How about no vote if you attend?

July 18th, 2016 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The man described as the world’s best-known conspiracy theorist is strangely mild-mannered. He has light blue eyes and a scruffy white mullet. He has a tendency to stare into the distance when talking, as if spotting some great unmentionables from afar.

David Icke, 64, sips weak tea while sitting in a hotel foyer near Sydney’s Central Station, glancing at a television showing Maggie Beer baking what may or may not be a flan.

He believes terrorist attacks such as 9/11 are part of a global conspiracy to control the masses. He believes the moon is a hollowed-out alien space station. He believes 60 per cent of the world’s leaders, notably Queen Elizabeth II, are shape-shifting humanoid reptiles.

An equally surprising score have paid up to $140 each to attend Icke’s Worldwide Wake Up Tour here. Tickets to his first Australian talk, in Perth, sold out. His Saturday night show at Sydney Town Hall was almost filled by Friday, with more than 1100 tickets sold.

I reckon we need a law that says anyone who pays money to hear David Icke speak is automatically removed from the electoral roll for say ten years.

The former British football player, BBC presenter and Greens spokesman sees the world as a great big spider web of Satanic rituals, mind control and skulduggery.

This may explain things!

Why conspiracy theories don’t hold up

January 28th, 2016 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Major conspiracy theories such as a faked Moon landing cannot be true or they would have been exposed within a few years a scientist has concluded.

Dr David Grimes, an Oxford University physicist, worked out a mathematical formula to calculate the chances of a plot being leaked by a whistle-blower or accidentally uncovered.

He was able to show that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the shorter its lifespan is likely to be.

For a plot to last five years, the maximum number of plotters turned out to be 2,521. To keep a scheme undetected for more than a decade, fewer than 1,000 people could be involved, while a century-long deception had to include fewer than 125 collaborators.

Since Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon in 1969, conspiracy theorists have proposed that the landing was faked. They point to photographs showing the American flag blowing in the breeze, despite there being no atmosphere and the fact the astronauts’ shadows do not match the lunar module light source.

But applying Dr Grimes’ formula to the Moon landings, which would have involved an estimated 411,000 people who worked at Nasa, any hoax would have been found out in three years and eight months.

My personal rule of thumb is that any conspiracy theory that involves more than 100 people is barking mad, and more that a dozen people is improbable.

Little falls for demented conspiracy theory

August 25th, 2015 at 11:40 am by David Farrar

I’ve blogged on this before, on how a few nutbars on the left think that Bill English and Nick Smith have devised a cunning plan to enrich themselves by a hundred million dollars or so by transferring land and houses to the Tamaki redevelopment company which they own 59% of.

Except they don’t of course. They are shareholders in their capacity as ministers, not in any personal sense. Anyone who has an ounce of common sense or intelligence could see this, and know this.

Now one nutbar facebooked Andrew Little saying:

Govt ministers Bill English and Nick Smith each have a third interest in a company BUYING state houses, the Auckland Council the other third. Wouldn’t this be subject to a conflict of interest?

What do you think and what will you say Andrew?

Now Andrew is not responsible for what nutbars post on Facebook, but he then responds to the nutbar:

The least I can do is make some inquiries. Company ownership is a matter of public record

Oh dear, that is an epic fail on the scale of an MP saying they will inquire into whether to ban dihydrogen monooxide.

So you have the Leader of the Opposition promising to make inquiries into the fact that shares in a government owned company are owned by the Government!


Seymour Hersh’s claims

May 13th, 2015 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

So far Seymour Hersh’s extraordinary claims regarding the operation that killed Osama bin Laden have been met with either denial, withering scorn or, on the part of most of the broader media, uneasy quiet.

In a 10,000-word piece published on Sunday in the London Review of Books, the famous investigative journalist claims that Osama bin Laden was not tracked down in Pakistan by CIA work, but was located in Pakistani military custody due to a tip off.

Hersh writes that the Pakistani military had captured bin Laden as far back as 2006 and was using him as leverage over Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

He writes that after America became aware of this, the Pakistan military agreed to help stage the raid in order to keep the US on-side and protect itself from unrest that might be caused if it handed over bin Laden, who remained a popular figure.

