Recently Demos released a new paper about conspiracy theories and counter-terrorism. The paper looks at the role of conspiracy theories in extremist groups, violent ideologies and radical doctrine, analysing over 50 extremist groups from the far right, the far left, religious groups and cults. At the heart of many of these are conspiracy theories.

We argue that conspiracy theories, coupled with an extremist ideology, can act as a 'radicalising multiplier', which may push a group in a more radical direction. For this reason the paper proposes that the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy should be more transparent, to avoid fuelling conspiracies; and that the education system needs to do more to equip young people with critical thinking skills. We also see a stronger role for civil society in rebutting conspiracy theories.

The response to our paper has been enlightening. It has fired through conspiracist websites and 'alternative information' channels at breakneck speed, demonstrating how avidly and effectively conspiracists use social media. By critiquing conspiracism, the paper has also effectively joined the pantheon of conspiracy theories: we have been accused of being part of 'the system', putting out government propaganda and planning to indoctrinate children. This response to criticism points to the powerful self-affirming nature of conspiracy theories.

We see many points made in our paper already validated. The paper pops up as a 'straw man' in online conspiracy theory forums, where the coverage is universally critical. These discussions rarely go into detail and few of the people seem to have read the paper in full, but instead appear to have scanned it for the most incriminating sections. The focus on one of our recommendations, open infiltration, is a case in point.

In the report we urged civil society to do more to engage with conspiracy theories. So this is what we plan to do ourselves, on this blog, starting from now.

Roger Derassoff

Some interesting suggestions Jamie. The only trouble with equipping young people with critical thinking skills is that they would then be able to articulate their dissatisfaction with the mass-murdering Anglo-American war machine, the complicit corporate media, the criminality of the upper echelons of the banking system, and more generally a mode of society that turns humans into joyless drudges. Among other things. No, can't see that one flying. But keep 'em coming!


Conspiracy theories is mostly, 1 because the public prefer mystery to logical reality. Or 2 they have not or will not learn the science needed to put opposing logical arguments.
As a young lad I had to walk alone through a wood to my isolated home, many other children expressed fear and trepidation. I pointed out that if it was dark, although I could not see who was about, then if they were they could not see me either! I never came to any harm, I love dark nights , they are much better for seeing the stars at night.

Paolo K

Having read the whole report, I undertood it to deal with radicalised conspiracists with a defined or possible pre-disposition towards violence. I therefore think many have jumped on it and responded to it emotionally & possibly out of context. I understand that you will be producing further reports which will delve into the groups that will not condone violence and will only promote peaceful non-compliance?

There are a an increasing number of people & groups which are growing around the "conspiracy" that is the debt-based, compound interest charging monetary systems. Some within these groups understand that societal constructs & organisations both overt & covert, governmental policies, wars (and the false flag events used for justification), are all methods to protect & expand the current fiat monetary systems which rely on infinite growth & exploitation in order to maintain it's survival.

The understanding of our monetary system is growing exponentially as the number of critical thinking people also grows. The report states it wants to encourage critical thinking through our schools in under for strudents to be able to disseminate & consequently debunk the more wild-eyed consparicies. However with that, will come the possibility that these same students will be able to see clearly enough just how theyre bonded & trapped by a system, where their government can issue bonds of value, yet strangely not their own currency. Bonds which get monetised by private banks at interest, to the detriment of the very people who elected the government.

Theres no conspiracy behind the fact that when nations have determind to, or have implemented a policy of producing it's own government issued, debt free currency, the results have been either war or assassinations.


I dont think (although to be fair i didnt wade right through it) the david icke thread you listed was exactly saying what you said it did.

There is no doubt that Demos appear to have influence over the idiots we elect. Anyone that has undue influence over those people are right to be suspected.
Just like The Fabian society, Chatham House/RIIA, the CFR, the Trilateral commission etc etc.

Plans for the Integration of the UK into Europe *were* (and in many ways still are) "conspiracies".
The fact is, whatever you claim, there *are* a small number of people in the world that have astonishing (and unelected) power over our lives. Do you somehow imagine that they have our best interests at heart ? - if you do, they're doing an astonishingly bad job.

If you don't accept that that is true you should probably look around a bit more.

Without wanting to get into a debate about 9/11 (and ignoring the crazier theories and just looking at the boringly obvious ones) any one who thinks the US Govt was telling the whole story should come buy my prime development swamp-land that i'm selling.


And, just out of interest, as you're an "insider" , whats with the Demos "eye" logo.

You surely must be aware of the apparent significance.

Charlie Love Police Veitch

Watch television and read think-tank reports mentioned in the BBC.
Stay mainstream. Go to work, pay your taxes.

All dissenting views will be shut down. Sept 11 was EXACTLY as the mainstream reported it. Carrol Quigley got it all wrong in Tragedy & Hope - who cares if Bill Clinton name-checked him

Basically, the message is - stay with the herd and only consume "safe" information which will let you have better cooler-chat at work, help you progress up the social-class pyramid, and get promoted!!!

Human Being

Your concepts are extremely dangerous.

To take a position on a group label of your own creation without ever looking into any details is, at best, purely anti-intellectual. The worst part is that you completely fail to understand how far reality has set into the public's consciousness, a product of pure isolation. Citizenry of the Western World finally and absolutely see how finance, politics, oil, mainstream media/propaganda, military force, and parasitic think-tanks factor into the removal of our self-determination.

In fact, it simply does not matter what concepts you wish to censor anymore. Your mandate for worldwide violence has been revoked.

Are my words those of a man who does not understand?

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

Jamie Bartlett

It is astonishing how few of my arguments are actually engaged in. For example, I wrote above:

"there are indeed small groups of individuals who do have disproportionate power over world events, and do often use it for their own ends. And many of us feel like we can't do much about it. I agree with that".

To which Pancho replied:

"The fact is, whatever you claim, there *are* a small number of people in the world that have astonishing (and unelected) power over our lives."

Strange. Blindly following a variety of 'alternative' information (which itself is now in fact mainstream) is certainly as bad as blindly following official accounts. Especially when you don't take the time to read what you critique.

Carl Miller

Hi everyone.

I’d like firstly to, again, challenge a misconception appearing in lots of the discussions of our paper. By no means do we deny that some conspiracies have turned out to be true. Indeed, in our paper, we define conspiracy theories as the belief in a small cabal secretly plotting for their own ends regardless of the evidence.

Conspiracy theories are those that demonstrate this kind of asymmetry of skepticism: dismissing official narratives whenever given the chance, yet engaging in ludicrous mental gymnastics – selective presentation of evidence and deliberate distortion included – to wrap any evidence around their pet theory.

For those of you who are conspiracy theorists, I ask you to constantly be as prepared to challenge your own version of events as you are to challenge the official account. Surely, the key premise of conspiracy theories is to ‘keep an open mind’; to ‘ask questions’; ‘seek the truth’. This is exactly what you should do. Challenge yourself – is your evidence as overwhelming as you think? Is there counter-evidence? We’ve all read the “anomalies” over the pentagon crash. How many of you have read the report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (

Constantly question, but question in a way that is balanced, and doesn’t pre-figure the answer. If you really want to find the truth, you won’t find it in the mutually consolidating echo-chambers of conspiricist chat rooms.


The words "conspiracy" has been carefully implanted by the main stream media in the mind of the people to be false by it's definition. This word is used to make people associate actual government or corporate corruption with insane sounding fallacies.

