Monday, 24 September, 2001, 18:09 GMT 19:09 UK

Why we need conspiracy theories

By BBC News Online's Charlotte Parsons

The moon landing was faked, Princess Diana was murdered and JFK was the victim of an elaborate CIA assassination plot.

When major historic events shake our world, conspiracy theories are seldom far behind.

The US terror attacks are no exception. The dust had barely settled on New York before the cloaks and daggers came out.

Less than two weeks after the disaster, BBC News Online found itself inundated with e-mails seeking confirmation of the various theories now circling the globe.

Hundreds of them cite a web page that lambasted the CNN for stirring up anti-Arab sentiment by running "fake footage" of Palestinians cheering over the attacks on the US.

If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life

Psychology Professor Cary Cooper

The news network is accused of digging out 10-year-old images of celebrations that followed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and passing them off as Palestinian displays of anti-Americanism.

The allegations can be traced back to a message posted on Chicago Indymedia's website.

"Think for a moment about the impact of such images," the text urges visitors. "This kind of broadcast has a very high possibility of causing waves of anger and rage against the Palestinians."

Another popular theory holds that the Israelis working in the World Trade Center left the building shortly before the attacks. In a similar vein, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is said to have cancelled a visit that would have placed him in New York on 11 September.

The implication: The terror attacks were a trick designed to turn world opinion against Israel's Muslim enemies.

The theories are unsourced, unfounded and untrue. But they are spreading fast.

Human nature

This begs the question: Where do conspiracy theories come from? What is it in human nature that drives us to create alternative worlds peopled by shadowy figures?

Are we paranoid, delusional or just plain bored?

According to Psychology Professor Cary Cooper we are trying to stave off fear of random violence and unpredictable death.

"They do that because they can't come to terms with the fact that it could be just a few people," said Professor Cooper, who lectures at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

"If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life. If this can happen, what sense of security can you have?"

We create alternate realities because we reject the world where a single madman can bring down a president, a reckless driver can snuff out a princess... and a few men with knives can terrorise a country.

The internet helps the theories grow and spread. An estimated 36,000 Princess Diana conspiracy web sites were created after her death.

Ripple effect

Professor Cooper predicts that, in the weeks ahead, US terror attack theories will expand and become attributed to an ever larger group of culprits.

"We simply can't believe a small number of people could be behind it," he says, adding that a similar ripple effect followed the John F Kennedy shooting.

Conspiracy theories are not unique to Western culture. Experts say they have operated in many societies throughout history.

On a certain psychological level, we appear to need them.

Giving misery and injustice an identity makes life more bearable, according to Jeffrey Bale, who writes for an online magazine that examines the phenomenon.

"Conspiracy theories account for current crises and upheavals and explain why bad things are happening to good people or vice versa," he said.

I happen to be a realistic person and I don't trust people like Bush and his CIA cronies. Hey they knew all about it on S11 and did nothing. Oh well a good diversion on a war is not all that bad for Bush and his capitalist friends. The economy is tumbling down since months, a scandal around Bushs presidency was on its way up(apparently the Bush clan pumped 40 million $ of drug money in South Florida last fall to shut up the Democrats) and there is also the anti-globalization movement who was on a roll since N30 in Seattle... The attacks on the WTC and Pentagon couldn't have happened at a better time for W. Hey all the attention is now on America's crusade against "terrorism", he enjoys a quasi totalitarian regime's popular rating of 90 % (most likely mass media propaganda) and all other topics have been swept under the carpet... The capitalists are screwing us big time ! By the ways Heil Bush !

Yeah, Bush and his cronies will certainly exploit the current crisis to promote their political agenda. This is what cunning politicians do. I would be surprised if they acted any differently. This much is true.

It is beyond my understanding how one can extrapolate from this political reality that because Bush will exploits the crisis he therefore must also be behind it. I worry that there exist people who are willing to make that great leap of logic. If folks are capable of that much self-deception then who knows what else they can be coerced to do? Perhaps go to war against a terrified people resulting in yet more innocent death?

May the cooler heads prevail.

The BBC seems to forget its own story "US planned attack on Taleban", published 9-18-01, and followup coverage in the Guardian on 9-21/22-01. These news reports reveal that the US actually passed its intentions to the Taliban concerning its plans to topple the Taliban government and install a puppet regime friendly to development of oil and gas resources in the region.

Whether the US actually planned the attacks (which almost nobody believes) or merely exploited them, there seems to be no question that telegraphing its invasion plans could be expected to evoke a preemptive attack either by the Taliban regime or ANY self-styled defender of Islam. If this was a deliberate attempt by the US to provoke such an attack and thus "justify" US military action, the planners of this probably never imagined that the attack would be so devastating.

The relevant links are:

US planned attack on Taleban - BBC News, September 18, 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

Secret memo reveals US plan to overthrow Taliban regime - Guardian, September 21, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4261737,00.html

Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before US attack - Guardian, September 22, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

Testimony by John J. Maresca, VP, International Relations, Unocal Corp. - February 12, 1998

(Mr. Maresca was George Bush Sr.'s Ambassador to Cyprus )

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm

Afghanistan Fact Sheet (note the section titled "Regional Pipeline Plans") - December, 2000

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan2.html

The New Great Game - Guardian, March 5, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4146099,00.html

See also article titled "Afghanistan and Enron"

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=66181&group=webcast

The above links are from an Indymedia article at

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=66214

This story makes an important point, but it's woefully underdeveloped. There's a failure to look at what else might be involved, since there are other ways of oversimplifying the world and reducing psychologically perceived threat. There's also a failure to distinguish precisely what's meant by "conspiracy theory."

Consider the rumor about CNN's use of old footage. Is this really on a par with the one about Israel having advanced knowledge & withdrawing its people from the WTC? As I explained in a comment to the version of the later, it contained classic anti-Semitic elements which can't be explained simply via a reduction to psychology. It's a matter of centuries-old anti-Semitic propaganda.

On the other hand, the CNN rumor, though false, didn't seem to have any such deep-seated pedigree. Nor was it nearly so nefarious. It doesn't even allege much of a conspiracy--more like in-house shennanigans. Furthermore, If one compares this unfounded rumor with the orchestrated campaign against CNN to squash the Tailwind story, a very different framework suggests itself--one that contrasts ordinary folk rumors with elite-sponsored ones that are carefully focused for a particular political purpose.

The comment above, seeking to blame the attacks on the Bush Administration because of threats made against the Taliban, is symptomatic of something else that's often involved in conspiricist thinking, IMHO. It takes some little-known fact, and uses it to extrapolate far beyond the evidence.

The problem here is that the extrapolation expresses a wildly overblown claim that's far less credible and compelling than the more modest, but still quite damning claim based entirely on available evidence. To wit: the Bush Administration in all likelihood DID provoke this attack, through their sheer stupidity, arrogance and belligerance. The same screwed-up thinking is now guiding our response. This is an argument that can be be supported by pointing to publicly-available facts, and does not depend on wild leaps of logic.