Bilderberg.org

[TonyGosling]

This is above all others the one MASSIVE cover up where producers may lose their jobs or worse. So much is at stake with a medieval way of 'protecting the royal bloodline' crashing and burning in the internet age.

God bless everyone who keeps Diana's memory alive.



* 1.
* At 04:58 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
* Richard - Bedford wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/12/the_danger_with_conspiracies_1.html

I suspect there is far more out there than we dare think of. Joe Public is generally given the mushroom treatment (kept in the dark and fed BS) - that's when not being spun by the Government gyrodoctors, and told is for our own good.

It takes something like the current radiation scare to bring to the surface just how little we know about what is being done to us, or carried out "for our benefit"

* 2.
* At 06:16 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
* Alison Peterson wrote:

Thank you for bringing this subject to the blog page. One thing sorely missing from the mainstream news regarding the September 11th attacks is actual *analysis of the evidence*. Wouldn't it be prudent for journalists to spend more time exploring the facts rather than attempting to define "conspiracy theorists"? Facts first! I am greatly looking forward to seeing how the BBC will address this immensely important subject in the year ahead.

* 3.
* At 09:05 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
* cairo wrote:

Funny. I heard the late Princess was pregnant with the late Boyfriends baby. So a half-arab might have become British Royal. Farfetched. Maybe hard to prove. But if true, I don't think 'they' could handle it.

I don't think people really care. There are no gray areas into personality. People will always say they are nutty theories, regardless of what is presented. On the same token, there are those who will insist on conspiracies even when there really isn't.

But if BBC honest, then you, the Journalists must becareful-for your own lives, and if your just pulling our leg, your just wasting your time. We stopped believing media before you were born.

* 4.
* At 09:23 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
* Herbert G. wrote:

Yes, yes, yes, we all know that Diana was killed by the National Trust on the orders of the Queen Mother because she was expecting twins and that the Duke of Edinburgh very mysteriously claims never to have owned a white Fiat Uno...

* 5.
* At 02:35 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Spir-An wrote:

It's good to see the BBC are covering this important and controversial topic, altho it remains to be seen how well. I have long been a sort-of-believer in conspiracy theories, altho it's a while now since I was actively involved in investigating them. IMO there is generally not enough intelligence or open-mindedness applied to the topic, by people either for or against conspiracy theories, and much of the 'debate' is sensationalist, prejudiced, closed-minded and unproductive. Unfortunately I don't watch the TV so I won't see this series straight away, but maybe I will thru some other means at a later time (any chance of internet broadcast/download?).

Good luck anyway. You are right to say "the issues and the conspiracy theories should be investigated by the BBC".

* 6.
* At 04:39 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Brian Brown wrote:

Watching the lastes news about the report into Diana's death, the reporter mentioned the people behind the conspiracy theory but did not mention names. Why not?
Also when someone makes such a claim which ALL evidence shows to the contrary why are they not prosecuted, especialy when they have named people in Buckingham Palace as being the insigators.
At present I am in Thailand and if anyone made such an unstabstanciated claim against the Royal Family that person would be dealt with very strongly

* 7.
* At 07:27 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Flack wrote:

There are many unanswered questions and like most conspiracy theories, the death of Diana points the finger of blame at the establishment. Considering this, it is highly unlikely that verdicts from establishment figures like a chief constable or the BBC are going to change many minds. It would be staggering if the BBC News department for example was not staffed by a fair number of MI5 agents; journalism is a natural target for infiltration for obvious reasons - a lot of inside knowledge and good reason to travel the globe secretly filming things. Can you confirm on the record you have never worked for MI5 or the security services?

I suspect the documentary will take the easy route of explaining away uncomfortable points as mere 'coincidence' or 'mistakes' - Diana's letter claiming Charles was plotting to kill her in a car crash, no CCTV footage of the accident despite the presence of cameras, carbon monoxide levels in Henri Paul's blood that would have killed him, British Embassy staffmember in Paris reporting being ejected from the communications room by agents who claim to have been elsewhere just hours before Diana's death, the other vehicle never being found, royal coroner appointed despite the fact Diana was not royal anymore... if there are still questions then the verdict of 'accident' will always be suspect.

* 8.
* At 08:02 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* J Westerman wrote:

Time may well show that one of the greatest conspiracies has been against our PM, Tony Blair.
The deluge of misinformation by his political opponents and their media about the Iraq war: a war they fully supported. The denigration concocted out of our connection with the USA: a connection vital to our interests and one that any party in power will cultivate.

* 9.
* At 08:34 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Phil wrote:

I have been quite sceptical about conspircy theorist previously until I happened to come across a couple of websites run by physists and scientist. The examine the physics,dynamics and forensics about the collapse of the WTC.I always remember watching when the twin towers collapsed and thinking how uniformly it all happened.The thought that there couldve been other forces at work didnt really enter into my mind until much later.
These were buildings that were built to withstand collisions from jet airplanes,and yet within the space of two hours,both had collapsed.If you view the footage of the collapse and then compare it to other footage of buildings brought donw by controlled explosions,the similarites are stunning.They are the first buildings in history to be brought down by fire.
9/11 happened in such a way that youd think it was orchestrated and then allowed to proceed.I have my doubts that it was done by a Muslim rebel sitting in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan who apparently is on dialysis.It also wouldnt be the first time the US has allowed terrorist acts to happen in order to justify a war against another country.
the web adresses of the above mentioned are www.physics911.net and www.fromthewilderness.com. If anybody is interested .

* 10.
* At 09:29 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Christopher Cuttance wrote:

Thank you for doing this. The one I am particularly interested in is 9/11. I was still living in America when it happened and experienced the full force of the official version. However, I did not get suspicious until I saw the video 'Loose Change'. After that I looked very hard at the events and have come to the conclusion that the official version now boils down to - 'pay no attention to the government behind the curtain'. When examined, the hubris and cold-blooded stupidity are hard to match.

* 11.
* At 09:30 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Robert Holbach wrote:

Conspiracy theories are so appealing because we increasingly realize that our governments are castles of lies.

Macedonians might remember the shooting of a couple of immigrants in a faked anti-terror raid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4299935.stm)

Europeans might remember the secret CIA jails and extraordinary renditions (definitely conspiracy theory material - until it turned out to be true). Americans might wonder who the highly classified unnamed prisoners of the US are. Brits might recall the dodgy dossier, and the rather convenient failure of all the CCTV cameras on the tube station and train when Jean Charles Menezes was shot repeatedly in the head by police who did not identify themselves before opening fire.