The definition of conspiracy is "a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act", or "a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act". Knowing this, you must understand that conspiracies happen all the time and that history books are full of conspiracies.


Demos need (((HUGS))) loadsahugs!


Oh yeah! Pleeeeeeease! explain the logo, because they'll never let it go you know. The eye could be a lie,OR! it could be something that might come back and kick you in the arse when you're a bit vulnerable. There's a Beatles song and it go's "Julia" JULIA! it could be a mantra.


Loving alot of the comments on this page.

Roger Derassoff

Don't get me wrong Jamie: I don't doubt for a minute that you'd like to see vast swathes of the population equipped with the ability to analyse and verbally militate against disagreeable power structures. It's just that those in power probably don't.


target the conspiritors!, find out what they are doing & stop it, stop wasting your time on the theories.your clearly mind controled & thinking the way mainstream wants you to.

Jamie Bartlett

More comments failing to engage in a single one of the points raised. It's interesting to see how a failure to agree with conspiracy theories makes you apparently 'controlled' or a 'patsie'. Whereas, blindly agreeing with what you read on someone else's blog makes you free.

In response to the 'all seeing eye' of the Demos logo. It is the Greek letter theta. It was chosen because it gave an oblique reference to the Greek origins of the concept and word (though not precisely); and yes it suggested an eye, which to us meant insight. Of course, if we were an illuminati organisation secretly controlling the world, would it not be rather remiss of us to have it plastered all over our logo?


The groups and peoples referenced by the report as promoters of the conspirationist view have been cherry picked to taint ALL believers in government conspiracy as dangerous nuts.
David's Ickes 'Lizards' are mentioned and very nearly in the same paragraph, you concede that one third of Americans doubt the official 9/11 story. Are suggesting that millions of Americans are dangerous anti-government lizard believers?
The report goes on to site proponents for government pro-activity in combating conspiracy, for example Cass Sunstein, who in his own way has VERY extreme views.
No mention, is made to address the millions of ordinary, non-extremist, non-lizard believing peoples who do not trust their governments.
Where are those WMD's? Found them yet?


I'm entertained by the fact that you're moaning that we're not dealing with any of your arguments.

How about being a bit more specific. Are we supposed to try and convince you of many complicated theories ranging over a wide range of topics in a blog comment?

You seem to lack the ability to discern between conspiracy theories. Many of them are crazy many of them are credible, some are crazy twists on credible theories.
The idea that a "conspiracy theorist" believes any old conspiracy theory you'd like to talk about is just childish and demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part.

I earlier posted a few "conspiracies" that you then denounced as "mainstream" as if what I posted was somehow irrelevant. Dear Demos, all conspiracy theories are mainstream once they're in the public sphere - once they're busted, its no longer conspiracy, but simple fact - how is that contentious? ( maybe because it rubbishes your overall assertion (oft repeated) that "conspiracy theories" are "ludicrous" perhaps?
Its surely by looking at history that we should be learning how governments and other groups cause and manipulate events to their own advantage. If you dont believe it happens or believe that anyone that does has "ludicrous" ideas, then you are really in trouble.

But i see you've seemingly decided to redescribe "conspiracy theories" to be just one conspiracy theory (whilst rubbishing others in your comments above).
You say its ludicrous to suggests that a small group of people "rule the world".
(and whilst doing so, seem to be trying to suggest that any conspiracy theory is rubbish - because after all, you've just tried to redefine the term for your own ends as you admit above)

So, having shown that "conspiracy theories" (as defined by everyone else on the planet other than Demos it seems) are very definitely NOT ludicrous - we could look at your very narrow re-definition briefly.

I wonder if you're able to explain why Bilderberg meetings of the "great and the good" managed to go unreported in the mainstream media for nearly 50 years ?

I wonder if you'd care to explain the extraordinary failure of US politicians who don't seem to be members of the CFR and why this non governmental organisation seems to hold so much sway in a "democracy".

I wonder if you'd care to explain to the general populace how quite a small group of private individuals are able to loan non existent money to governments at interest instead of the governments issuing their own debt free currency - after all, its the reason you're writing these odd reports desperate to pay off your mortgage on three houses when eventually if you're lucky, you'll own one. Oh no, thats not a conspiracy, thats just central banking and economics - thats just mainstream right ? (strange how I don't see Paxman grilling MPs on this issue).

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House

“If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
- Andrew Jackson

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
- Abraham Lincoln

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
- Henry Ford

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

“Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.”
- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
- Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, l992

And finally...

"there are indeed small groups of individuals who do have disproportionate power over world events, and do often use it for their own ends. And many of us feel like we can't do much about it. I agree with that. In fact in the paper, we stressed how Anarchist and Marxist theory could be seen in such a light. The difference between these important critiques of power is two fold. First, Marxist or Anarchist theory don't usually put human intentionality at the heart of their analysis in the way conspiracy theories do. Second, conspiracy theories are characterised by a knee-jerk mistrust in everything government or mainstream media says, regardless of the available evidence"
- Jamie Bartlett - above

So... Jamie. You apparently agree that there is a small group of people who, for the sake of argument "run the world". But you can only believe this, in light of some political doctrine ( in which you curiously mention Anarchism as a method by which one group would want to run the world - apparently misunderstanding Anarchism entirely). So you dont believe the "human intentionality" would be behind a desire for control ( well, you might like to try and prove that theory before dismissing it) - it does rather ignore the legions of dictators and despots throughout history that don't agree with your analysis - nor were marxists or anarchists).
Your last point is that apparently conspiracy theories are characterised by their knee-jerk mistrust in everything the government does or mainstream media says. - which on the face of it, its odd that we can see evidence of people in business an politics saying the opposite to you (that its often not just people of a political bent that control things) - but after seeing this evidence we should apparently just ignore it and trust the very people we know for a fact are lying.
The fact that we know they're lying but it goes unreported in the mainstream media is apparently according to you a reason for us to actually trust the mainstream media who seem complicit in the lie.

I think its a conspiracy theory to suggest you've thought all this through.
In fact, I suspect you had your findings before you wrote your report and that you set out to try and prove them rather than discover anything new.
I mean, who would fund such a thing !

Still we could go on and think up some really crazy conspiracies that fit your mental model of the nutty things we should actually be thinking about so that it makes your findings relevant ?

Panch (again)

"Of course, if we were an illuminati organisation secretly controlling the world, would it not be rather remiss of us to have it plastered all over our logo? " - above

I've no idea if the "illuminati" still exist or not but I do wonder if you could explain the logos of Exxon, CBS ,AOL,Mi5 etc to me and why so many institutions seem fascinated by apparently irrelevant Egyptian and Babylonian symbolism.

I mean, next they'll be nutty enough to take symbols used by Adam Weishaupt and stick them on the back of the dollar bill 130 years later - that'd be just crazy.


You just made up your own definition? Just thought you'd bolt the 'regardless of evidence' bit on the end? Really?

Do you realise that according to the proper definition, the official explaination of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory?

Oh, and I was wondering, is DEMOS, by any chance, connected with the 'charity' Common Purpose?


I second that request for an explanation of your connection to Common Purpose and would respectfully ask others so concerned to visit this thread for an in depth study of this particular 'charity'.

Demos, like Phobos, is in a very low and unstable orbit, IMO and destined to backfire on the twisted minds deep behind this absurd thrust to stamp out truth; the manipulators of the Thule/Zion divide.