Hersh has done some good journalism in the past, but this does not look like one of them.

Despite that Peter Bergen, a CNN security analyst and author of a book on the manhunt of bin Laden, has already written scathingly that the piece is, “a farrago of nonsense that is contravened by a multitude of eyewitness accounts, inconvenient facts and simple common sense”.

And his recent history is not good.

In a (slightly) more gentle takedown Vox’s Max Fisher notes that more recent stories by Hersh, also alleging conspiracies, have either not been independently confirmed or have been debunked. “A close reading of Hersh’s bin Laden story suggests it is likely to suffer the same fate,” he writes.

Even back in 2004, one commentator calculator that Hersh claimed to have anonymous sources within 30 foreign governments and almost every US agency in existence.

Some specific rebuttals from the CNN analysis:

Common sense would tell you that the idea that Saudi Arabia was paying for bin Laden’s expenses while he was living in Abbottabad is simply risible. Bin Laden’s principal goal was the overthrow of the Saudi royal family as a result of which his Saudi citizenship was revoked as far back as 1994.

Why would the Saudis pay for the upkeep of their most mortal enemy?

Indeed. This quote best sums him up now:

The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh’s recent turn away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

The fact the author of the conspiracy theory was once a good reporter doesn’t make the theory credible. What makes it credible is proof.

Winston joins the conspiracy nutters

March 11th, 2015 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

I blocked two morons on Facebook yesterday who were claiming the 1080 poison scare was a false flag operation run by the Government to distract attention from Hager’s latest allegations. I thought only the most demented nutters would actually believe that.

But it seem they have a high profile ally. Stuff reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters was first to fly a conspiracy theory up the flagpole by questioning the timing of the announcement during the Northland by-election.

Need more be said.

Mana’s conspiracy theory

January 30th, 2015 at 7:00 am by David Farrar


Mana News (appears to be published by Hone and Minto) have produced this little tinfoil graphic showing how the National Party controls the media in New Zealand. They call it the NZ media dictatorship.

The funniest line is when the lament:

It is unnatural for the press gallery to be uncritical of a seven year old government.

If they think the gallery isn’t critical of the Government, then they really are in a different dimension. Since the election the coverage has been way way more negative than positive of the Government.

The wingnuts also believe that the fact National ran advertisements on the Herald’s website before the election means the Herald is part of National’s media team.


Judge dismisses Dotcom conspiracy theories

May 23rd, 2014 at 5:14 pm by David Farrar

3 News reports:

Mega founder Kim Dotcom been denied access to evidence against him to be used in his upcoming extradition hearing.

Dotcom had applied for documents held by the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), Immigration New Zealand, police, Customs, Corrections and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), but a District Court decision released today has dismissed the application. …

In declining the other documents, Judge Dawson said the evidence and submissions “fell well short” of what was needed to consider granting the applications.

He also said there was “no reasonable basis” for granting the application for the documents.

“It bears all the hallmarks of a fishing expedition that would involve an extensive amount of time and resources to satisfy with a very low likelihood of it producing evidence relevant to the extradition hearing.”

It is worth quoting the judgement:

[47] To date, there is no evidence of any nexus between the Prime Minister’s meeting with the CEO of Warner Bros with Mr Dotcom’s residency applications other than the coincidence of the times of events pointed to by him. There is also an alternate explanation that could be advanced. Mr Dotcom had become impatient over what he perceived as delays with his residency application and informed INZ that his application could be withdrawn if it was not granted by 1 November 2010. The residency application was granted on 30 October 2010. It is feasible that INZ granted the residency application of a high net-worth person who was pressuring them for a decision.

[48]The respondents need to prove some nexus between Mr Dotcom being granted residency and his claim of untoward political pressure being placed upon immigration officials to grant his residency other than hypothesised coincidence. In addition, they would need to show links between the INZ, NZSIS, the Prime Minister, the CEO of Warner Bros and the Applicant [the US government, my brackets] which showed the Applicant’s involvement in the actions of the New Zealand agencies. They would then need to show some illegal action by the Applicant indicating there was an abuse of process that would lead this court to provide some sanction against the Applicant in this case. To date they have not done so. Nor has it been shown that INZ and the NZSIS were acting as agencies for the Applicant at this time.”