The sad reality is that governments, businesses, police forces, and all kinds of organisations will put their own interests and self-preservation, and sometimes protection of their members ahead of the truth, and ahead of public interest, at all times. So if we cannot believe them - and any sensible person should know better - who is surprised when some people start manufacturing their own versions of the truth?

Conspiracy theories live because organisations lie.

* 12.
* At 09:30 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Stu Scott wrote:

I'm glad you've pointed out that conspiracies are numerous (Watergate, Contragate e.tc.), and can be proven to be fact or fiction. The automatic conflation of the word "conspiracy" with "theory" pre-assumes that they will always represent something un-proven. This is only the case if left un-investigated. It's good therefore that the BBC will be investigating them and I look forward to the series.

* 13.
* At 09:30 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Stephan wrote:

Have you considered that conspiracy theories may do an important job, in that the obviously false and ludicruous ones do a good job of obscuring real "consipracies".
"Conspiracy theory" (and "terrorism") are emotionally charged words used to influence people's thinking about current affairs.

* 14.
* At 09:33 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Ben Holland wrote:

Wow, cool to see the Beeb having a look at what are somewhat derogatively labelled as conspiracy theories.

They come about because, as you pointed out, there are valid questions or contradictory evidence that are usually not satisfactorily dealt with and some endure because of the iconic events they are derived from (JFK, Diana, Moon landings,9/11).

There should always be conspiracy theories though because although they may be sometimes unscientific, misdirected or outright subversive, they are a means to get to the truth as the evidence that media institutions are not up to the job is pretty strong.

* 15.
* At 09:33 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Kalpesh Kerrai wrote:

I thnk we are at the point of absolute shame. Does no one remember the sayin REST IN PEACE! Nothing will change the events that occured but we could at least honour her great life without publising every little detail into the death. If not for her then for her Family.

RIP Princess Diana

* 16.
* At 09:36 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Mike Smyth wrote:

If someone states that they don't believe in conspiracy theories, they are either lying or incredibly ignorant.
Subterfuge is a simple fact of life, if you deny its existence you then deny the "raison d'etre" of MI5, the CIA the NSA and countless other recipients of massive amounts of public money.
The suggestion that if our Government or Al-Qaeda plan to do something illegal they would just come out and tell everybody (rather than conspire) is insane.

* 17.
* At 09:39 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* DAVID BENSON wrote:

These mainstream television documenatries that claim to 'explore' conspiracy theories always have a clear agenda to trash them - a particularly egregious one being a Channel 4 one on 9/11 CTs a couple of years back that demolished the most ludicrous theories but ignored many pertinent questions about the events of that day.

9/11 is now The Big One and the 'Official' explanation itself is a collosal CT: that fundamentalist Muslims planned an attack that somehow managed to circumvent the intricate defenses of the most powerful nation in the world. I hope that Mr. Rudin's programme will be will be taking this ludicrous conspiracy theory apart rather than merely concentrating on the wilder fringes of 9/11 conspiranoia. But I'm not holding my breath.

* 18.
* At 10:07 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Albert wrote:

What a stupid series to want to produce, the only people who actually believe these conspiracy's are the deluded, Islamic terrorist supporting Guardian and BBC staff.
Why not spend my taxpayers money on more important things such as, the crisis in Darfur, the treatment of woman in Middle East countries, Gordon Brown doing his best to concrete over England.
If the BBC wants to start doing investigative journalism why not start with producing the Bolan report?, now that is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of silence from the BBC.

* 19.
* At 10:18 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Despair of the BBC being balanced wrote:

Why does the BBC not investigate the killing of the Lebanon Prime Minister?, or perhaps the murder of the latest anti-syrian minister in Lebanon, I would think that the conspiracy surrounding these murders would be more relevant?, Oh hang on I know that's because these poor people are not members of Hezbollah or any other terrorist group, the only conspiracy I want investigated is the BBC and it's refusal to give balanced reporting in it's coverage of Islam and how Terrorists have taken over the running of places such as the Palastinian cause, Somalia, afghanistan, Iran etc, if the way people are treated in these places were reported correctly I would guess that the left wing brigade and guardinistas would get their heads out of the sand and start facing reality.
British Broadcasting Coorporation more like the British Bashing Coorporation.

* 20.
* At 10:19 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* MB wrote:

What about the aliens?

* 21.
* At 10:36 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* mordan wrote:

Please change the story with regard to DNA proving someone was drunk. This is not possible and you are fooling the general public. The Diana story does not scan as it indicates that the DNA was used to confirm a relationship to 'parents'. How you can put a story out like this is beyond belief.

* 22.
* At 11:03 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Martin Hayes wrote:

Conspiracism poisons political discourse, and should be combated by journalists such as yourself. Although there are sometimes conspiracies of men, which can easily be exposed, and frequently are, diffuse conspiratorial ideas are harder to muster a defence against. For example, that American foreign policy is always malign, no matter who is in the White House. I worry that even the best efforts of journalists to battle these "plagues of the mind" will not be enough to restore public trust in our institutions, which has become deeply eroded.

* 23.
* At 11:17 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Joe Chapman wrote:

PEOPLE LOVE A CONSPIRACY. FOOLS!

* 24.
* At 11:22 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Stuart Raith wrote:

If Government didn't lie to the people, the people would never distrust. Government does lie, and people do distrust. This is a truth, not a conspiracy theory

Stuart Raith
Lancashire

* 25.
* At 11:24 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Pete S, Sheffield wrote:

Whilst there may be valid questions surrounding the death of Diana, you can't help but feel the subject is stirred up by certain tabloid newspapers to sell more copy as they have realised that a front page with 'Diana' on it, will be bought by more people than one without.

* 26.
* At 11:26 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Iain McCallum wrote:

"...to examine the conspiracies surrounding the..." - that would be "...to examine the conspiracy theories surrounding the..." - right?

* 27.
* At 12:15 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Steve wrote:

Looks interesting. It's just a shame that a series investigating such important events as the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 has to be called "The Conspiracy Files", with its knowing nod to the fictional series the X Files (which dealt with government cover-up of aliens!)

