First, what does conspiracy theory even mean?
con·spir·a·cy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
the·o·ry - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.
con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry - The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained.
Given the abominable track record of the establishment media, it's become more common to question everything we hear rather than blindly swallowing their script.
As the initial reporting of the Sandy Hook school massacre was so scattered, and policymakers immediately seized the crisis to promote a long desired agenda of strict gun control, it's no wonder that some have questioned the authenticity of the "official" version of events.
What is the official version, anyway? It's changed a thousand times. They want us to believe a lone-wolf psycho used an assault rifle to kill 26 innocent children and teachers.
Never mind that it has come out that a "rifle" never entered the school and what they found in the trunk of Lanza's car was actually a shotgun. Never mind how he got through the new $300,000 surveillance/security system while wearing a mask and armed to the teeth. Never mind the reports of multiple shooters and camouflage-clad strangers arrested in the woods. Don't worry about the Emergency Response Team (ERT) that was simulating this exact same school shooter scenario on the same day in a nearby town. And, don't ask why there's a strange lack of injured survivors, credible witnesses, or anyone who even knew Adam Lanza. And, finally, how would gun control have prevented this event?
I must be an evil, heartless conspiracy theorist who pisses on the graves of those killed that day because I'd like answers to these questions. At least that's what the establishment media wants you to believe about me and others who desire better explanations than what we've been given.
Media figures, particularly CIA intern Anderson Cooper of CNN, is using his bully pulpit to demonize anyone who questions the Sandy Hook event and lump them all into the most radical theory that says no one was murdered that day. The fact that he dedicated nearly an entire show to disputing a conspiracy theory, in and of itself is telling.
Meanwhile, AC was caught pulling a 360 on viewers by showing “active-shooter drill footage” from another school as if it was the breaking news feed of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
But, as Cooper struggles to attract 200K viewers per night to his pulpit, an amateur video questioning the anomalies of Sandy Hook received an astonishing 10 million views in one week.
There in lies the primary reason the establishment can no longer ignore conspiracy theorists, because they're now the majority. According to a recent Fairleigh Dickinson University poll a majority of Americans (63%) believe at least one political conspiracy theory.
Dan Cassino, a professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University who helped conduct the poll said "People tend to believe that where there’s smoke, there’s fire – so the more smoke they see, the more likely they are to believe that something is going on."
Regarding 9/11, Cassino says; "It’s easy to discount conspiracy theories about 9/11, but this isn’t some fringe belief. Trutherism is alive and well in America, and is only going to get stronger as memories of the actual event fade."
Another likely motivation for the recent attacks on conspiracy theorists is because a staggering majority no longer trusts the corporate media or the government. Recent polling showed record level (60%) of distrust for the media, and Congress is less popular than cockroaches with a dismal 9% favorable rating.
It's clear that the dying corporate media wants their viewers to despise anyone who questions the official narrative of any "event that is unusual or unexplained" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers locked to their "trusted" news channel.
I, for one, am proud to question everything I hear in the so-called news. And the bigger they hype a story, the more I question it. As professor Cassino said, "where there's smoke, there's fire."
Usually someone, or a group of someones, clearly benefits from a certain subversive act. As such, they seem to have much more of a motivation than some lone wolf who kills himself after committing unexplainable atrocities or some cave dweller claiming to hate our freedom.
Is this always the case? Of course not. But the more hype the establishment puts behind a questionable event, the more reason there is to find out cui bono -- who benefits?
Below is a great video dissertation by James Corbett about conspiracies and the media response to them:
Source: Activist Post