[49] The Respondents’ applications are based upon Mr Dotcom’s theory which is based upon evidence which has a plausible alternative explanation. They lack any “air of reality” as they rely upon a perceived coincidence. These applications are in the nature of a fishing expedition, made in the hope of flushing out evidence which may be useful to the Respondents. Even if it was successful it is highly unlikely that it would be evidence that might assist the Respondents to counter any of the Applicants’ evidence in the ROC. If evidence of improper political involvement was found, it would not impact upon the extradition hearing. It may or may not impact upon other court proceedings, but it is not the role of this court to grant discovery orders that may or may not be relevant to other proccedings.

The Judge must have missed seeing the Campbell Live programme!

This is a major setback to Dotcom. His defence seems to be based on this conspiracy theory, and the court has said it has no air of reality. That’s strong language.

The extradition date is set for 7 July but one of the parties (I suspect Dotcom) has asked for a deferral – maybe hoping for a delay until Russel Norman is Minister of Justice!

Future topics for Campbell Live

May 22nd, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Campbell last night aired the results of a “two-year investigation” into the recruitment of Fletcher.

It was claimed there was a meeting on December 14, 2011, between Key and the police boss who ordered the spying on Dotcom that was never disclosed.

“John Campbell is completely wrong,” Key said.

“There weren’t two meetings; there was one meeting.

“The meeting was actually Simon Murdoch with Ian Fletcher over in my office. He happened to be in New Zealand.

“It was an introduction. I can’t tell you exactly everything we talked about a) because I would never say that.

“But I can tell you what we didn’t talk about. We didn’t talk about Kim Dotcom. It’s impossible to talk about someone you don’t know.”

The illegal bugging of Dotcom’s mansion is believed to have taken place under Murdoch, who was GCSB director between July 1, 2011, and December 19, 2011.

Key has maintained he was never told of the surveillance.

He said Campbell’s story had moved into conspiracy theorist territory.

“I reckon tomorrow night – and I know tonight he’s doing keas being run over in car parks – but tomorrow night I reckon he should do Obama not being born in America, and Friday we could move on to 9/11 and why the Americans were behind that, and next week we could move into the Kennedys,” he said.

“I mean, honestly, I have some respect for John, but when you do two years and come up with absolutely nada, then you do what he did – set a whole lot of assumptions to music.”

They should use the same music for the episode on how the US was really behind 9/11

Key dismissed claims by Dotcom that Key met the police chief responsible for the raid on the Dotcom mansion.

“Completely incorrect; never met the police in my life about that issue,” he said.

“That was the day the Government was being sworn in.”

Maybe Key was multi-tasking!

More shark jumping

February 17th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

NewstalkZB reports:

David Cunliffe has suspicions the Government’s paying someone to keep tabs on other Party leaders, following revelations of Winston Peters visiting the Dotcom mansion.

Oh dear God. This is almost comical. Look at the nice political party jump over the horrible shark, like Fonzie did.

John Key has admitted he heard about the visits from right-wing blogger Cameron Slater.

A big surprise, as Cameron wrote about the visits a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Cunliffe doesn’t believe it’s as innocent as that.

“More likely it’s some form of private individual and one can only speculate of the relationship between the National Party, that blogger and whoever else is doing the work.”

David Cunliffe wants to know where the information came from in the first place – and if MPs have been tailed.

People gave Colin Craig a lot of (deserved) shit for not ruling out moon landing conspiracies on the spot. Well how much worse is it when the Leader of the Opposition openly muses paranoid conspiracy theories about MPs being tailed by Government paid spies.

I mean seriously. This is even more demented than the GCSB being the source of the info on Winston’s visits.

Lizard people

April 17th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar



Boing Boing has done this table showing the level of belief in various conspiracy theories in the US.

I’m unsure if 4% of Americans just have a wacky sense of humour or are seriously deranged!

The actual lizard people question was:

Do you believe that shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate our societies, or not?

