Destroy all evidence!

It's been a long time since my previous post, and many things have happened that I simply haven't addressed. There's been, of course, the death of Michael Jackson, a subject about which I was keen to write a blog coming at things from a skeptical angle; there's been a report put out by the King's Fund on alternative medicine, which was absolutely atrocious in it's recommendations; there's been a supposed image of the Loch Ness Monster on Google Earth (which strangely looks somewhat boat-shaped, with ripples caused by it's wake on the surface of the water, but who am I to make such outlandish claims); and there's been the ongoing libel case of Simon Singh (sign the petition here to show your support. No seriously, do it! It'll take two minutes and it's one of the most useful things you can do with two minutes of your time!) All of these things I've wanted to write about, but life (and Grand Theft Auto 4) tends to get in the way sometimes and now here we are, more than two months after my last post and what's the big topic of the moment?

Well aside from Derren Brown "predicting" the lottery results (a great subject for a skeptical blog, one that I might cover another time), we've also just recently passed the eighth anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93, and, as expected, all of the conspiracy theorists have once again come crawling out of the woodwork. And since conspiracy theories are a personal favourite subject of mine, I thought we'd take a look at it.


While I plan to make this general and applicable to all conspiracy theories, there will be a bit of 9/11 slant to it, but I'll also draw some examples from two of my other favourite conspiracy theories: the moon landings and the assassination of JFK. Lets get stuck in!


1. The "official" story
The "official" story behind 9/11 is that Islamic extremists hijacked four planes and crashed them into their targets as an act of terrorism. The "official" story behind the Kennedy assassination is that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, acted alone when he shot the president. The "official" story behind the moon landings is that... well... astronauts went to the moon!

What intrigues me the most is the labelling of these stories as "official". This label has the explicit implication that the story is in some way manufactured by the conspirators (usually the government... or the 'shadow' government... or the Illuminati... or the Freemasons... or the Reptoids) in order to cover their tracks and/or to pin the blame onto somebody else. This is a gross misrepresentation. The truth is that the "official" story is the result of a huge array of evidence from a variety of different sources: yes, the government plays their part, but there's also a mountain of evidence collected from thousands of investigative journalists, eyewitnesses, structural engineers and demolitions experts, doctors, physicists, police departments, universities etc all carrying out their own research and studies into what have been three of the most closely investigated historical events of modern times. This is where the "official" story comes from.

The truth is, there's no such thing as the "official" story, it's a complete misnomer. There's just several different conspiracy theories, and then there's "what really happened"

2. Anomalies

Anomalies are the foundation on which conspiracy theories are built. These are the little details that get pointed out that seem to show something slightly out of line with the "official" story. The kind of thing that people point at and say "explain that then!"
Anomalies are what they are, and they're often valid. But here's the important thing about them that most theorists overlook: they are negative evidence against the "official" story. They are not positive evidence for any one of the myriad conspiracies out there. Yes, I'll concede that they may, in places, very well highlight a problem in the "official" story. They may very well lead to the "official" story being revised and altered. In this sense, the official story (notice the lack of quotation marks) strongly resembles a good scientific theory: it is altered and adapted as new evidence presents itself. But they can't be used to support an alternative theory, unless they also tie in with a vast array of other evidence comparable to the evidence for what really happened.

But while we're at it, let's look at some of my favourite anomalies:

"Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel."
No, that's right, it doesn't. Look here.


"No wreckage was found at the pentagon or Flight 93."
Well first off, that's not true. There was some wreckage. But we're talking about a jet plane made of extremely thin metal (speak to an aircraft engineer, you'll be surprised at just how thin the metal that makes up the wings and fuselage really is!) slamming into THE PENTAGON!!! And yes, that does deserve italics and block capital letters. This is the largest military building in the world, and is built of extremely strong reinforced concrete. And if you want to see what happens to a plane hitting a concrete wall, then here's a lovely video for you.

"Back and to the left!"
This phrase has become like a mantra for the JFK conspiracy theorists (especially since that dodgy Oliver Stone movie), repeated ad nauseum. Surely this proves there was a second gunman, stood in front of Kennedy on the grassy knoll? Well... no, actually. Counter-intuitive as it might sound, a target (like a human head) would actually jerk toward the bullet. Physicists and hunters know this. Again, here's an explanation. (God bless YouTube!)