To many people, that connection alone will imply (or confirm) how frivolously the possibilities of domestic involvement in 9/11, Oklahoma, etc should be taken.

In other words, it implies that it's all being approached from a decidedly biased "not taking this seriously" angle - even though I'm sure that's not the case.

Also, the fact that your investigations into these events are each being broadcast under the shared umbrella of Conspiracy, as part of the same series, rather than as entirely standalone entities in their own right (even though they each have a programme to themselves), adds to this sense that if you believe one you probably believe them all, and therefore you'd be a conspiracy theorist to believe any of them.

It's this subtle insinuation that conspiracy is somehow a separate concept that operates in its own sphere - entirely divorced from everyday life - that leads many people to view it all in the way you describe above.

As you say, the events of Iran-Contra and Watergate were once dismissed disparagingly as conspiracy theory.

And we have no qualms about lending credibility to the possibilities of things like this occurring in *other* countries - like Russia for instance.

* 28.
* At 12:16 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Tim wrote:

I do not agree that the BBC should report conspiracy theories - just because a theory is popular does not make it valid per se, and I would hate to think that a theory would be widely reported simply because it has been successfully propagated.
As a responsible news organ, the BBC needs to examine these issues as if there were no conspiracy theories on the subject and decide whether the evidence points to a conspiracy. If it does, by all means report it as news, but I'm afraid that most conspiracy theories don't allow themselves to be cumbered by such mundane things as facts and evidence when hearsay is so much more interesting.

* 29.
* At 12:25 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* David wrote:

Interesting conspiracy theories. I hope one on 9/11 is showed as about 42% of Americans believe that the US Government orchestrated the events which enabled them to illegally enter Iraq....

* 30.
* At 12:26 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Simon Nesbitt wrote:

Although many conspiracy theories can be a bit silly, others can be scarily convincing. I think that it is always valid to hear the argument that conspiracy theories put forward; you may not believe it (or want to believe it) but it is still interesting. In an age when our governments are gettting more authoritarian, questioning the official view can help keep a healthy level of suspicion on them.

* 31.
* At 12:27 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Mark Brew wrote:

I think there are some weight to many of the conspirarcy theories. Take 9/11 for example, There seems to be more evidence supporting the conspiracy theory than the actual story we have been told.

you must view a viral dvd / movie called 'loose change', certainly asks a few interesting questions!

* 32.
* At 12:27 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Gibson wrote:

Quote:The Oxford English Dictionary defines a conspiracy as simply “an agreement to perform an illegal or wrongful act”. End Quote:

To conspire actually means "breathing together" in other words "Of the same mind"

Here's an example:

Paradise cleansed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1317945,00.html

* 33.
* At 12:30 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Nigel Macarthur wrote:

A belief that 'they' are out to get you makes you feel more important. A belief in a vast conspiracy makes the world seem more interesting. Maybe that explains a lot of these theories. Or maybe we should remember what Woody Allen said...!

* 34.
* At 12:31 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Nigel Macarthur wrote:

Is Big Brother watching you? Or does he work in a non-smoking office and is therefore out by the fire exit puffing a fag?

* 35.
* At 12:50 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Steve Wall wrote:

I think the term "conspiracy theorists" really applies to those that have an irrational belief in conspiracies rather than those that justifiably "smell a rat". A distinction akin to fear and phobia.

Being afraid of huge dogs is not a phobia. Believing the 1969 moon landing was an elaborate fraud makes you a conspiracy theorist.

It is therefore important that the BBC does not use its considerable international reputation to give credence to all conspiracy theories.

There seems to be an evolved requirement within the human mind to find a cause for everything, often fruitlessly looking for why random accidents occur (or why I missed the plane that crashed and was saved). Conspiracy theorists seem to be combining this with paranoia and distrust of authority - which in investigative journalists is healthy and required.

The BBC must discriminate between these groups - not argue that one is simply a post rationalised version of the other.

* 36.
* At 12:56 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. wrote:

I am very much looking forward to your 9/11 episode.

It will be interesting to see how you and the BBC portray our very real concerns regarding many unanswered questions regarding the tragic events on 9/11.

I would like to draw your attention to my latest presentation at Berkeley, where breaking scientific evidence is presented (Nov 11).

Professor Steven E Jones Lecture at UC Berkeley Campus


I also urge you to watch the excellent and newly released documentary "9/11 Mysteries", this can be viewed for free on Google Video HERE


You may also be interested in Dr David Ray Griffins' testimony at the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington DC, which deconstructs the official theory.

Many thanks for your time and valued interest.

* 37.
* At 01:17 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Darren wrote:

I can't believe it's taken the BBC this long to make a programme based on conspiracies. Can't wait to see this.

* 38.
* At 01:26 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* John Geraghty wrote:

I look forward to viewing the series as I too am not well acquainted with the facts surrounding Diana's death.
I am especially enthused about the idea of some form of investogation into the death of David Kelly followin the news that a Lub Dem MP is conducting his own investigation.

John Geraghty

* 39.
* At 01:28 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Bill wrote:

Considering a recent respected news poll in the Arab world where 55% of those interviewed completely believed that the US was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks and or that they never actually occured as portrayed - so that the US could attack Muslims, well, perhaps more than we want to admit believe in at least one conspiracy theory...

* 40.
* At 01:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* jessica freeburn wrote:

we look forward to the programme but hope that it can then all be put to bed.
The whole thing has become a bore. Bautiful young women die every day, very sad, but irreversible.

Think of her sons - Diana's best legacy and gift to the monarchy.

* 41.
* At 01:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Elias wrote:

Many conspiracy theories have been shown to be true, so I certainly think they are worth looking at and considering. I certainly believe that the current line on 9/11 will change soon as the 'conspiracy theory' is so much stronger then the official line. To what extant the 'conspiracy theory' will turn out to be true I couldnt tell you, but I definatly think there are large elemants of truth in it.

* 42.
* At 02:34 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* nehad ismail wrote:

I don't believe for one second that there was a conspiracy to murder Princess Diana and /or Dodi Fayed. The fact is that the drunk driver was too terrified to say to his boss Dodi that he was unfit to drive. This kind of admission would be tantamount to disobeying the boss.