Only 88% were sure this is not true. 4% said true and 7% unsure. Now I guess you can’t be absolutely certain it is untrue but … 🙂

The level of belief in the vaccines conspiracy theory is alarming. By chance I am off to Parliament tonight for the launch of a public health report on vaccinations in New Zealand by Pfizer, that Curia did some of the research for.

In NZ we found that only 5% of parents think vaccines are unsafe, which is a relatively low number.

Plunket on conspiracy theorists

November 24th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Sean Plunket writes about the complaint to the Press Council (which I blogged about) that he and the Dom Post has to respond to, alleging the moon landings were fake. He notes:

Those who claim the 9/11 attacks were a neo-conservative plot to wrest control of the world’s oil supplies, that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon and that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions are (in my honestly held opinion) at risk of being described as nutters.

They are the sort of people who believe fluoride in water is a global conspiracy when it’s actually designed to reduce tooth decay; that the Freemasons are an ancient order seeking global domination when they are actually secular apolitical community clubs like Rotary and Lions; that energy and car companies are deliberately hiding the existence of alternative engine technologies, when they are actually spending millions to develop them; and that our entire society is based on some intricate web of global conspiracy when it is actually just as chaotic, unpredictable and random as it has ever been.

Most conspiracy theorists I know (and I stress I have not met the Moon-landing complainant and so cannot speak to his motivations) are fundamentally unhappy people, often quite intelligent, for whom life has not worked out as they might have hoped.

I think this is very true. Both truthers and birthers for example are very unhappy people, in my observation. Yes, even Donald Trump.

The anti-Labour conspiracy grows

September 26th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

I blogged last week on how Trevor Mallard had joined the birthers and truthers with his bizarre conspiracy theory involving myself, Matthew Hooton, Bill English, the PSA and leftie academic Bryce Edwards.

Well as they say in x-files, Trevor is not alone in thinking the truth is out there. His colleague Clare Curran has weighed in alleging an even larger conspiracy. She tweeted:

@Whaleoil I think the point is that there’s a very cosy relationship between yourself, Farrar, Hooton, young Nats and the non-Labour left.

Clare has rumbled us. The conspiracy is not just Bryce Edwards. It is the entire non-Labour left. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) is in fact the Vast Right Wing and non-Labour Left Wing Conspiracy (VRWNLLWC).

We meet monthly in an undisclosed location. I can’t reveal the name of our chairman (think higher than Bill English), but the participants include Russel Norman, myself, Metiria Turei, Matt McCarten, Hone Harawira, Chris Trotter, the Young Nats, Laila Harre, Matthew Hooton, Sue Bradford, Cameron Slater, John Minto, Nicky Hager, Danyl McLauchlan, NZUSA, Bernard Hickey, the PSA, Matt Robson, the Sunday Star-Times and X (a deep cover agent who is posing as a Labour MP).

Imperator Fish also reveals how the conspiracy came to light:

The Dunedin academic community is in shock today, after respected political scientist Dr Bryce Edwards admitted he was on the payroll of a despicable cabal involving National Party ministers and corrupt public service unionists.

The revelation came after Dr Edwards broke down in tears during a Q&A interview with Paul Holmes.

On the show, Dr Edwards admitted that he owed his extravagant lifestyle to the enormous amounts of cash being funneled into his bank accounts from the National Party, via David Farrar and Matthew Hooton and their PSA allies. …

Dr Edwards admitted to Paul Holmes that the money for the arrangement arrived every morning from a PSA courier

“The money would come in these brown paper bags, together with a handwritten note with my instructions for the day. It was more money than I’d ever seen in my life,” a tearful Dr Edwards admitted.

“I would always a cut to James Meager. The deal was that he would do my dirty work, when I didn’t want my name associated with something. In return he got 30% of everything. The rest was my own.

“I spent up bigtime. Fast cars, boats, a chalet in the Swiss Alps, but still I had more money than I knew what to do with.

“I knew I was in over my head, but I couldn’t say no. Here was I, just some nerdy politics lecturer, and suddenly I had cash to spend and all the hottest women in Dunedin wanted to be with me.”

Imperator Fish continues:

Dr Edwards told Paul Holmes that he had tried to escape from the arrangement.