3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

OK, I admit it... I've fallen for conspiracy theories before. Even 9/11 and JFK. I hold my hands up. My downfall was the anomalies. They caught me out. I take a great deal of pride in my skeptical approach to things (I even have 'question everything' tattooed on my arm) and the anomalies raised strong suspicion in me toward the "official" explanation, but I'm far from infallible.
However, what marks out a true skeptic from a conspiracy theorist is this point: absence of evidence.
I've already noted that anomalies are not positive evidence for a theory, but negative evidence against a theory. However, they could be counted as positive evidence if they were consistent with a body of evidence that all stood together to create a coherent "conspiracy" theory. Only that evidence doesn't exist.
Conspiracy theorists have a good answer to this though: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In other words, wherever evidence for a conspiracy is lacking..... well that's just evidence of a conspiracy! Of course there's no evidence, the conspirators destroyed it and covered it up!
There's a lot of questions raised about why we haven't seen CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, leading to suspicions that no plane hit the Pentagon and it was, in fact, a missile!
The lack of evidence for this is clearly evidence of a cover up!
To get from the official story to belief in a conspiracy, you need some kind of solid evidence that isn't also consistent with the official explanation. In the case of the moon landings, JFK and 9/11, this evidence is sorely lacking.
It was this realisation that triggered my critical thinking and led me away from conspiracies.

If lack of evidence doesn't make you reconsider your stance, there's little hope for you. You're as stuck to your preconceived notions as a creationist who denies the fact of evolution.

4. The DeAngelis-Novella Postulates
This is a fun little test to apply to a conspiracy theory: does it meet the DeAngelis-Novella postulates?
Named after Perry DeAngelis and Dr Steven Novella of the New England Skeptical Society and the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, the postulates identify the people involved in the conspiracy, split nicely into three groups.

1. The "big evil"
As mentioned earlier, this usually means the government, or the Templar Knights, or the... oh, whatever. In short, the conspirators. It doesn't matter who it is, these people are supremely powerful, totally corrupt, extremely well-organised and so good at keeping a secret that they are able to pull off these grand conspiracies without anybody - not the hundreds of news organization, scientists, foreign governments, rival political parties, intelligence agencies - finding out, and without a single insider blowing the whistle. Despite this, they make fundamental blunders, mistakes so astonishing in their carelessness that a retired schoolteacher printing pamphlets in his garage can spot them and see right through them, figuring it all out. They own the news organizations and control the worlds media, silencing dissenting voices, though somehow, shows like Coast to Coast manage to get through without being killed off, and guys like Oliver Stone are left alive to make shitty movies. Of course, they could just be part of the conspiracy. Who knows, maybe Alex Jones is part of the conspiracy too! He's just a stooge put in place by the "big evil" to divert your attention away from the real conspiracy. Of course, there's no evidence for this, but when did that ever matter?

2. The Sheeple
This is the vast majority of the public. The dupes that have swallowed the "official" dogma without question or care. We just want an easy life. We'll do what the big evil tell us to do and live with our eyes closed. We're slaves to the big evil.

3. The Army of Light
The select few that have swallowed the red pill (or was it the blue pill?) and seen the truth! It's their duty to get the "truth" out and expose the almighty, power-mad megalomaniacs for what they truly are. Strangely, the makers of movies like Zeitgeist and Loose Change are still alive and well. They haven't had a mysterious "accident" like the one that befell Princess Diana.

... and finally
5. Don't blame on malice what you can just as easily blame on incompetence
Oh come on... the government couldn't even cover up a blow job in the Oval Office! They couldn't cover up a robbery in a psychiatrist's office in a hotel!
Bush wanted to have creationism taught in science classes. That's not pure evil, that's just retarded!
Do some background studies into Lee Harvey Oswald's obsession with communism, Osama bin Laden's extreme interpretation of the Koran, and look at the technologies that have come out of the space programme and the huge records at NASA.
In truth, the US government were partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, just not in the way most conspiracy theorists want us to believe. They were responsible for some terrible security blunders.
You don't have to like a particular individual or institution in order to say they're not guilty of something. You'll notice that all three conspiracy theories I've been referring to are based in America. Coincidence? Well no, not when you think about it. They're really the world's only super power at the moment. They're rich and powerful, which makes them an easy target for conspiracy theorists. And they have a constitution protecting freedom of speech, which makes these kinds of theories possible. You just try to criticise the government in Iran or North Korea and see how long you last.


In science, the word "theory" has a very specific meaning which is different to it's colloquial meaning. A theory must be supported by multiple lines of evidence, that are not internally contradictory and that are mutually supportive of the theory and of each other. To become a successful theory, it must be consistent with any new evidence that arises. And to become a accepted theory, it has to make predictions that are testable and that turn out to be true. Only then can it be successfully regarded as a "theory". Conspiracies don't meet any of these criteria.

In colloquial English, the word "theory" means an idea... a series of thoughts usually emanating from an individual or a collective that explain away a mystery behind how or why something happened. In this colloquial sense, a theory may or may not have any basis in reality.

It's no surprise that it's often non-scientists who use the wrong terminology for the wrong conclusions.