In Middle Eastern culture, bosses are dictators and must be obeyed. Middle Eastern employers are little tyrans and don't take no for an answer from a mere driver or clerk. There is no conspiracy here, but it suits the agenda of Mr. Al-Fayed to claim it was.

In general terms as far as the Middle East is concerned every utterance by President Bush or Prime MInister Tony Blair is interpreted as some kind of imperialist conspiracy against them. Equally the mildest criticism of the behaviour of Israel in the occupied territories is interpreted by some as Anti-Semitic.
Conspiracy theories will be with us for a long time to come.

* 43.
* At 02:48 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Chris Ingram wrote:

The BBC's poll concludes that 3 out 10 people dont believe it was an accident, This presumably means that 7 out of 10 do. Isn't it time we put this one to bed.

* 44.
* At 02:56 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* samantha wrote:

i think its time to let her RIP. i feel for her boy's who has to read this day in day out. let them start to live and remember their mam for who she is/was. not drag up wot happened as it wont bring her back,wish it would tho..
thanks

* 45.
* At 03:19 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Roy Hayes wrote:

No idea who put your "conspiracy theory" test together, but it is largely bunk. In my observation there were no conspiracies behind the assassination of JFK, the death of Princess Diana, or the 11 Sept attack on the U.S. However, based on simple observation, I've seen that monied interests have a louder voice in both the White House and the halls of Congress.

Your test claims that I have a measurable "belief" in government conspiracies. Bunk. It beggars belief to think that anything as horrorific as the 11 Sept attack would have been staged by the U.S. government. Especially laughable is the thought that a conspiracy requiring thousands of participants - plus the collusion of every scientist and engineer who investigated the remains of the attack.

Do yourself a favor and have someone investigate your own test - it smacks of a conspiracy by those who see conspiracies everywhere.

* 46.
* At 03:32 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Rene K. Must wrote:

You seem to think that just because the BBC and your are going to investigate, the "truth will out." A true conspiracy theorist would say, "how can you trust the press to give us the truth." Even in Britain, where the BBC has the reputation of god-like omniscience, how do you prove that it is not the tool of some more powerful cabal, out to manipulate the masses, and use them like pieces in a huge game of Risk?

* 47.
* At 03:39 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Bert wrote:

You are all too right mate; there are conspiracies everywhere. Not least the bbc which is itself one great big conspiracy to suck up to the establishment. You cannot poosibly live and work at the bbc without suffercating under the weight of establishment conformity.

Take for example the manner in which any information not compliant with feminist theory is deleted from the schedules. No mention of the fact that most child abuse is physical not sexual; and that most child abuse is committed by females not males; or that most of their victims are male not female.

Nor that most domestic violence is instigated by women.

Nor that the government are not very keen on law and order when the abusers turn out to be State lackies such as cops; teachers; or social workers.

Nor is the bbc given to asking awkward questions about these inconsistencies in government behaviour.

Nor does the bbc care to ask awkward questions about the way men are treated in the divorce courts; and often on the basis of the uncorroberated LIES of bitter wives. Nor does the bbc seem very intersted in teh increasing body of evidence showing that women are devious; deceitful; LYING manipulators.

Should I throw in false rape allegations while I'm on a roll

Bert.

* 48.
* At 03:39 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Mrs.|Joyce Wort wrote:

I can't see how just two very simple things don't answer the question as to whether Princess Diane and Dodi were
the subjects of a crime - would Dodi or the security guard have let a driver attempt to drive a car in which they were travelling if he was even slightly drunk - the Security guard was sitting next to him ! but I doubt whether he would have been allowed to even get in the car if he was as drunk as have been made out also
what about the carbon minoxide that was found in the sample of blood?

* 49.
* At 03:46 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Alastair McGowan wrote:

There are, without a doubt, real conspiracies in our world. The difficulty is in identifying the conspiracy theories that are correct.

The rise in conspiracy theories seems to be associated with our growing dissatisfaction with many of secret and not so secret activities of governments, authorities and the powerful who rub shoulders with them. This dissatisfaction can only increase as we learn to connect with each other at grass roots level and discuss what 'They' are doing behind closed doors.

Governments appear to actively work to increase conspiracy theories (a smoke screen conspiracy theory?) often by responding to credible questions about their activities dismissively and disparagingly - e.g., the Russian government's recent 'sheer nonsense' response to the charge that it was involved in the killing of the ex spy.

I'm sure your series will be a good one, but I won't be watching as I don't have a TV, I consider it to be a mind-control system!

* 50.
* At 03:47 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Richard Burgess wrote:

'Conspiracy Theorist' seems to be a tag something akin to 'Trainspotter' these days, probably in no small part to those three weirdos in the X Files. Perhaps there are some people who fit that bill, but to me (a self confessed CT) it is a tag that describes someone that merely refuses to take information 'as read' and thinks about the available facts to come to their own conclusions. A healthy amount of cynicism and an enquiring mind are a positive asset as far as I'm concerned and as, IMHO, the premier news source in the world, the BBC should never be afraid or ashamed to investigate these 'alternative possibilities', surely that's what journalism is all about?

* 51.
* At 04:22 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* james irving wrote:

Finally, the BBC is allowing questions into 'official' government/media propogated explanations.

What is sad though, is that instead of these shows just being a regular investigative journalistic approach to finding the truth, they are grouped together as a show with the title 'Conspiracy Files' connotating thoughts of X Files, and UFO's and crazy theorists.

* 52.
* At 04:30 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* deek wrote:

how many cameras line the route Dianas car took ? wherer is the footage?

* 53.
* At 04:57 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Jackie Ward wrote:

Dianna Crash.

I seems to be proven that the car was in some sort of collision with a white Fiat Uno.

Why has the driver of this car not come forward of his own volition, in view of susquent events. He/she must have done something pretty terrible if they did not want anybody to find out they were there. Surely the police would want to find out what this was, if nothing else. If it was not their fault that the cars sollided, you would think maybe they would be looking for some sort of compensation for damage to their vehicle.

There's definitely something suspicious there.