You see, Jamie, the big snag is that the 'official conspiracy theories' often turn out to be even more bizarre and destructive than the conspiracy theories planted by secret services with not enough honest work to do.

Then there is the biggest problem of all for you; the matter of established fact: eg: for quick, potted yet accurate, as opposed to generated, history try these:- - et seq

and of course,

I would also draw the attention of genuine seekers of the truth to such authors* as WGCarr, Eustace Mullins and Fritz Springmeier - wherein they will find all the truth that organisations with policies like yours will always founder on - but usually after you have caused a tremendous amount of damage to the innocent of all nations by spreading fear, canned ignorance and squashing all that points to treason in very high places.

You are basically too late; the cat, no, Aged Tiger more like, is well and truly out of the bag, along with the genie so you may as well face up to the fact that there is no longer the slightest possibility of maintaining the present, insane status quo through reinforcing the fables of the elite.

"We hang petty criminals yet appoint great ones to high office" - Aesop and whilst I'm on vital quotes, it would behove you to take this one extremely seriously:-

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of Evil is for good people to remain silent and do nothing." Sir Edmond Burke, slightly misquoted for inclusivity.

* A warning for the unwary - all these authors mentioned above have suffered the ruin of their lives for exposing the truth - it could happen to any of us - more so if the likes of Demos & Cass Sunstein gets their Orwellian grip well established through a shower of gold from those with the most to lose...

Demos - you may want to examine your (vestigial?) consciences before going much further down this very dark route to the perdition of all mankind, for nothing is as powerful as Truth and Love.

David Vinter

Wow, some of you seem to be dreadfully worried, and yet do not understand who has the real power. Unless some idiot unleashed a hydrogen bomb, and we all get vapourised. Then those controlling
1 our water supplies in cities, and 2 the grain futures and actual trading supplies have immense power today. It is compounded because so many live in giant cities. I can grow and butcher myown food, CAN YOU? Do you even understand how the system works?


JB stressed "there are indeed small groups of individuals who do have disproportionate power over world events, and do often use it for their own ends. And many of us feel like we can't do much about it. I agree with that".

Apologies if this query seems obtuse, Mr Bartlett, but are you agreeing that 'we can't do anything against the elite who promote all their lies through their almost total grip on western mainstream media, to the extent that genuine seekers after the truth are now being branded as 'turrurists' by Cass Sunstein, the Gestapo, oh, sorry, 'Homeland Security' and Demos?

Or are you agreeing that these 'small groups of individuals', (in reality truly evil psychotics with a millennia-old plan to enslave & destroy all that is beautiful in humanity) must be brought to the rule of law before their banks finance any more illegal wars?

Countless millions of inquiring minds wish to know the truth, not the pap fed by shadow governments.

You may want to bear it in mind that one of your 'deeply hidden in plain sight' bosses recently admitted at a CFR dinner that "For the first time in all of human history, Mankind is politically awakened. This is a total new reality; a total new reality. " I gather he then ran for the 'restroom'...

Man, I wouldn't want your 'job' for all the world. People are so sick of being told black is white, war is peace & all the rest of your Newspeak, whilst their freedom is now at the mercy of Brownshirts & CCTV. What a filthy, filthy world this so-called elite has brought into being.

Ian Fantom

Jamie and Carl:

Could you please clarify two points in your report for me:

1. What do you mean by the term 'open infiltration', which you do not define in your report?

2. Who funded your work?

Many thanks.

Pete B

Disclosure: I used to work at Demos as a researcher.

I read the paper - recommend it, especially if you're going to comment on it. As someone who is instinctively attracted to the idea of conspiracy theories (but usually not conspiracy theorists) I found it very interesting and useful indeed, even if I don't agree with everything in it.

I'm 'going in to bat' for this report because, I think, most of the angriest comments on this page, with all due respect, are mistaken about what the paper is about. They seem to take the paper as just a criticism of conspiracy theories, rather than what I took from it: a critique of their relevance to extremist groups. Two different things.

The controversy about this report, it seems to me, stems from the fact that it does not give its own account of the nature of power, and the relationship between human agency and social or economic or other forces. But - it doesn't need to because, again, this is not the paper's central focus - it is a first attempt to look at the role of conspiracy theories in extremist groups.

Of course it's not 100% water tight, and I felt it could have cut conspiracy theories more slack. And in the absence of a detailed analysis of which conspiracy theories have or do not have supporting evidence, and not having its own account of the nature of power, it leaves open questions about what makes conspiracy theories more or less palatable, or believable. But I can't logically see how that makes the report part of some 'mainstream' plot to silence conspiracists and their theories.

One central point emphasised by co-author Carl above seems pretty uncontentious to me: that sometimes people who believe very strongly in something refuse to exercise the same critical analysis of their own views as they demand of others. I also think it's odd that a paper recommending greater government openness and an increased emphasis on teaching young people independence of mind and critical skills can be criticised for trying to destroy the quest for a better understanding of society and the nature of political influence? It's almost like some people didn't manage to make it that far into the report, and were merely working on third hand interpretations and assumptions. Surely not?!

But maybe 'they've' got to me. One can never be sure. In my defence: I quite like Radiohead, am reasonably paranoid, I sleep with the light on, and I own nearly the complete set of X-Files videos. Seriously.


Its perfectly sensible to look at all sides of any argument (someone refers to the nist report above), but then why on earth would we blindly believe that either. Next we'll be told we should study and consider the 9/11 commission report (rolls eyes).

So, if you just blindly believe the people who have to produce a report that has to fit with the already set (but false) narrative you'd be doing something just as stupid as blindly believing conspiracy theories.


How is it then that as 9/11 was going down (mind the pun) ALL of the MSM had a complete explanation with specific details on a platter ready to feed us? Who here can explain that?

They went so far as to announce building 7 had been destroyed as it still stood tall in live images behind a newslady?

Isn't it standard procedure to investigate before making any accusation or conclusion? The real conspiracy was made prior to, not after, the event.


The theory that 19 Arab men could defeat the entire US air defense infrastructure for over two hours using nothing more than box-cutters is of course an utterly ridiculous theory for which no proven forensic evidence has been presented. I mean, come on, the west has now spent 5 Trillion dollars on The War On Terror and still has not captured or killed Osama. It would seem like NATO is not even trying anymore.

I agree with the report that it is very important to teach young people the skills and mental outlook to see past the disinformation that they are subjected to every day and to think for themselves. That will allow them to ask questions such as:
Why did we conquer Afghanistan and Iraq if the evil men who flew planes into buildings came from Hamburg and various countries in the Middle East and Africa?
Why are the rights of Afghan women a reason for occupying Afghanistan after 2004 but not before 2001 and how about the rights of Saudi women?
Why did the US government delay investigating the largest mass-murder on its soil in recent history for over 400 days and then only gave a budget that was a fraction of the resources it spent on investigating where Clinton's cigars ended up?
Why did the UK government not produce a fact based report on 7/7 based on a thorough forensic investigation but relied on an written 'official narrative' by an anonymous civil servant instead?

When the young people of the west have chewed on these questions their minds will be up to the task of asking why no-one has been prosecuted for the estimated death of over 1 million Iraqi citizens (research by The Lancet using widely accepted methodologies) who were no threat whatsoever to the west or its allies (Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell said so in 2000 so it must be true).

Good education in using the InterWebs will allow young people to read up on the Nuremberg trails where it was determined that: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

They will then also have the mental skills to apply these concepts to the actions of Bush, Blair and other western leaders of the past decade and they will know what to do as empowered citizens in a free and democratic society.