“I tried. I told my PSA minders that I’d had enough, and that I was sick of having to write whatever they told me. That was my biggest mistake. The next day David Farrar turned up on my doorstep. I still have nightmares about what he did to me.

“After than I never questioned my orders.”

Trevor Mallard said he was delighted to have uncovered such a ruthless and cynical assault on democracy in New Zealand.

“I knew I was onto something as soon as Edwards started to say unkind things about the Labour Party. That was his first mistake. I’ve always said that as bad as the National Party may be, the real enemy are the traitors on the left.

“I’ve learned to uncover these conspiracies, having read The Hollow Men back to back at least fifty times. If Bryce Edwards isn’t a secret Don Brash supporter, then I know nothing.”

Again I commend Trevor and Clare for unmasking the great VRWNLLWC.

The 9/11 conspiracy exposed

August 6th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

War is a Crime blogs a transcript of how Bush and Cheney pulled off 9/11, as alleged by the “911 truthers”:

Cheney: No, we bomb the World Trade Center and blame it on Osama bin Laden.

Feith: Oh. How?

Cheney: Easy. First, we cultivate 19 suicidal Muslim patsies from a variety of Middle Eastern countries, I’d say mostly from Saudi Arabia. We bring them to the U.S., train them at U.S. flight schools. They should be high-profile terrorist suspects who are magically given free reign by the security agencies to travel back and forth to various terrorist training camps to study passenger jet piloting. Actually that process is already underway now. Our friends in the Clinton administration are seeing to it that four groups of Arab men are being brought along by the FBI and the CIA.

Wolfowitz: How is it that the Clinton administration is already helping us with this, when we haven’t even planned this yet?

Cheney: They just are. Okay?

Wolfowitz: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

Cheney: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Wolfowitz: And how do we get them to do that?

Cheney: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahadeen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

Feith: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

Cheney: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the Towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies which show that the Towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

Feith: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

Cheney: It is too bad — especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

Feith: We are?

Cheney: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and on to the street, where they will achieve relative safety — at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

As hilarious as these are – the sad thing is tens of thousands of people actually believe this is what happened.

Feith: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

Cheney: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings immediately collapse, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll immediately be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterwards, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

Feith: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

Cheney: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

Feith: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

Cheney: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

I love Cheney’s lines.

Wolfowitz: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months and weeks worth of career- and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

Cheney: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building, for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

Again, this is what some people believe.

Jeanette continues to push 911 lunacy

November 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 am by David Farrar

The Herald on Sunday has confirmed that not only has Jeanette Fitzsimons endorsed a 911 conspiracy theory book (and the book is barking mad) but she met the author yesterday in Wellington.

Fitzsimons said after her meeting with Gage that there were “some unexplained matters”.

“What I’ve found is that there are a lot of highly trained people who say [the Twin Towers] could not have collapsed the way they say it did.”

Asked if she was a 9/11 sceptic, Fitzsimons said: “I would say I’ve got an open mind. I’m not interested in conspiracy theories, I’m interested in evidence.”

That is disingenous bullshit. hiding her prejudices. Planes flew into the WTC, and they collapsed. There was no secret Government conspiracy where they rigged up explosives and faked the planes. When Jeanette says she wants evidence and is not interested in conspiracy theories, try reading it like this

“I’m not saying the moon landings did not happen. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the landings were not possible they way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on the moon landings – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.

The Herald continues:

Matthew Dentith, an Auckland University PhD candidate who is writing his doctorate on conspiracy theories, said Fitzsimons’ meeting was “naive” and would add credibility to groups with fringe and anti-semitic agendas.

“You want politicians to have ethical standards and who judge things with reason – and all the 9/11 conspiracies collapse when prodded.”

Of course they do. But Jeanette’s nuttiness actually has consequences. In some parts of the world, great segments of the population do believe 911 was faked by the Jews and the US Government. They go around preaching that. And Jeanette’s actions gives such stuff a degree of respectability.

Does Jeanette think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers?

November 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm by David Farrar

This is amazing. You know how the Greens go on and on about how climate change is real, and anyone sceptical is a crazed anti-science denier.

Well the former co-leader of the Greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons, has joined the ranks of the barking conspiracy theorists who think the US Government actually blew up the Twin Towers with explosives.