* 54.
* At 05:39 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Mark wrote:

Mike I think the BBC can be trusted but like any large organisation you have different pulls and there can be great reward for some SO you have to have debate you have to be challenged and you have to look inward WITHOUT this sooner or later someone will take advantage.. The TRUTH is none of us are immune from those with greed and bad intentions.. The BBC was in the past more trusted BUT today there are more dangers.. The Blair government is damaging the UK like no other in the past and conspiracy theories abound on that basicly people watching and predicting whats going to happen from known stuff.. THE BBC had there wrists slapped by Blairs government and are financially tied to them they therefore act to a degree as media propaganda for them.. And thats not the Beebs fault because like us all we have not really experienced this level of spin deceptions before.. The Public have a hard time accepting the government could be anything less than honest..

AS for Conspiracys Sometimes there right JFK Marilyn Monroe to name a few AND lets be honest Blair openly states his intention to give up the constitution to the EU and we have regional assemblies positioned and ready You know I know its not conspiracy its a fact the EU is a dictatorship as know one can challenge its authority once established.. The so called politics of regional councils will be divided and small.. there will be control from the top.. There will be corruption and awarding themselves massive pay deals BUT the control which already is so hard to pin down and trace will be immoveable especially when the EU has its army and Police on a big enough scale..

The BBC must fight for a free democratic UK and see through the spin and stop getting bogged down by the loonie left and those with agendas otherwise you will be no more than a referee between islam and the EU and any other insane terrorist group crying for there rights above everyone else..

Best wishes

Mark

* 55.
* At 06:14 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* mccall wrote:

Do people still care?

* 56.
* At 06:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Yahzi wrote:

"There is no question in my mind that the issues and the conspiracy theories should be investigated by the BBC."

Is that a fact?

Could it have anything to do with your getting PAID to investigate them?

The first rule of all criminal investigations is: "follow the money."

The conspiracy behind your desire to squander the BBC's resources and reputation on baseless speculation, rumour-mongering, selective reporting of facts, and sheer idiocy, needs no greater explanation.

All conspiracy theories break the most basic rule of common sense:

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity."

But then, I suppose I am guilty as well, since I'm assuming you're in it for the money, rather than believing you're just that stupid.


* 57.
* At 07:05 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Noah wrote:

Everything deservs a second and third opinion, to view a story from only one side means you will only ever hear one side and getting it from the main stream media when they have only half investigated the story, they have spoken to the officials in charge and got the offcial line! this not true jurnalism this is them telling us what they what us to hear.

Imagine if all the media investigators in the world only told the story of the JFK assassination from the official line, then we would all be going along with the magic bullet theory and the Zapruder film documenting the back and to the left shot would never have seen the light of day and we would not be able to ponder the more sinister side to the story.

Conspiracy theories serve as a reminder that the government and the corporations of this world need to be held to account, their side of the story might serve in their interests and their interests alone. Was it a conspiracy that there where no w.m.d. in Iraq?

* 58.
* At 07:24 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Gareth Williams wrote:

A conspiracy too can be equally complex, and history is absolutely full of them. Put simply, people are charged daily with conspiring, and the judge may not always discover the full details of the plot and those involved. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that Kennedy's death was the result of a conspiracy theory not because I think my friends lie to me (as impled in the test), but because I have read dozens of books documenting the details. Like the judge, I do not have them all at my disposal, but I have enough to convince me of means, motive and opportunity on the part of the government. Synthetic acts of terror are abundant throughout history, particularly in the age of advanced communication and compartmentalisation, and it is a testament to active citizenry that many have taken it upon themselves to look at the heart of the matter. I hope that the BBC will fulfil this duty as a service provider, and look at the solid evidence for insider activity, not the straw men debates framed by the debunkers.

* 59.
* At 07:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Malcolm Parker wrote:

There has been a lot of time, money and effort expended on the death of the Princess - admittedly its not an uninteresting topic, but its really not that important. I'm sure she would have rather the time, money and effort had been spent on clearing landmines.

* 60.
* At 07:47 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* noah wrote:

Everything deservs a second and third opinion, to view a story from only one side means you will only ever hear one side and getting it from the main stream media when they have only half investigated the story, they have spoken to the officials in charge and got the offcial line! this not true jurnalism this is them telling us what they what us to hear.

Imagine if all the media investigators in the world only told the story of the JFK assassination from the official line, then we would all be going along with the magic bullet theory and the Zapruder film documenting the back and to the left shot would never have seen the light of day and we would not be able to ponder the more sinister side to the story.

Conspiracy theories serve as a reminder that the government and the corporations of this world need to be held to account, their side of the story might serve in their interests and their interests alone. Was it a conspiracy that there where no w.m.d. in Iraq?

* 61.
* At 08:15 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* tachik0ma wrote:

I would just like to point out, because you haven´t apparently realized it, the official story is a theory which states that 19 arab hijackers conspired to take down the towers and the pentagon. It is the most widely accepted one but it still is a conspiracy theory. Now the question is it was a conspiracy but whose conspiracy was it ?

* 62.
* At 08:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Casey Rutter wrote:

I consider myself to be broad minded & informed regarding world events, however a year ago i typed "9/11" into a search engine & am now a firm believer that it was a self inflicted wound. By accessing "9/11 mysteries", followed by "9/11 eyewitness" (both on google video) the evidence is there & no one in the US is able to question the official story due to the massive cover up, no questions are answered, the crime scenes scrubbed clean before any investigation could take place, no hard evidence for the official story, just a wall of silence. Check it out yourself, it is unbelievable!

* 63.
* At 08:31 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Laurie Phillips wrote:

Thanks for making this series, it is sorely needed! I know little about the Diana case, but look forward to your coverage of 9/11 with great anticipation. There is so much incredible material surrounding that, the only question future generations are going to ask is "how the heck did it take so long to come out??"

I sincerely hope this investigation will be a milestone in changing the world for the better. If a full and balanced argument is advanced which doesn't stoop to straw-man theories and concentrates on the central tenets of the alternative view (Drills, Angel is next, WTC7, controlled demolition, etc) The world could be a very different place in a few years. False-flag terrorism is quickly losing its power. This can only be a good thing!

* 64.
* At 08:35 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* David Brooks wrote:

What a fascinating little survey! You don't ask how many believe the system, the establishment, are crooked; you analise the answer to put down the parcipitants.