So all around great suggestions and ideas! Really!


Questioning what you are told, reading alternative views and forming an opinion that while similar to other awakened beings is still your own, is now behaviour which those in power are desperate to portray as a mental illness. I think entities like Demos are getting paranoid.

BTW you forgot to include the 'Common Purpose' conspiracy. Is that because Julia Middleton found it and also Demos ?

Ok, rant over serious question time.

Do you think that the governments refusal to have an independent investigation into 7/7 has anything to do with people asking the questions that those in power should be asking themselves? If it was your loved ones murdered and you suspected your own government was implicated would you still be willing to write so called 'papers' on conspiracy theories and the new mental illness of 'conspiracist'? It is incredibly insulting for Demos to gloss over the serious questions surrounding the brutal murder of men and women just like you, who had careers and family who loved you.

Demos is concerned about radicalised extremism from 'conspiracists' ? Look at the death toll of innocent Children in Iraq, look at all the dead troops. You obviously don't give a toss about the truth. Many more people will die because of dishonest cowards like you.


I'm sorry Jamie but people are waking up, your fighting a losing battle.

The Goyim are a lot smarter than you think.

Nothing stays a secret forever, I think your going to be shocked when you find out how even you have been deceived and will probably end up laughing at your own words.

Sometimes the smartest people are the easiest to brainwash, know what I mean Jamie ?


I must add, while I disagree with most of your paper, atleast we can post comments without them being checked. I tip my hat to you on that.

Jon Gold

Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the "official account."

After that, I suggest you ask people to watch "9/11: Press For Truth"...

Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families"...

Then I suggest you recommend the "Complete 9/11 Timeline" to get people started...

Then I suggest you recommend this series of movies I made called "What's Being Covered Up?"...

Then I suggest you recommend the report on the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission's Report compiled by 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg...

Then I suggest you show people this list of unanswered questions compiled by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee...

Then I suggest you ask people to read the different letters sent out over the years by the September Eleventh Advocates...

Here is an archive I made a few years ago called the "Who Is? Archives"...

Then, if all of that fails to motivate people to fight for justice, you can show them my article, "The Facts Speak For Themselves"...

Good luck!

Hoz Turner

Great post Jon.

I highly recommend that people watch 9/11 Press For Truth. No speculative theories; just facts about the important unanswered questions of the day that were ignored by the Commission.

Soap Box

Demos? A think tank? Thats cute.

Time for debating 9/11 & 7/7 is over.
Now's the time for investigation and legal action.

The genie, truly, is way out of the bottle .

WHO & the fake flue, bill baby and his generous needles,
HAARP playing it's tune, global warming frying poor ol'Al..
What's left to believe in? Are we to be locked up for wanting to see a birth certificate?

Oh glory be..


I re-state Pete's excellent point. It is bizarre that a think tank which calls for more critical thinking among young people and more open government (in a paper which is not about 9/11 conspiracy theories) can be accused of the nonsense above.

The lack of critical thinking among some of the comments proves our point, for example Pancho's video about the NIST report is pathetic. Are these standards of rigour? I urge you all to watch it.

Likewise I urge you to actually check the common purpose claims for yourselves and you'll find them to be totally baseless. For example Niel, Julia Middleton did not found Demos. Yes we need skeptics. But the utter lack of any rudimentary skills in research and critical thinking displayed here is not going to help.

Charlie Tims

Do any of you live in London? Do you want to go for a pint sometime next week? Maybe we could all read the report and discuss it together? Might be a bit less time consuming than slugging it out on the internet. I'm sure I could find someone who has been on Common Purpose to bring too!


Hi Jamie,
First let me join other is thanking you for the opportunity to engage in written debate.

You complain that you are accused of nonsense. In the report (I have read the entire document - twice) 2012 cultists and white supremacists are lumped together with the families of the victims of un-investigated atrocities like 9/11 and 7/7. Your document assumes, without any clear basis in fact, that any doubt of *any* of the official conspiracy theories concerning these events is, by definition, ridiculous. In doing this you are setting yourself up for some of the criticisms and ridicule you are now experiencing.

If 'conspiracy theories' are so harmful why does this not apply to the theories told to us by the government? We know governments lie. Not always but regularly. It is because this statement about the harmful effect of conspiracy theories in breaking down trust between governments and the public the report reads like doublethink. It's not the conspiracy theories that make people mistrust their governments. It's a long and sordid history of lies, high crimes (up to and including genocide) and abuse of power. Iraq being a prime example. Over 1 million dead, a nation destroyed and no-one is held responsible.

By not addressing the ongoing reality of this type of government behavior and at the same time ridiculing honest citizens who are trying to do the very critical thinking you call for the report has the look and feel of propaganda. If governments say we need to go an conquer countries in Asia because they attacked us then let them prove it before we go out and kill a million people and bankrupt ourselves in the process. Why do you high standards of proof not apply to the government?

It is easy to say that those questioning official statement are nut-jobs by pointing to the David Icke forum. This is comparable to making fun of modern science by pointing to a creationist website. Why not look into the thousands of senior experts and insiders in relevant fields who put their name, and often their careers, on the line to speak out concerning some of the glaring inadequacies in official explanations?


"Likewise I urge you to actually check the common purpose claims for yourselves and you'll find them to be totally baseless."

There are many 'conspiracies' you call into question, why omit the Common Purpose conspiracy theory from your paper?

"For example Niel, Julia Middleton did not found Demos."

Jamie, Julia Middleton 'helped' in the founding of Demos. Which could be a reason for you not mentioning it, or am I being paranoid?

Global Political Awakening

One of the authors of a report which called for the authorities to infiltrate conspiracy websites in a bid to “increase trust in the government” has responded to an online backlash by claiming conspiracy theories, and not the government, are responsible for spreading lies and distrust which ultimately lead to violence.
As we highlighted on Monday, a report published by the UK think tank Demos called The Power of Unreason encouraged the government to “fight back” against conspiracy theories by infiltrating websites in an effort to restore confidence in the state and discredit evidence of government complicity in the 7/7 and 9/11 terror attacks.

Read Full Article:


"Yes we need skeptics. But the utter lack of any rudimentary skills in research and critical thinking displayed here is not going to help."

I don't see myself as a sceptical person, but I will evaluate all information on a case by case basis. If I found conflicting information against official accounts does that mean I have a sceptical mindset or does it mean we are being lied to on alot of subjects?


Forgot to address this part

"But the utter lack of any rudimentary skills in research and critical thinking displayed here is not going to help"

I think you need to read Jon Gold's post and visit all his links before you accuse people of a lack skills or critical thinking. It is critical thinking which led many people to realise that the 911 commission report was full of errors and omissions.

Carl Miller

Mr Global Political Awakening (if that is really IS you name)

It is an irony, i think that my complaints of distortion and misrepresentation (posted here: are now themselves the subject of distortion.

Can you please find me a shred of evidence that I've EVER said that governments do not lie?

The article is not (as is claimed here: a 'hit piece'. It is, amongst other things, trying to underline a fundamental misconception: We do NOT conflate conspiracy theorizing with terrorism. We rather are looking at the use of conspiracy theories by extremist groups.

Further, I find the allegations that we're trying to paint the families of 9/11 victims as terrorists deeply offensive and utterly disingenuous.

