobody did.
Still my moment had not arrived. I wanted to believe what I was being told. I believe in democracy, freedom of speech, the rule of law, justice and the essential benevolence of our society. I desperately wanted people to start talking about what appeared to be explosions. I’d seen many statements from eye witnesses, including fire and police officers, who testified to seeing and hearing explosions prior to all three collapses. But still the debate never happened, or so I thought.
A few months after the start of the war in Afghanistan, I became aware of an article written in the French paper Le Monde by Thierry Meyssan, which discussed many of the same questions I had. As I dug a little deeper it became apparent to me that a large number of people were indeed asking why the possible use of explosives had not been investigated.
Many of these people were engineers and demolitions expert. They did have a fantastic grasp of structural collapse theory and thermite explosives. These people were not crackpot mystics or terrorist sympathisers but rather respected members of civic society. They presented a wealth of evidence and raised a number of well balanced, legitimate questions.
I waited and waited for these to be addressed by the official investigation. I waited for the more illuminating elements within the mainstream media to start presenting the issues raised.
But it simply did not happen. The only coverage I could find that even mentioned the possibility of controlled demolition offered little more than vitriolic attacks upon the motives, and often the parenthood, of those asking the questions.
I couldn’t understand why everyone seemed so eager to dismiss entirely rational avenues of inquiry. Why were they so afraid to even talk about the clear evidence of explosions?
I knew that I was far from being the only person on the planet who thought it odd that the most obvious starting point for the investigation of the collapses had apparently been ignored.
Then, with stomach churning resignation, I recognised that the only way all those voices could be kept out of the official narrative was through the use of strict censorship and the controlled release of information. In a democracy, that cherishes free speech, this seemed to me to be totally at odds with the principles upon which our society is based.
However, what frightened me more, was the ease with which the vast majority could be manipulated into willing acceptance of this propaganda.
That was my moment of realisation.
Much like every other person who has set foot in the rabbit hole I faced a dilemma. Should I turn around and ignore my unease or should I keep peeling away the layers of the onion, even if it made me cry.
So here we are thirteen years later. I’ve been moved to set up In this Together and, for whatever reason, you’ve stuck it out to this bit.
I am not trying to convince you I’m right. I don’t know much, but I do know just enough to recognise that fact.
Seeing as you are still interested enough to be reading this, may I ask you one small favour?
Don’t believe something is the truth just because someone tells you it is. Do your own research and make up your own mind.
Ok that’s two favours but you get the point.
Take it easy.