* 65.
* At 08:37 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Michael Harris wrote:

I hope Mr. Ruddin is looking at this post because there are some serious questions with the 911 question that deserves media attention (mainstream media attention). I enplore you to please make a note of some serious questions. World Trade Centre Building 7 came down around 5pm New York time in a perfect controlled demolition. This 3rd building (of which many do not know about) came down at the speed of gravity from what is explained by various bodies as from "fires". This building was only the 3rd building in history to fall from fire. The first two, were the Twin Towers. Now just think. If the building 7 was "pulled", then the explosives must have already been in place. It takes weeks to rig a building. This is not a fact that is in dispute! The NIST (National institure of Standards & Technology) were charged to explain this and the collapse of trade centres 1 and 2. Still in 2006 they have not released thier report. Thats 5 years late. It sounds crazy that as a "consipracy theorist" that I would accuse the US of plotting this themselves, but please look at the evidence. If you do not look at the evidence and follw where it leads then you are not following your journalist feelings. Please check documentaries called Loose Change Second Edition on google video. And 911 Mysteries on google video along with a movie called Terrorstorm, check out thier claims do your research and please do not generalise "conspiracy theorists" into one group of nutters. There are vast amounts of Professional people looking into this, engineers, doctors of science etc.., Professor Steven Jones is the Physicist who has wirtten peer reviewd papers on the collapse of WTC 1 + 2, read them! But if these brave people get no mainstream attention only us "conspiracy theorists" online will talk about it. The 911 truth movement is essentially virtual, over the internet because we have no other method. 911 is a huge cover up which is being ignored by the national media because it is apparently impossible to think that a government would do this to its own people. Let me ask you something, if a rogue network decided to do this, and knew the mainstream media would ignore this, then they would do it.
Please check my sources, and please dont rely on the tissue of lies what is the 911 Commission.
Thanks you to whoever has read this post.

* 66.
* At 09:24 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Jack D'Gama wrote:

This should be good. I think its good that any doubt in the official story should be investigated.

* 67.
* At 09:25 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Trevor Cerbera wrote:


I myself have done a fair amount of research into 9/11 conspiracies (what else do unemployed Cambridge graduates do in their spare time?) and have concluded that any conspiracy is only as true as people are prepared to accept the results. Imagine the kind of moral chaos the West would be thrown into if it could be proven, hands down, that the CIA was behind 9/11. The complete collapse of law and order, and the collapse of Western civilisation, is not too extreme an outcome. Perhaps we're better off not knowing.

* 68.
* At 09:30 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Terri Robson wrote:

The ordinary everyday working woman/man is surrounded by conspiracies, by various levels of Government and huge corporations.If it were not for intrepid journalists who research some of these so-called conspiracies there would truly be rampant anarchy amongst corporations and Government and we citizens would be paying a higher jprice for our freedoms than we already do. Keep up the good work.

* 69.
* At 09:36 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Lee Brown wrote:

I have some friends who seem to apply a belief base to almost everything in their lives...they had religeon which was impolite to disagree with,then astrology then belief based methods of fitness,health and dieting....now they are ardent 9-11 conspiracy theorists...so what we got now is belief based current events !
Listening to some of their ideas I note that they seem to have very little evidence and also they get very upset if you challenge rather far fetched notions...strikes me as nothing more than simple belief ...why do otherwise rational people go off into this siding?

* 70.
* At 10:17 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Joy Bell wrote:

Regarding the conspiracy theory surrounding Dianna's death.
Is it still a conspiracy theory, if all your friends believe Dodi and Dianna were murdered?

The public know she was murdered, so why is it such a big deal to hide it?
If the press just forgot about it, people would forget it too?
Why do we need to be convinced, when we are convinced that she was?

No matter how many times they say she wasn't, there is evidence all over the net, to suggest that she was, and if there is that slim chance that she wasn't, so what, knowing isn't going to bring her back.
It's old news.....

* 71.
* At 11:29 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Lynda Snoek wrote:

We all know that Diana was murdered, it was a set up, the poor driver can't speak for himself, nor Dodi. I still think there was a conspiracy, and I agree with the last e-mail you received, and I think there is a BIG cover-up, and I hope, the right authorities still keep finding clues. If it was up to the public, I know and they know who should be found responsible!

* 72.
* At 11:31 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* warren wrote:

I think that they all should be investigated because what happens if it is true? Then do we just sit back and not worry about it and believe what the government has told us? There isnt anything wrong with asking questions. BBC is doing a much better job of investigating it than any American news outlet. Needless to say, American news outlets do not even mention conspiracy theories. And conspiracy theorists are NOT terrorists or arab crazies... i think that that's an awful thing to say. If anyones brainwashed, its the people who blindly state that the government always tells the truth and calls people who question the government "terrorists."

* 73.
* At 11:35 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Alan Atkinson wrote:

Too many events have a swift and slick official "explanation" which leaves inconvenient anomalies unanswered. These anomalies are like a stone in the shoe, and any intelligent person will want to remove them.
Always mistrust an "explanation" which leaves awkward facts unanswered, and which deals with queries by belittling the enquirer.
Just have a quiet and objective look back at the current Official Conspiracy.
Man-made Global Warming.
look at the way this has become a gravy train for politicians to control, tax, manipulate; for 3rd rate scientists to enhance careers and milk the grant system; for greedy scam merchants to profit from useless gadgets, and for tin-pot parasites in local government and quangos to pay off old scores and establish little empires.
If you spot the dodgy fake statistics, childish logic and obvious scams - stand by to insulted, put down, laughed at and belittled.

* 74.
* At 11:38 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
* Jim wrote:

Hitler was the arch "Conspiracy Theorist". He saw conspirators all around him. He gassed the lot of them, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Masons, communists, Russians and anyone else who didn't worship him.

But, then he was the king od conspirators himself.

* 75.
* At 12:02 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* June Gibson wrote:

Some of the posts have got it right. I particularly agreed with No.7 from Despair of the BBC being balanced, No.34 from Rene and No.42 from Mark. If a news item comes in from somewhere to, say, Reuters and other news people pick up on it, does anyone check the source or that the source is who it says it is? How do we know that anything about major news items is true? There are plenty of parallels in history. Queen Elizabeth I and her advisers were rather good at spin, subterfuge, cover-ups. The 30-year release of documents shows us some facts which were hidden at an earler time. It is good that things are investigated in depth. But how do we know that the investigations are truly impartial?
"Who Watches the Watchers?" (line from "Tinker, Taylor, Spy" by John le Carre)

* 76.
* At 12:15 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Marcus Houlden wrote:

It does seem a lot of conspiracy theories could be renamed "fairy stories" without loss of accuracy. A lot of the 9/11 myths have been debunked. For example:

* The owner of the buildings explained that "pull it" meant "get the fire crews out of there"

* Although one picture of WTC 7 showed a number of small fires, others taken from a different angle show much greater damage

* Steel is significantly weakened at temperatures well below its melting point. At 650F it loses 50% of its strength. Aviation fuel burns at about 1000F. Furthermore, the towers were designed with strong outside walls to support the weight of the building. With holes punched in them the strength is reduced.