Jon Gold

Jamie... with regards to "the utter lack of any rudimentary skills in research and critical thinking displayed here is not going to help. "

I think you should click on every single link I posted. Every single link. It is impossible to read and watch everything I posted, and not come to the conclusion that something is very wrong.


"The lack of critical thinking among some of the comments proves our point, for example Pancho's video about the NIST report is pathetic. Are these standards of rigour? I urge you all to watch it. "

How can we have any faith whatsoever in your modus operandii in praise of open government <joke!> when you fall straight into one of the first no-no's of disinformation tactics?

Note carefully in the above quote from one 'Jamie' stating that the "video about the NIST report is pathetic"

Nothing about NIST's already exposed blatant lies; nothing about how NIST is staffed, or should I say stuffed, with faux-scientists. NO, all we have here is someone criticising the messenger and leaving the MESSAGE at the end of an infinitely long barge pole.

As the glib amongst spooks say at this juncture: "Nothing to see here, folks, so just move on."

But yes, thank you for providing an open platform for those of us now branded "terrorists and/or terrorist sympathisers" in your eyes, even if it is a double edged sword whereby you enable more grist to the Echelon mill?


I doubt I will respond further on this. But I will promise to connect to all the links sent and watch them carefully. I expect the same of everyone else who disagrees with the 'official account'. So please read Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Towers". I won't bother suggesting the usual sources like the Popular Mechanics paper, because I suspect most of you have already decided it is a government sponsored lie and cover up.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Some of the claims have been completely inaccurate, and even personally offensive. Particularly suggestions that we are somehow part of a conspiracy or being paid by government or whatever, which is completely ludicrous and undermines any reasonable points made. But on the whole it has been approaching civil.

Just to re-iterate finally Pete's point. The report urges more open government and more critical thinking - of both official and unofficial accounts. I think we can agree on that.


"The lack of critical thinking among some of the comments proves our point, for example Pancho's video about the NIST report is pathetic. Are these standards of rigour? I urge you all to watch it. "

What, the one where a NIST engineer who apparently had investigated the buildings collapse HADNT heard or investigated the molten metal issue ?

How is that pathetic ?

Christ you really are pushing credulity.


I'm probably one of the few people who actually responded to your whining about use not dealing with your issues and , surprise surprise, you dont respond in a meaningful manner.

The fact that you say that if we don't believe the official accounts we should just blindly believe the official "reports" (because you assure us that they must be telling the truth) is both hilarious and charming.


Sorry to see my previous queries as yet unanswered but no doubt they are unanswerable from your perspective? However:-

Carl Miller says: "We do NOT conflate conspiracy theorizing with terrorism. We rather are looking at the use of conspiracy theories by extremist groups. "

So fundamentally, when you use codewords like 'extremist groups' (which in a fair, rather than a corporate dominated global society, would largely be termed 'freedom fighters') you are attempting to accuse the victims with the crime, meanwhile avoiding pointing the finger at the rather small coterie of real criminals hiding behind central banks, at all costs?

Is that a fair summation or am I twisting your words?

Let's not beat about the Bush (Scherf?) and instead call it like it really is Carl. Please? Most of your "extremist groups" truly are the victims of corporate depredations of their homes, their livelihoods and their families. It cannot be very long before the issue of occupied Palestine surfaces here on your blog, as this particular group of victims, who are being illegally, collectively punished for having their country stolen from them, are the _root_cause_ of people with conscience the world over starting to look behind the propaganda being waged against them.

Yet it is largely their aggressors, aided and abetted indeed by degenerate pan-political elements of the so-called elite, that are calling for the kind of pogrom you are in the early stages of conducting against what you insist on terming "extremist groups". Protecting these aggressors, even at the cost of bringing ones own country to its knees (eg: most of Europe, all of US, UK, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan - the list is dismally long) does not seem to me to be a moral, let alone viable proposition, despite the backing from their obscene wealth and power.

Carl Jung has great relevance to your endeavour, IMO, when he stated:-

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" and just look at the level of alienation you are belatedly trying to stem!


Jamie, thank you for taking the time to debate so far. I would very much like to draw your attention to Jon Gold's post.

There is a huge amount of information there and you won't find any wild theories in anything John Gold promotes/recommends as research material. He does not address the demolition argument at all and prefers to concentrate on main stream sources looking at issues such as funding for the attacks, intelligence failures etc. Althougth Jon has already asked you to view all the information I would very much like yourself and your co author to view 911 press for truth.

This film is widely regarded by many people as the best film relating to the September 11 terrorist attacks, no theories or alternative scenarios for what 'might' of happened. Just a true story of the 911 families fight for justice and how the commission failed in its duty. Please watch it and then give us your opinions on it.

Kind Regards.


from wikipedia
Alongside her role as CEO of Common Purpose, Julia occupies a number of non-executive roles, including Deputy Chair of the Media Standards Trust Board, a registered charity that runs Journalisted, a free online journalist portfolio designed to improve public accountability in journalism.[10]

Julia is also the Chair of the Board of Trustees for Alfanar, a venture philanthropy fund set up to assist organisations in the Arab region.[11]

She helped in the founding of DEMOS, an independent think tank, and Impetus Trust, developing venture philanthropy in the UK.


You just made up your own definition? Just thought you'd bolt the 'regardless of evidence' bit on the end? Really?

Do you realise that according to the proper definition, the official explaination of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory?

Oh, and I was wondering, is DEMOS, by any chance, connected with the 'charity' Common Purpose?


Critical thinking skills are a wonderful idea but as someone said be careful what you wish for.
Truth Seekers as opposed to conspiracy theorists would love the population to have real critical thinking skills.


Just to clarify at the start - I have read the entire paper.
I find the terminology relating to 'not telling people what to think but how to think' a little confusing (and may I risk saying 'Orwellian') as they can be construed as having the same meaning, targeting children with this policy also concerns me. Unless of course it is based on ALL the available evidence and both sides to every argument are presented without bias and no reward or forfeit for coming up with the 'wrong' conclusion. This seems unlikely however.
It seems a little insulting to assume that the general public, moreover those that give creedance to 'conspiracy theory' are lacking in critical thinking skills. I personally believe that the opposite may be the case - Many people who dismiss these theories, who 'debunk' with false arguments relating to aliens and tin foil hats are just too lazy to do any research on the subjects.
We all have the ability to process information with an open mind from different sources and decide what seems most plausible on a case by case basis.
I find people who can sit in front of a TV and think that X Factor is important far more distressing - What is Demos doing to help them?
I resent the implication that I swallow everything I'm presented with or share the beliefs of an 'extremist' because I rejected my original belief on a subject due the reciept of information that I was not previously aware of. It seems a veiled form of guilt by association also described as a 'chilling effect'.


The irony is that it is not individuals conspiracy theories but the governments own conspiracies and propaganda that ultimately lead to violence, you should stop indoctrinating children with your anti conspiracy propaganda such as the channel 4 psy-op 'conspiracies: who really runs the world' and start educating them about their overtly criminal government. Did the WMD theory and mainstream propaganda not lead toward a million deaths? Was the title of this report supposed to be ironic?

Demos specialise in doublethink... A thinktank thats unable to think.


I wonder, are you going to challenge my point too, Bartlett?

I suggest our governments conspiracy theories and flagrant, ceaseless propaganda that is by far the most dangerous, extremist and regularly used to warrant violence and mass killing, as with the governments Iraqi WMD conspiracy theory. It is our governments conspiracy theories, lies and propaganda that have corroded the trust between society and their governments. No?

