Friday, August 7, 2015

Quassim Cassam: A bona-fide Anti-Conspiracy-Theory buffoon

by Jim Fetzer

Quassim Cassam
A professor of philosophy at Warwick University, Quassim Cassam, during an interview with The Independent (7 August 2015), "What turns someone into a conspiracy theorist?", stated that he has been funded to conduct a study about why some people are more "receptive" to conspiracy theories than other, suggesting that those who are susceptible are either "literally mad or mentally ill", where he inclines to believe they have "certain intellectual traits", such as dogmatism, gullibility or close-mindedness, which is about as absurd as it gets. Consider:

Given the massive domination of the media (newspapers and television, especially), which provides a constant barrage of the "official narratives" of JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, for example, it requires independence of thought and open-mindedness to consider, much less explore, alternative theories about events such as these, which requires over coming group-think and social pressures toward conformity, which are traits precisely the opposite of those he claims characterize those who take "conspiracy theories" seriously:

When I reviewed his background on the Warwick web site, I was astonished to discover he had been Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge (2007-09), which many in the academic world regard as among the most distinguished institutions of higher learning in the world.  I regard this as conclusive proof that some faculty at distinguished universities are either cognitively impaired or purveyors of disinformation. It must be a great advantage for MI5, the British equivalent of the FBI, to have stooges with Ph.D.s to reinforce manifest absurdities.


Ignoring Logic and Evidence

The obvious blunder with Cassem's position is that he presents a specious bifurcation (or a "false dichotomy") by suggesting that those who embrace "conspiracy theories" are either mentally impaired or easily influenced by alternative sources of information. He does not even allow the possibility of someone having done research and concluded that we have been lied to (about JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing). He simply omits the use of reason and rationality based upon logic and evidence. Consider the following four cases:

According to The Warren Report (1964), for example, JFK was killed by a lone gunman with three lucky shots, scoring two hits, one of which hit JFK in the back of the neck, transiting his neck without hitting any bony structures and wounding Texas Gov. John Connally; where the second hit JFK in the head, killing him. But JFK was hit at least four times (in the back from behind; in the throat from in front; and in the head from behind and from the right/front). Indeed, it turns out that the "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible. 

According to The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers and used them as weapons--even destroying three buildings in New York with two planes! When you take a closer look, all four of the alleged crash sites appear to be fabricated or faked (albeit in different ways). The Twin Towers did not collapse but were blown apart in every direction from the top down and were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust! That required an enormous source of energy going far beyond what gravity can provide, where gravity works in only one direction--down! Even the Co-Chairmen of the Commission have disavowed their report!

According to the Final Report on Sandy Hook by Stephen J. Sedensky III, Adam Lanza killed his mother with a .22 caliber rifle and then proceeded to Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he shot and killed 20 children and six adults. But there were many anomalies, where we now have the FEMA Manual for the event, where a rehearsal was held on 13 December 2012 and went LIVE on the 14th. And exceptional research by Allan Powell from Australia has proven that the Lanza home was empty and had to be furnished to serve as a prop for this staged exercise, where we even have photos of the moving vans bringing equipment to the school itself to make it look as though it had been operational.

And the Boston bombing was another drill presented as though it were a real event, where the brothers were framed and the trial was a fraud. I had an especially illuminating interview with Maret Tsarnaev, "THEY DIDN'T DO IT! Maret Tsanraev blows apart the Boston Show Trial", which offers multiple lines of proof that it was an elaborate charade, including that the backpacks the two brothers were wearing were not black nylon back-backs, which the FBI identified as those that had exploded, which, as a retired professor of law observes, means there was not even probable cause to arrest or indict them for the crime, much less convict them of any crime. It was another elaborate charade.

Not Everyone is Taken In

 In an excellent critique of Professor Cassem's contentions, John Vibes, "Government-Funded Study says 'Conspiracy Theorists' are Dangerous and could join ISIS" (1 August 2015), astutely observes in relation to his views about 9/11 that around 2,000 architects and engineers take exception to his claim that the government has explained what happened on 9/11, where they are supplemented by a large number of experts, professionals and authorities in their fields, as "Patriots Question 9/11" displays:

He further eviscerates the structure of Cassem's argument (such as it is) by making multiple points in rebuttal, including that he has apparently done no research of his own about 9/11 (JFK, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing), which leaves him vulnerable to having committed the "special pleading" fallacy by citing only evidence favorable to his side and ignoring the rest. But that is being charitable, because it appears to me that Cassem has only made unfounded assertions with no supporting proof.

Conclusions without premises are not arguments at all, which means that, while alleging that so-called "conspiracy theorists" are weak-minded and dangerous, he appears to exemplify those traits. Indeed, as I have often observed, the phrase, "conspiracy theory", was introduced by the CIA to label critics of official account of the assassination of JFK by burdening them with having to advance "a theory" about what happened, when their (at least, initial) role is merely that of pointing out that the government's narrative cannot be defended on the basis of proof that the backyard photographs were fabricated and that the alleged assassin was actually "out with Bill Shelley (his supervisor) in front" at the time JFK was being shot, as we now know.

The profundity of Professor Cassem's ignorance knows no bounds, however, since he appears to be as ignorant about ISIS as he is about JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, which of course are simply illustrations of "conspiracy theories" that are well-supported on the basis of logic and evidence as opposed to the official accounts promulgated by the government, which are often widely held because they are reinforced by the mass media. We have even discovered a 2012 document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) explaining its intention to create ISIS to isolate Syria, which I discussed on "False Flag Weekly News" (28 May 2015) and have addressed many time since then:

To listen to the discussion of the DIA's creation of ISIS, click here.

The absurdities associated with ISIS do not end here, however, since it is being advised by two retired American generals and is being supplied by our allies, where the Iraqi Army shot down two UK cargo planes dropping supplies to ISIS and a US helicopter, which I have published about in "Top Ten Reasons WE KNOW that ISIS was 'Made in the USA'" (11 July 2015), which include photos of ISIS terrorist sporting US Army tatoos. None of this would have the least affect upon Professor Cassem, who exemplifies "to a tee" the parody of a man who's mind is made up--and doesn't want to be bothered with facts!