* In a controlled demolition all floors of a building fall at the same time and straight down. Videos of the towers collapsing show them starting at the top (above where they were hit by the planes) and the rate of collapse accelerating as each floor fails. As the floor above falls, dust is ejected out of the windows. The famous picture of the collapsed north tower shows the TV mast on the top at an angle. Also, if it was controlled demolition, wouldn't the thousands of people who used the towers in the weeks before the collapse have noticed explosives being installed? Most people who work at the same desk every day can notice even something small like a pen being out of place.

It does seem that some people start with the idea that there's a conspiracy and then work backwards to try and prove it. Lack of evidence is often taken as proof of a cover up rather than proof that the conspiracy is groundless.

A lot of these theories require a greater amount of organization and competence than "the powers that be" normally exhibit. George Bush does have something of a reputation for not being one of the most cerebral presidents, and the CIA and FBI have been criticized for things such as failing to predict the end of the Cold War, and going after the innocent Richard Jewell in the aftermath of the bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games.

I do hope the BBC series questions and challenges some of the more outlandish theories rather than just indulging people who it seems will believe anything as long as it's not from an "official" source.

* 77.
* At 12:26 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Jeremy wrote:

It's funny that you looked up the oxford english dictionary for conspiracy theory, is there any reason that the BBC don't do the same for the word terrorist?

It occurs to me that you must regretfully conclude that the phrase "conspiracy theorist" "can be a barrier to understanding" not use it, and find some other word less charged in its place. Otherwise we might believe that double standards are in place.

Any suggestions anyone?

* 78.
* At 12:53 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* James wrote:

Don't you find it very strange that the little conspiracy test comes out with a score of 26/50 no matter what or how the questions are answered??

Any possibility of the page being linked to a connection/IP logger to
id the people who tried it?

* 79.
* At 12:55 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* chris wrote:

Said many times by other posters. Please re-exmaine, seriously, the overwealming evidence and questioning on 9/11. So far this remains a purely netbased underground movement and any mainstream outlet is too scared to touch it (for obvious reasons).

Dont be an arm to government. There may be nothing in these claims but once you look its difficult to take the official report even slightly seriously.

Please.

* 80.
* At 01:06 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Micky wrote:

I'm fascinated that the BBC will be creating a series devoted to conspiracy theories, in particular the events of 9-11. Not because I think that they will give an unbiased analysis of the evidence, but that we'll see just how much of it they actually ignore.

Many conspiracy theories in the past have been based upon very little evidence and their rejection could be attributed to misunderstanding. This is not the case with the events of 9-11. The laws of physics have been blatantly twisted to a point that even the layman in the street can see that the official theory is ridiculous.

The events on that day were performed by psychopaths who follow a distinct pattern of behaviour. The ridiculing of those who refuse to accept the official theory is known as 'gaslighting', a phrase coined by Martha Stout PhD (book title: the sociopath next door), to describe how psychopaths will try and cast aspersions regarding the mental health condition of those who try to expose their lies.

I will end this comment with a simple thought experiment borrowed from Prof Steven Jones. The undamaged base of the towers had always managed to hold up the entire mass of all the floors above. Therefore the only energy that could have caused the collapse is the kinetic energy that the top part of the building gathered as it fell onto the undamaged base.

Conservation of momentum states that the falling body will reduce in speed based upon the medium that it has to travel through. If the top section of the building was travelling through thin air it will fall faster than if the top section was travelling through water and so on. The more resistant the medium which the top section must travel through, the slower its rate of descent will be. The medium that the top sections of both towers had to travel through was a medium made of 47 reinforced steel central columns and many thousands of tonnes of concrete. To suggest that these building could collapse at all due to gravity is spurious. To suggest that they could collapse at near freefall speed is absurd.

I challenge the BBC to be fair in this matter. If you are prepared to utilise the license fees paid by the British public to screen a show that ridicules ‘conspiracy theories’, then show the documentary ‘9-11 Mysteries’ directly before or after the episode. I’m sure that the creator of ‘9-11 Mysteries’ will allow you to show the film for free and then you can ridicule us based upon the physical evidence. You will, of course, not do this, as the simple procedure of denying everything and explaining nothing will be sufficient to convince the majority of your trusting viewers that the official conspiracy theory is correct.

* 81.
* At 01:28 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Christopher Hobe Morrison wrote:

Ultimately, conspiracy theories are the defense people use when they can't cope with things that happen life when that are terrible and also seemingly random and meaningless. It is always frightening in the extreme to think that your life can be ended by some completely random combination of elements. It is far more comforting to think that some sort of plot causes such things to happen.

After awhile, though, you may end up taking a certain amount of comfort in all the seeming randomness, because there is an order in the universe and in life which is beyond our understanding and one doesn't need to be religious to see this. Just because you think there is a cause doesn't mean you have to believe that the cause can be immediately and simply explained and understood, and the simplest explanation isn't always the best, just most of the time.

A programme on conspiracy theories could be quite interesting, however, because it can give you a really good idea of what it is that people are afraid of and what they consider to be the forces underneath the surface of modern life. It is important that these should be placed in their proper context.

What should be avoided is the dodging around certain ideas, suggesting them without actually saying them and avoiding any real statement of known facts and any real intellectual analysis, simply because there are people who want to believe Diana was killed by the government or the royals or whatever or that the government is covering up alien visitations or whatever you want to talk about.

* 82.
* At 03:47 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* simon wrote:

I think it's bizarre that people cannot accept, or rather, will not accept that conspiracies exist and have a huge influence on politics and our daily lives.

9/11 was an inside job. There's nothing to argue about. 3 steel framed skyscrapers all collapsed vertically at near free fall speed? One of which, WT7, was not hit by a plane, and the official report cannot explain it's collapse. We don't need any more evidence than that.