Do you not think this is self evident, Winston?

In light of this obvious fact, I fail to see why you would suggest that the government should make schools teach children 'how to think' about conspiracies, if you are indeed able to think in your tank, and are not partisan to the corrupt government? Have you ever seen the flawed propaganda I mention in the above comment, which is being used in schools to indoctrinate children? Please watch it. It is demonstratably flawed at every point, and lies in many critical places. This is what you asked for. Well done, you must be very clever, and a critical doublethinker.


Heres a critical analysis of a deeply flawed piece of flagrant anti-conspiracy psychological propaganda currently being used in UK schools. It is full of flaws, false implications, lies and your favourite - doublethink.


Perhaps I'm selectively sceptical, and you're not?!

Feel free to 'engage' me in your proposed 'fight' to 'combat' my corrosive, potentially 'violent' thinking here briefly. My mind is loaded with logic and safety is off. There is no risk in me engaging you in 'combat' because you have no ammunition for 'combat' - just mental gymnastics to duck well aimed facts. If you are not deliberately pushing a very shady government agenda as you say, then the only other possibility is that your stupid.


Gordon G156

A few comments on the specifics of the report in the light of the Iraq War ...

p19 'most of us rely on experts for our answers'

Colin Powell can't relish reminders that his presentation on WMDs was informed by an imagery 'specialist'. This was definitely a case of fiction posing as fact:!

p20 'people tend to agree with whatever they think the rest of the group thinks'

On p36 you seem to imply the established newspapers are the place to find truth. If this were the case, I think it would be useful to re-examine how 70% of American come to believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11...

p34 'public trust in governing institutions is an essential prerequisite of a healthy democratic society'

The critical faculty you advocate later is probably a more essential prerequisite. When I read David Kynaston's 'Austerity Britain 1945-51' I was amazed how much evidence it provides that people were every bit as cynical about politicians then as they are today.

Of course, George Galloway's rebuttal (of false accusations of taking bribes from Saddam Hussein) before the US Senate ought to be required viewing for anyone intent on developing their critical thinking... My friend at The Times can't stand the man.

p39 'public not as willing to accept silence of minimalist official statements'

When the BAE bribes investigations was ended on the grounds of 'national security' was it not natural to imagine something fishy might have been going on?

p43 'openly infiltrate internet sites'

I think its pretty clear the Pentagon are already on the case, if not similar services in the UK...


John Pilger interviewed recently on the relative credibility of internet news sources - 'thats where theres truth telling', so rarely found in ' mainstream journalism [which] is something we can do without now.' And 'the [so-called mainstream] media taking at face value something they're told by authority.'


Having gone through your report, I find I have as many queries in my notes as you do about 'conspiracy theories' vis-a-vis conspiricists. Do you also deny Guido Fawkes, I wonder?

I will pick just one non-controversial aspect for now:-

One Jamie, presumably Bartlett, said recently "...[C]ivil society must play a stronger role in engaging with conspiracy theories where they find them, and [b]the education system needs to do more to equip young people with critical thinking skills, ...[/b]

In this one aspect of your otherwise very peculiar and demonstrably Orwellian report, indeed you are quite correct. Unfortunately though, it was the deliberate policy of the last shower in power to do the exact opposite. Please refer to Hansard, specifically Blunkett's speech insisting that education should be streamlined towards a smooth running labour pool. 'Critical thinking' was NOT a priority, as I recall; 'dumbing down' was.

Oh, just a mention on Timothy McVeigh: I fervently trust that you have done your homework on the grotesque OKC terror bombing, including conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with both Gore Vidal and Robert Mueller III ?

Until governments learn to respect their constituents wishes (eg: not indulge in illegal warfare for corporate aims (Anglo-Iranian Oil Co?)) they will be forever villified. It's quite simple really. One cannot profess 'democracy' then ignore those who put you in a position of stewardship!

Mark Gobell

Dear Jamie and Carl

Since you have so far chosen not to reply to the following email sent on 29 August, I post it here, now that you have decided to engage with "conspiracy theories".


Re: The Power of Unreason

On page 38 you write:

In an age of social media, peer-to-peer communications, and user-generated content, many of the established gatekeepers of knowledge – the peer reviewed journal, the traditional newspaper, the scrutinised book – have been undermined and not replaced.

With respect to 9/11 are you aware that the "established gatekeepers" as you refer to them, have published a peer-reviewed science paper which establishes that un-reacted nano thermitic materials are to be found in the 9/11 WTC dust ?

The paper is mentioned in this essay by David Ray Griffin: Footnote 107

Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?

The discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust was reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2009, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2 here:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen


We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

My question to you both, as authors of the Demos report:

Should I discount this peer reviewed science of incendiary / explosive material found in the WTC dust as evidence of explosive demolition of the WTC complex ?

Should I ignore it and prevent myself from reaching conclusions that label me a conspiracy theorist?

Should I educate my children / family and friends about these matters ?

What advice would you give me and how would your report's recommendations mitigate against such science ?

I look forward to your thoughts


Mark Gobell


I am the same individual who posted on the Guardian page.

If this paper was not concerned with 9/11 campaigning, which is a totally peaceful movement, why feel the need to include it all?

Or did you want to subtly imply an association? Just asking really.

The BBC were not so subtle in the report on their website.


"conspiracy theories are characterised by a knee-jerk mistrust in everything government or mainstream media says, regardless of the available evidence. "

Would you not agree that the collapse of a THIRD BUILDING on 9/11 is considered to be "available evidence"? Since this collapse does not conform to the logic of the official GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY (i'm not shouting by the way), it can't be reported by the mainstream otherwise it wouldn't look too good would it!


In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.

n 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

Farmer never tells us what. Nobody could keep a job in the public sector speaking out more than Farmer has. What were Farmer's omissions? There are some. Now that we know that intelligence given the 9/11 Commission wasn't just lies from our own government but based on testimony coerced through torture from informants forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges.

We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?


The original article written would not pass the test of reason, logic or observation of reality as it really is.
The article contains many logical fallacies such as basing the entire content on assumptions rather than reality which skews the entire paper to a predetermined outcome.
By far the worst logical fallacy is that the very method used to discern truth from propaganda (critical thinking and research ) is mentioned as a positive entity to discredit critical thinkers and those who think outside the box.
Critical thinking means what it says, the authors seem to assume that a complete dumbed down generation who leave school with zero critical thinking skills and who watch the x factor and are good little consumers who believe all they told by the media are more intelligent and sane than critical thinkers who can think outside the box.
This is just Bizarre at best and downright dishonesty with an agenda at worst.
John Rockefeller said many years ago we do not want a nation of thinkers but a nation of workers, go figure. I would say the modern version is we don't want a nation of critical thinkers but a nation of dumbed down consumers who automatically believe anything we say. The lowest common denominator strikes yet again.


The other major logical fallacy is link "conspiracy theories" to terrorism.
A conspiracy is merely the action of two or more people plotting to act unlawfully in whatever way.
I can assure the authors that most people who they would class as "conspiracy theorists" are not in fact terrorists but truth seekers.
Were the Doctors who refused the swine flu vaccine terrorists or just critical thinkers or worse yet it seems "conspiracy theorists"?
Well MEP Paul Flynn's report into the connection between big pharma and the World Health Authority on the flu vaccine did uncover some "conspiracy" and collaboration.
So once again its the critical thinkers who were proven correct and the non critical thinkers who got conned.
Tony Blair recently said that as PM he sometimes had to mislead the public for the greater good. Critical thinkers already knew that.
The one area i agree with the authors is this, please start teaching critical thinking skills in schools however that is the last thing the establishment wants.


So some common ploys used to misdirect the public and to try to change perceptions in projects such as this which i have spotted with a little critical thinking from the original article.
1. Logical fallacies
2. Re-framing the argument
3. False associations.
4. False premises or assumptions and an unstated Major Premise.
5. Confusing an association with causation.
6. Appeal to the lowest common denominator.
7. False Dichotomy.

As i said guys your project would not stand up to any hard scientific or philosophical scrutiny.


Jamie, you seem to have no answers so can i assume you are unable to defend the indefensible with intelligence, reasoned debate and common sense?
If one were to remove from your paper all the ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies what would remain of any substance whatsoever?
Do you feel critical thinkers should apply as much critical thought to your organization as they do to so called conspiracy theories?

If you care for a public debate with me i can easily demonstrate and prove that in the real world terrorism is far more linked to religion, anti imperialism, hate and culture rather than any conspiracy theory. Do you wish to debate this or not, please let me know.
What is the connection between Demos, the Fabian Society, Geoff Mulgan and common purpose?


Thank you for all your comments. I have been away on holiday, hence lack of reply. I will take the time to read these and respond shortly. Unlike some commentators here and elsewhere, I do not purport to already decided what the answer is before having spent the time reading, considering and weighing various sources.

But one immediate response - Andrew I have already answered the Common Purpose point. It is frankly absurd, and the fact that you entertain such ludicrous claims without looking into it carefully really does significantly harm any credible points you might raise.

Murad Kemal

Jamie, please could you investigate the root cause of “conspiracy theory”? There are many unanswered questions that I think creates the theories. People call me a conspiracy theorist, which frankly really gets on my nerves!

Take 7/7 for example, here’s why many non-radical people think the evidence points towards an intelligence job (with no evidence to the contrary):

• Peter Power MD Visor Consultants statements about the exact same drill going on at the time when the real event happened, and why there wasn’t an investigation into the “private company” that sponsored the project?
• Links between Aswat and MI5 – Being protected by British Intelligence as revealed by John Loftus, there has been no official follow up of this. Why?
• Why the number 30 bus was the only bus to be diverted to Tavistock Square by special branch? Why has this not been followed up?
• Why Israeli Mossad, General Meir Dagan, said that he had warned Benjamin Netanyahu at 8.40am on 7/7 of the attacks? This evidence suggests other agencies knew what was going on. Where’s the closure on this one?

Just these few points alone are enough for any rational person to still have unanswered questions. In the financial and politicial context of these happenings, its very tempting to put 2 and 2 together. These people are not radical, they just believe the British public deserve better protection when they get on buses and tubes. Jamie, do us all a favour and answer these questions please because I cant!

Paolo K

Number 30 bus.
Tavistick Square
Tavistock Institute
Number 30 Tabernacle street

Do the research... Personally I concentrate on the larger con = fiat money, but the symbology used by the elites is undeniable.


I only asked if you had any connection to common purpose and you have answered.
How on earth can that diminish any other points i make.? Thats another example of an ad hominem attack is it not?
I say again would you care for a grown debate about the causes of terrorism without using logical fallacies?


You still there Jamie?

Ian Fantom

You and Carl will be most welcome to come to our 9/11 Keep Talking group in London to explain your report and to answer questions on it. This would provide an opportunity for both of you to demonstrate just how 'open infiltration' would work, and how you would propose to introduce "alternative information" in connection with the 9/11 issue.

It would also allow you to explain to us the other f0rms of infiltration which you propose, and why they are necessary, compared with the current methods already employed by the security services.

Carl has already accepted in principle, and so if you could email me with some dates, I'll be able to set something up.


Sorry all, yes I am still here and still promise to respond. It is just taking me a while to find the time, but bear with me.

Ian Fantom

I am delighted to report that Jamie and Carl have taken me up on my invitation to the 9/11 Keep Talking group in London to explain their report and to answer questions on it. This will provide an opportunity for both of them to demonstrate just how 'open infiltration' would work, and how they would propose to introduce "alternative information" to conspiracy theory groups in connection with the 9/11 issue.

The meeting will be on Monday 25th October at 19:00 for 19:30 at Goldsmiths College in Room 308 in the Richard Hoggart Building. The address is: Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK (telephone: + 44 (0)20 7919 7171). The Richard Hoggart Building is on the West of the campus, on Lewisham Way (A20), midway between the two stations (New Cross and New Cross Gate). There is detailed information on how to travel to Goldsmiths on their website (

The event will also be streamed at .

For any further information, you may contact me on ‘first name’ at ‘second name’ dot org dot uk, or phone on 01635 38592.


"This will provide an opportunity for both of them to demonstrate just how 'open infiltration' would work, and how they would propose to introduce "alternative information" to conspiracy theory groups in connection with the 9/11 issue."

Here's hoping they provide some useful information and don't just talk around the point. I don't hold out much hope. Ian, do you have any updates on how the talk went?

Ian Fantom

Rich -

"Here's hoping they provide some useful information and don't just talk around the point. I don't hold out much hope. Ian, do you have any updates on how the talk went?"

I'm waiting to see the video, but in the mean time, perhaps you would like to contact me directly via the contacts given in my previous posting.

Thanks for your interest.


"Jamie says:

Sorry all, yes I am still here and still promise to respond. It is just taking me a while to find the time, but bear with me."

Sounds just like officialdom's take on starting an international inquiry into 9/11. Sounds just like Bush trying to stop an inquiry in the first place. Sounds just like anyone who doesn't want to face the truth because they know full well it would cause a global paradigm shift.

Jamie, I suspect events will overtake you and your very desultory efforts to defuse the now overwhelming 'press for truth'. Would it not be better for your soul to admit an international inquiry has become a global imperative?


You just made up your own definition? Just thought you'd bolt the 'regardless of evidence' bit on the end? Really?

Do you realise that according to the proper definition, the official explaination of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory?


"Sorry all, yes I am still here and still promise to respond. It is just taking me a while to find the time, but bear with me."

You still with us, Jamie?


Getting worried now Jamie - it's been a while...

Do you think you might find the time sometime this year perhaps?


Way to take on the bloggers. You sure showed us.

Markoff Chaney

... @tumbleweed@ ...


Jamie Unreason Bartlet, you were drumming for an intellectual 'combat' zone right here and now? In a blog purpose made for it, by you? Lost your ammunition? You ask more of society, but don't even bother to try to defend your own dangerously deluded, uninformed opinions in your own blog.

Your feeble-minded Chris French school of unthink is brilliant, please come back and respond to the points I've made that evidently crush your entire position.

You're a pathetic thinker, should you be willing to reply to me at all, I'll continue to tear down your warped opinions, leaving your unreason and anti-logic exposed right here in your own blog.

It is YOU who is the free society's real enemy, whose pervasive unthink demands OUR resistance... and it is YOU who will be 'combated' even on your own turf, long after you've ducked and covered.

Illumius Numnutovic.

Jamie, to put it bluntly you are either a complete moron or a nasty stooge. I sincerely hope for your soul that it is the former. Peace.


conspiracy theory is a one world government, one world government is a new world order...these are the works of the devils...soon Jesus will comeback to do a final war (battle of armageddon) to judge evil peoples and throw them in the lake of fire (hell) and to torment them forever day and night...repent and follow Christ. live a life right and be alerts...God bless!


One thing I haven't seen pointed out. "Extremist" is a very loaded term and one this article has failed to clearly define.

I would define extremist as any entity (individual or group, violent or peaceful) that holds a position that is significantly divergent from the political and social zeitgeist. If you have a different meaning I think you should make that clear.

Ghandi was an extremist. Martin Luther King was an extremist. Nelson Mandela was an extremist. Womens' suffrage was an extremist movement that was met with brutal force by the establishment.

The Labour Party in its early days was an extremist movement borne out of the desire of the working class to revolt against their (for want of a better word) masters because of the injustices they faced.

Even Jesus Christ was an extremist - so dangerous to the establishment they had him crucified.

Moving on to what I think you mean by extremists, many of these are people who, in their own minds at least, are fighting a guerilla war against the perceived injustices of western (and especially Anglo-American) global dominion. If we want to be able to tackle this we need to take a long hard look at our foreign policies and our attitudes to the rest of the world. That's where the causes of terrorism will be found, not in the pages of David Icke's fairly tales about shapeshifting lizards.

Unfortunately too many corporate entities (and brainwashed people) in the UK and especially the USA look around the world and all they see is "brown people" interfering with access to "our" oil and "our" other natural resources. You can't browbeat and exploit people and not expect a reaction. Frankly we are fortunate there is so little terrorism and ill-will directed at us considering what we have done to the third world and the hangover of British Imperialism that to this day manifests as gaping social, economic and cultural wounds all over the world.

Let's not forget either it was the CIA that put Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq. It was the CIA that created Islamic Extremism as a cold war weapon during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It was the US State Department that put (the extremist) General Pinochet into power in Chile. It was the British Army that trained Idi Amin (who's regime continued to be backed by the UK government until it became political liability). Anyone who thinks the brutal acts of these men against their own people were unknown to their Anglo-American sponsors at the time is naive in the extreme. These are not rumours or conspiracy theories but established facts that no historian will dispute.

30% of the world's resources are consumed by the 5% of the world's population. 1% of people own 99% of the wealth that is created. Perhaps if you address these statistics you will learn how to counter extremism more effectively than pontificating on the credibility (or lack thereof) of popular urban mythology.

For some reading material a good start might be "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

As for conspiracy theories most of them are little more than a distraction from real corruption. Given what an effective smokescreen they are it is easy to understand why governments might want to infiltrate and help spread them. Because as long as people who want to expose wrongdoing are listening to David Icke they aren't looking at the amount of public money being wasted on irrelevant think tanks, PFI and whether gratuities politicians receive from big business are being properly declared.

Bilderberg has been mentioned and I have to say the idea that they control the world is more Hyperbole than Conspiracy Theory. What you have at Bilderberg is a forum for senior government ministers as well as up-and-coming ambitious politicians to have secret meetings with the world's wealthiest businesspeople, some of whom are a little dubious in their morality. It should be unacceptable for politicians to have secret meetings unless it pertains to national security and/or official secrets (and that would exclude the majority of Bilderberg attendees from being present). The way in which Biderberg can (and may well do) influence political events is if you are the leader of a major political party and Rupert Murdoch doesn't want you to be Prime Minister, you can be fairly certain that The Sun is going to do everything and anything short of committing libel to destroy your credibility - therefore if you want the keys to No 10 you'd best keep him sweet. Look at who runs all the major media outlets and you will see who it is politicians need to please.


Another point. Almost all forms of extremism arise out of disenfranchisement. In a sense so too do a number of conspiracy theories but these are part part of the effect not part of the cause. It is partly this lack of understanding of cause and effect relationships that is behind failures to tackle most political and social problems. Unfortunately this lack of understanding is deeply pervasive and so for example we focus on thing like petty crime and drug abuse instead of constructively trying to eradicate the poverty that causes them. When it comes to terrorism we focus on the ringleaders instead of dealing with the socioeconomic conditions that lead to young Muslims becoming radicalised.

Of course the article may be partly right in the sense that certain conspiracy theories may be able to give clues to where disenfranchisement may present but there are many other more obvious clues.

The challenge is that in order to deal with the root causes we would need to take actions that threaten deeply entrenched vested interests and established institutions and so people are uncomfortable when it comes to taking the necessary steps. The sad irony is that dealing with these root causes would have benefits that go far beyond counter terrorism - because whether it is Islamic extremism, right wing extremism, drug smuggling, people trafficking, petty crime, etc there is only one root cause - social injustice.

Demetrius Skortou


I was reading an article in the Daily Mail (7th Feb 2013),about a former airline pilot/conspiracy theorist Phillip Marshal, who committed suicide.

I read that the late Mr Marshall, wrote a book about the 9/11 bombings in New York City and seemed convinced that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a conspiracy.

I have also believed, that the bombings, here, in the UK, were actually a series of secret clandestine wars. (See E-mail I sent to other newspapers/magazines below).

Yours Sincerely

Demetrius Skortou

I believe that the 7/7 London bombings were part of a long running secret covert war, instigated and planned by US black operations groups, who set up bogus/manufactured terrorist cell networks, using muslim & other extremists to plant bombs in the UK. The result of which had nothing to do with getting our troops out of Iraq, but to force these politicians to sign away Great Britain's total sovereignty, & other powers, to the European Union, (EU) over the last 40 years.

The EU itself, actually stems from the 1946 US Marshall Plan. Some of those within the American establishment wanted Britain dragged into a one European Nation State, which is exactly what Adolf Hitler wanted.

It takes a lot to set up efficient & successful terrorist cell networks. You need; secret rich powerful backers. equally secret bank accounts, set up, through phoney company names. A regular supply of; guns, food, medical supplies, water, internal/external liaison officers, security officers, governments that allow terrorist type training bases and instructors to teach these bombers how to construct and detonate these explosives.

I am certain that we are not dealing with muslims who actually planned these bombings on 9/11 & 7/7, but, outsiders, very clever creative thinkers. After all, muslims pray 5 times a day, how on earth are they supposed to be able to conduct & plan these terrorist atrocities against us?

Of course, it was muslims who actually planted these bombs, but I believe, a black operation group, did the planning.
Terrorism in its self, never actually achieves anything. Most certainly, the intelligence services have benefited out of acts of terrorism, with more laws, rules & regulations, (including 4.2 million CCTV Cameras) that have been handed to the security forces, which in turn, has taken more of our individual freedoms & liberties away from the people.

False Flag Terrorism is very difficult to prove, however, with the total lapse of our border controls (which I also believe has been a deliberate policy to actually allow these planning & terrorist groups into our country) It has made acts of terrorism much easier for these people to murder innocent men, women & children.

I cannot believe that all this lapse in security at our borders is just an accident or a coincidence.

No amount of CCTV cameras, is going to stop someone from exploding bombs on a bus, train or on the underground.

Yours Sincerely,

Demetrius Skortou

Ruth Allan

2 Samuel 15:12 And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom.

2 Kings 15:30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.

Acts 23:13 And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Psalm 2

God the ultimate Conspiracy Theorist.


Buy levitra

Who is not recommended to simply accept medicine to obtain normal erection.
-If you buy this medicament, make sure that you:
1. don’t are stricken by cardiac disease, kidney disease, liver disease on another have stomach generic levitra,online levitra tablet
levitra soft,generic levitra prices

New Comment