Richard Gage is talking in NZ at the moment. From Wikipedia:

The organization is collecting signatures for a petition to the United States Congress that demands a truly independent investigation with subpoena power of the September 11 attacks, and in particular “a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction” of the World Trade Center buildings.

His petition has around 5,000 signatures on it, out of 300 million Americians. He has also produced a film called 9/11 Blueprint for Truth and one of his fellow nutters has a book called Crossing the Rubicon.

Ruppert identifies players who were involved, would have had to be involved and may have been involved and clearly points out amazing ommissions by the 9/11 Commission and 9/11 Truth researchers including the FACT that the deputy director of the National Military Command Center [a position required to coordinate NORAD,FAA and JCS in both wargames and real-world events] actually asked on September 10, 2001, to be absent from duty on September 11 between 8:30 and 10:30 a.m. [the exact time of the attacks], that this did occur despite the fact the the hijackings and attacks were already taking place and that no one has ever received an explanation why. [further Ruppert reveals that the Officer who replaced this important defense coordinating position was a long-time Bush Administration friend recently qualified to hold the position as the result of Bush appointment who filed the shortest testimonial in all of the 9/11 Commission’s requested written depositions]

Anyway the local NZ truth 911 website has a quote from Jeanette Fitzsimons:

“There is so much that does not make sense about the official version of 911. I have read all 600 plus pages of “Crossing the Rubicon” and it appears to me to be well researched, though I still have an open mind on the matter of what exactly did happen. It is time we knew the truth one way or another, and an independent enquiry is the way to achieve this. If we do not know the truth of our history it will compromise our future.”

I await Jeanette also calling for an independent inquiry into whether the moon landings were real.

Next time someone from the Greens puts down someone who is sceptical of climate science “projections”, then remind them of how Jeanette is unsure whether or not hundreds and thousands of people in the US Government actually blew up the Twin Towers themselves, hijacked the planes themselves and buried them all in the Nevada desert after shooting all the passengers (or whatever their exact theory is)

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

September 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am by David Farrar

The Herald looks at the top ten conspiracy theories:

  1. 9/11 orchestrated by US Government
  2. Moon landing faked
  3. Princess Diana murdered
  4. Area 51 and Roswell
  5. Alternative energy sources suppressed by oil companies
  6. Secret group controls Earth
  7. JFK assassination
  8. Microsoft ‘Wingdings’ messages
  9. Nazi alien affiliation
  10. Facebook and the CIA

No 9 was new to me, but the others all old hat.

Hooton was right

September 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Matthew Hooton on Eye to Eye referred to NZ First voters as:

mad elderly Pakeha racists

Now Matthew has been known to hit the hyperbole occassionally, but in this case he is backed up by no less a source than the Sunday Star-Times. They report that NZ First voters are far far more likely to beleive in conspiracy theories:

  • The US government knew about or planned the 9/11 attacks (52 percent)
  • A secret elite cabal controls world affairs (38 percent)
  • Princess Diana was assassinated (38 percent)
  • World governments are hiding evidence of alien visits (35 percent)

Speaks for itself!

Conspiracy Theories

February 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm by David Farrar

A good column by Ben Thomas and David Young in NBR:

The fact that National hasn’t announced plans to close schools, slash health funding and turf civil servants out of work is evidence in itself, to these conspiracy theorists, that National has a secret agenda. Forget everything that the Tories say; they have a hidden master plan plain to anyone who pays their $10-a-year Labour party membership.

Katherine Rich isn’t quitting to be with her kids; she’s spooked by the neo-liberal policies of National. John Key isn’t really a centrist; he’s in bed with murky financial backers.

And John Key plans to cut everyone’s wages!

They also make an astute column on the Owen Glenn affair:

Although Clark suffers the indignity of having to explain Glenn’s comments to the media, there are no accusations that she has enjoyed the cheery billionaire’s hospitality or swapped ideas over pasta.

The bigger damage is to those who argue that “Hollow Men” run the National Party. That narrative hinges on the idea that any business or rich person’s interference in politics must be malevolent or nefarious. 

Of course it is only those who donate to right wing parties who are malevolent and nefarious!