The fact that you have to make these ridiculous debunking documentaries shows how ineffectual in covering up the truth you are.

People are waking up. There will be mass unrest and it won't be protesting in the street because after the iraq war we know that doesn't work.

Whose side are you on? The systems? Or the peoples?

* 83.
* At 08:11 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* steve watson wrote:

Oh dear.
Steven Jones is here commenting that he's looking forward to the 911 prog.I am assuming that means the Beeb didn't interview him.
That's like reporting the emperors new clothes and not interviewing the little boy who called him naked.
(Sorry about that Dr.Jones,but thanks for sticking your nose where Bush didn't want you to..and sorry you were forced to give up your day job to do it.)
It's hardly surprising really;Aunty Beeb is funded by extorting money out of the U.K. population.It needs the Government to enforce the extortion.
How can they honestly investigate their own debt collectors?
As to 911 needing a cast of thousands of traitors to impliment;the Manhatten Project was a secret right up to the second Hiroshima was flattened.
911 has precedent too.Pearl Harbour,USS Maine,Gulf of Tonkin,USS Liberty;all of them contrived by the American Government,NOT her enemies.Look them up.
England has had 500 years to get her nefarious activities polished.Where's the episode on the gunpowder plot,Mary Queen of Scots,British infultration of the IRA,Gladio,David Shaylers whistleblowing,the attempted coup on Harold Wilson,the birmingham 6,guildford 4..
Webster Tarpley has a very interesting theory on why Blair and Brown have their noses firmly entrenched in Dubyas bum-cleavage..but I'll let you find that out for yourself.

* 84.
* At 08:46 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Charlene Vickers wrote:

As for the difference between conspiracy theories and investigative journalism, I don't think they can be compared. Investigative journalists allow the verifiable facts they gather from credible sources to lead them to a conclusion. Conspiracy theorists find the conclusion they want first and then cherry-pick facts, suppositions, and even outright lies to support that conclusion. Conspiracy theorists are generally also emotionally tied to their conclusions and see any denial as a blow to their own egos or intellects.

* 85.
* At 08:55 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Anthony North wrote:

A conspiracy is when two or more people plan something without the knowledge of others. In this sense, we are all conspirators. What we call conspiracy theory is our ability to sensationalise the subject.
The major conspiracy theories around today are rubbish; mainly because the supposed conspirators are too incompetent to keep something secret. Big organisations leak like our water system.
This said, conspiracy theories fit neatly into social history. Once upon a time we had superstition, with other-worldly forces out to get us. We think we're more rational today, but in reality we've just swapped the other-world for big organisations out to get us.
Conspiracy theory proves we're just as superstitious as we ever were.

* 86.
* At 10:54 AM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Tank wrote:

What better way to respond to the BBC being taken off the air in Russia recently than an episode on the Russian Apartment Bombings of 1999 =/

* 87.
* At 06:34 PM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Yahzi wrote:

Just look at all the posts claiming that 9/11 was a "self-inflicted wound."

And you're going to feed this sickness? What next - an episode on how the Holocaust was faked?

Let me make a prediction: none of these shows will ever conclude that there is NO conspiracy. Regardless of the evidence available, every single episode will conclude with "but there might be..."

When you know in advance what the investigation will say, it's not really an investigation, is it?

I guess as long as you get paid, you don't really care. Kruschev promised to destroy the democratic way of life; he needn't have bothered. When the Fourth Estate turns to poisoning public trust with psuedo-news just to score a few bucks, the job is already done. You are destroying the most important asset we have over the developing world - social capital - and you are doing it not to make us more knowledgable, or to change our social instuitions for the better: you are doing it to make a quick buck.

* 88.
* At 07:19 PM on 10 Dec 2006,
* chris addison wrote:

Surely some conspiracy theories have a basis in truth.However we must not forget that some of the information which could prove or disprove these theories is of necessity concealed for national and international security reasons. and maybe this is what gives rise to conspiracy theories.

* 89.
* At 10:12 PM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Adam wrote:

The death is a big conspiracy and i am sure it was not an accident and a murder because the western would never accept a muslim into british family

* 90.
* At 10:31 PM on 10 Dec 2006,
* Matthew Stewart-Smith wrote:

"Conspiracy theory" is all too often a propaganda term used to artificially separate the official story of anything, which is presented as inherently the 'correct' version, from any alternative theory or questions that are asked, which are just a "conspiracy theory", implying that they can't be taken as seriously.

9/11 and 7/7 were conspiracies to murder large numbers of people. Any theory about who did it, how and why is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory"; the only question is which conspiracy theory is best supported by the evidence? (In the case of Diana, a subject I haven't looked at, the term is more justified because there may or may not have been a conspiracy.)

Regarding 9/11, I highly reccomend reading Dave McGowan's Center for an Informed America newsletters, which cover in detail the questions surrounding all parts of the events of that day, as well as a few other things. Also, Steven Jones' paper Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? presents a convincing case that the WTC towers (3 of them including WTC 7, which collapsed in a similar fashion hours later) were brought down by controlled demolition. It includes pictures and links to videos to support his points - for example, part of a support beam being pulled from the wreckage with the end glowing yellow hot - indicating a much higher temperature than could have been produced by burning jet fuel, but is consistent with the use of thermite, a compound that burns at more than 2000C and is used in demolitions.

* 91.
* At 12:02 AM on 11 Dec 2006,
* Fred Jowett wrote:

Conspiracy theories attempt to dignify the wit and intelligence of statesmen and their lackeys. The motive force of history is the"cock up"rather than the conspiracy.
Why not have a BBC2 series on Historical Bloopers looking at significant issues such as the Cold War
rather than cheap laughs at actors and TV presenters fluffing their lines ad nauseam,or documentaries about Elvis Presleys reincarnation and those bloody aliens.
The only conspiracy is the media driven
one of diverting the publics mind from anything of importance and contention and keeping it firmly focussed on football and voyeuristic sex.

* 92.
* At 12:02 AM on 11 Dec 2006,
* Steve Lane wrote:

Politics is nothing but conspiracy.
Does anyone seriously believe that governments allways tell the truth? particularly in respect of forign policy and so called security matters. In fact the "Official Story" is widely recognised as being ju
_________________
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
Secret Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0p-e2ng0SI
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.dialectradio.co.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk