Why Conspiracy Theorists Think ‘The Simpsons’ May Have Predicted 9/11

Homer becomes a Freemason

Homer becomes a Freemason

Adam Gell has some fun with that Simpsons 9/11 video, in the New York Observer:

Yes, it’s true. (Or might be.) For years, fringe types have pointed to amazingly sketchy but entertaining evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were actually foretold by the beloved Fox cartoon. Nearly four years before 9/11, in an episode of the show entitled “The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson,” there’s a curious little scene that some conspiracy lovers and “Simpsons” aficionados have long thought might be a warning….

Silly as that seems, members of an online forum run by crackpot David Icke—best known for his theory that various prominent figures (George W. Bush, Kris Kristofferson) are actually shape-shifting “Reptillians” bent on world domination—seem to have bought into it. Noted one: “Rumors are that the creator of the show is a 33rd degree Freemason. Harry Shearer who does 12 voices on the Simpsons is a member of the Bohemian Grove.” (Not really, but he did make a really bad film satirizing Bohemian Grove, which is close enough.)

Anyway, ever since, a certain subset of true patriots has been parsing “The Simpsons” for hidden messages about the next devastating event. And recently, they found it…

Of course there’s another explanation: that this is all part of an even wider conspiracy…a viral-video false-flag maneuver designed to give conspiracy theorists themselves a bad name.

Think about it.

, , , , ,

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I’m not sure any false flag op to disgrace conspiracy theorists could go far enough or be silly enough to make some of today’s theorists look bad. “Government does something illegal, covers it up.” is usually a pretty safe bet for accuracy…but since that theme is so cliched from repeated vindications…today’s theorists have to plumb whole new levels of wacky just to scratch the surface of credulity. Reptilians or Simpsons messages…they may just be a reflection of the need to push the boundaries past the established levels…and with those levels already pushed to the breaking point…this is what you’re left with.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I’m not sure any false flag op to disgrace conspiracy theorists could go far enough or be silly enough to make some of today’s theorists look bad. “Government does something illegal, covers it up.” is usually a pretty safe bet for accuracy…but since that theme is so cliched from repeated vindications…today’s theorists have to plumb whole new levels of wacky just to scratch the surface of credulity. Reptilians or Simpsons messages…they may just be a reflection of the need to push the boundaries past the established levels…and with those levels already pushed to the breaking point…this is what you’re left with.

  • Namelesswon

    I like this “Icke ” concept, now i know stuff is bullshit by a simple sentence scan for David Icke.

    • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

      Icke is, no doubt, wrong and deeply flawed.
      But I have to give him credit for articulating in a most reasonable and convincing way why he has the “RIGHT” to be wrong.

      What’s more, even though I like to make fun of Icke the same as the next guy does, I do trust in his fundamental humanity. That’s way more than I can say for the likes of George Bush (either of them), the Queen of England, Bill Gates, Lloyd Blankfein or Glenn Beck.

  • Namelesswon

    I like this “Icke ” concept, now i know stuff is bullshit by a simple sentence scan for David Icke.

  • blah

    another random article just to discredit Icke.

  • blah

    another random article just to discredit Icke.

  • Wormsucker

    hey… eat my plasma

  • Wormsucker

    hey… eat my plasma

  • DeepCough

    People don’t see the deeper conspiracy here: that the Mad Men of Madison Avenue have finally succeeded in
    marketing a product to the most suspicious, and yet highly gullible, demographic in the country: conspiracy
    theorists.

  • DeepCough

    People don’t see the deeper conspiracy here: that the Mad Men of Madison Avenue have finally succeeded in
    marketing a product to the most suspicious, and yet highly gullible, demographic in the country: conspiracy
    theorists.

  • mole_face

    It could be true – we should never take for granted that corporations go out of their way to pump “programming” into our homes. The Simpsons had a lot of staff overhauls behind the scenes in the late 90s, and the “Homer Vs NYC” episode was the first ep of a very weird transitional season of the show. As of season eight, the show’s direction was slowly being steered off course by new head executive producers and writers who didn’t seem to get the Simpsons’ M.O. – by season ten the new creative team had transformed the show into lowest-common-denominator humor. I wouldn’t put it past soulless lowbrow bullshit like that to be an overt propaganda vehicle, so who knows.

    • Andrew

      But why? Means do not equal motive, and motive does not equal guilt. I’m not arguing that there was no conspiracy behind 9/11, nor that television shows aren’t a vehicle for propaganda. But why would conspirators leave coded clues to upcoming crimes in popular media? It would both leave them open to discovery, and lessen any useful traumatization.

      • NaturalSelection

        Exactly!

      • mole_face

        No idea. But when you have to write something off as a “coincidence”, you’re making an excuse for being unable to offer an alternate explanation. Don’t get me wrong – the Simpsons 911 coincidence is tenuous at best. I’m just saying, in principle it’s not that far fetched that the media is controlled enough for something like this to be happening.

        • Andrew

          “Coincidence” has too much of a connotation of randomness. Everything has at least one cause, but those causes are usually not conscious intentions. Also, things that are very similar may have very similar but not identical causes. So I don’t view most similarities as being either random or as communications. Two trees fall in two different forests. For me to believe in a conspiracy, I need to see a motive and an effect serving that motive. Neither exists in this case. The numbers 9 and 11 have appeared together innumerable times throughout history without being meant as references to the 2001 attacks, and yet their appearances have only rarely been at all random. It’s only the fact that the media has burned those numbers into our brains since 2001 that causes us to be psychologically triggered when we see appearances from before 2001.

          Now, did the terrorists (whoever they were) plan their attacks on 9/11 2001 because Bush senior gave his “New World Order” speech before the UN exactly ten years earlier on on 9/11 1991? Maybe.

  • fuzzgun

    It could be true – we should never take for granted that corporations go out of their way to pump “programming” into our homes. The Simpsons had a lot of staff overhauls behind the scenes in the late 90s, and the “Homer Vs NYC” episode was the first ep of a very weird transitional season of the show. As of season eight, the show’s direction was slowly being steered off course by new head executive producers and writers who didn’t seem to get the Simpsons’ M.O. – by season ten the new creative team had transformed the show into lowest-common-denominator humor. I wouldn’t put it past soulless lowbrow bullshit like that to be an overt propaganda vehicle, so who knows.

  • Andrew

    But why? Means do not equal motive, and motive does not equal guilt. I’m not arguing that there was no conspiracy behind 9/11, nor that television shows aren’t a vehicle for propaganda. But why would conspirators leave coded clues to upcoming crimes in popular media? It would both leave them open to discovery, and lessen any useful traumatization.

  • NaturalSelection

    Exactly!

  • myth_slayer

    Dood, you are always bolstering Foxtard & company and using the neoncon talking buzz phrase “conspiracy theorist.”

    Are you on their payroll?

    Or just douchey????

    • Tunaghost

      So using the phrase “conspiracy theorist” to describe someone who is theorizing a conspiracy to explain an event is “douchey”? Good defense. No, really, there is no way anyone could find fault with that. No way at all.

      • Grek

        Yes, in our society in this day and age, using the term “conspiracy theorist” can in fact be “douchey”. That is through no fault of the term itself, but because the term “conspiracy theorist” has been subverted by our media to be synonymous with adjectives like “crazy”, “insane”, “whacko”, and “nuts”. Like I said, nothing wrong with the literal term itself, but the connotations that we are conditioned to associate with this word make many uses of it by certain individuals or organizations “douchey”. Many people in our media use the term when they are trying to make someone look bad, as a way to discredit what they have to say or ideas they are trying to get across. They know that if they can connect an individual or group to the term “conspiracy theorists” in the heads of the masses, that will reduce the chance of anything they have to say being taken seriously. So in closing, when the term “conspiracy theorist” is used in the above context, it is in fact a “douchey” move.

        • Tuna Ghost

          Sure, when an interviewer labels Noam Chomsky a “conspiracy theorist” its a little douchey because he’s said time and time again that there’s no conspiracy, everything he’s talking about is public record and out in the open. No one is trying to cover anything up, the culprits just count on people not noticing or giving a shit. Applying the term inappropriately is certainly douchey.

          When applying it someone who’s first reaction to something like is to formulate a conspiracy theory it is, I think, quite appropriate regardless of the connotations.

  • Anonymous

    Dood, you are always bolstering Foxtard & company and using the neoncon talking buzz phrase “conspiracy theorist.”

    Are you on their payroll?

    Or just douchey????

  • fuzzgun

    No idea. But when you have to write something off as a “coincidence”, you’re making an excuse for being unable to offer an alternate explanation. Don’t get me wrong – the Simpsons 911 coincidence is tenuous at best. I’m just saying, in principle it’s not that far fetched that the media is controlled enough for something like this to be happening.

  • Jiggs

    Since there’s nothing “funny” about Lisa holding a NY magazine with a hugely out of proportion price of “$9″ on the cover, directly adjacent to the twin towers (in fact, for no rational or “comic” reason she’s practically shoving it in the viewer’s face), and since every television image is under tight editorial control by producers, story editors, etc., and nothing happens or appears by “accident,” it’s either a very odd coincidence or a very sick inside joke.

    • Tunaghost

      The joke is that it’s only 9$ to ride a greyhound to New York. It’s a shot at how very cheap Greyhound buses are, and it’s so large because the animators had to make sure the viewers noticed it. The idea that nothing happens by “accident” on television is completely ridiculous.

      • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

        Speaking for those who went to school for broadcast communications and advertising (which is an enormous factor in my abiding hatred of pop media)…

        …nothing noticeable is EVER on TV by accident. NOTHING. Either its part of the mood and atmosphere…or its there because an advertiser paid for it, or because the shape in relation to other objects has relevance to the director.

        …but what the relevance is…thats purely subjective…so you’re correct in the sense that it doesn’t mean what fervent conspiracists want it to…but to understand the language of modern programming and visual entertainment…you have to have been in the belly of the beast.

        If I were to deconstruct a show that might have been eerily too close for comfort regarding 9/11…it would be the episode of “The Lone Gunmen” that featured a plot by members of the US government and allies to attack the US at various sites using hijacked airplanes…to jump start support for war in oil bearing nations in the Middle East. Essentially, months before fiction became reality…they nailed it. Now thats uncanny. But a Simpsons episode with a 9 next to twin towers in the background…or a clock falling in the yard…not quite so damning.

        • Tuna Ghost

          “Speaking for those who went to school for broadcast communications and advertising (which is an enormous factor in my abiding hatred of pop media)…

          …nothing noticeable is EVER on TV by accident. NOTHING.”

          …except that in interviews and audio commentaries, the creators admit to mistakes happening quite frequently. This happens in a lot of shows, especially when the animation is done overseas. You can see mistakes in animation occuring all the effing time in these early episodes of the Simpsons. Claiming that “nothing noticable” (what does that mean, anyway?) appears on screen by accident is simply not true, regardless of whatever class you took in school.

          Not that it matters to the topic. As others have pointed out, just because there is a large number nine next to the twin towers doesn’t mean it’s a message. Signal vs. noise here, people.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            Yes…trivial errors happen in production…the cheaper you go, the more it happens. Yes…there is grass on the ground because they’re outdoors and they didn’t need to have a special reason to have grass on the ground…fine…nitpick…it doesn’t change the point…If something negatively impacts the intended product you will view…it is removed. What is left is either harmless to the overall intent…or chosen because of its significance. Either way, consideration was given as to whether an object or part of the background should be allowed to stay or be removed. If you see it, someone thought about it and chose for it to be there.

            But as for noticeable, let me be specific…if it is significant, highly visible, and obvious…it is there for a reason…you are supposed to notice it, it has a part to play. Yes errors happen, yes there is so much material made these days that quality has diminished…but the science of making sure that the intended vision/entertainment generally isn’t interrupted by unintended objects is still in place. And it was classes…not class…several years worth…leading to total burnout and the realization that advertising is truly Satan’s work on Earth…(and I don’t even believe in Satan…but if there were a Satan…thats where he would be employed). Mass Psychology, Psychology of Advertising, and more more more. If you knew the degree to which experts in language were cross consulted to determine the effectiveness of small combinations of specific words chosen for their power to resonate and linger in the memory with positive association…it might just fry your circuits.

            I’m still with ya on the signal vs noise bit though…not to mention that people, being infinitely varied, have endless imagination…and if we comb the whole of the mediascape for something with relevance to today’s political landscape…I’m sure almost anyone with determination can interpret whatever they want from anything that has been broadcast since Marconi first got busy with radio.

          • Tuna Ghost

            “Yes…trivial errors happen in production…”

            Errors happen in production. They usually catch the big ones. They’re not always successful. This is a far, far cry from your earlier claim that “……nothing noticeable is EVER on TV by accident. NOTHING.”, which is, I’m sure you’ll admit, absolute crap.

            “…it doesn’t change the point…If something negatively impacts the intended product you will view…it is removed.”

            Except when it isn’t. I’m not sure why you’re trying to suggest that television editors are somehow infallible at their profession when they will be the first to admit they are not. Even in advertising this happens after a commercial is broadcasted. Then someone catches it, and the commercial is either removed or altered. As for The Simpons, there are errors that are STILL included, more than ten years later. This is not uncommon in television shows.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            You can quibble over trivia, but flaws or no, there is an entire profession crafted around what I’m talking about…and you don’t have to believe it or agree with it…it’s still true.

  • Jiggs

    Since there’s nothing “funny” about Lisa holding a NY magazine with a hugely out of proportion price of “$9″ on the cover, directly adjacent to the twin towers (in fact, for no rational or “comic” reason she’s practically shoving it in the viewer’s face), and since every television image is under tight editorial control by producers, story editors, etc., and nothing happens or appears by “accident,” it’s either a very odd coincidence or a very sick inside joke.

  • GrimJerr

    If true who are the cues for, are they entertainment for the elbow rubbers at the G20, bold winks to the fellow conspirators that things are progressing as planned, or cryptic warnings from inside whistle blowers, too afraid to speak out publicly.

  • GrimJerr

    If true who are the cues for, are they entertainment for the elbow rubbers at the G20, bold winks to the fellow conspirators that things are progressing as planned, or cryptic warnings from inside whistle blowers, too afraid to speak out publicly.

  • Andrew

    “Coincidence” has too much of a connotation of randomness. Everything has at least one cause, but those causes are usually not conscious intentions. Also, things that are very similar may have very similar but not identical causes. So I don’t view most similarities as being either random or as communications. Two trees fall in two different forests. For me to believe in a conspiracy, I need to see a motive and an effect serving that motive. Neither exists in this case. The numbers 9 and 11 have appeared together innumerable times throughout history without being meant as references to the 2001 attacks, and yet their appearances have only rarely been at all random. It’s only the fact that the media has burned those numbers into our brains since 2001 that causes us to be psychologically triggered when we see appearances from before 2001.

    Now, did the terrorists (whoever they were) plan their attacks on 9/11 2001 because Bush senior gave his “New World Order” speech before the UN exactly ten years earlier on on 9/11 1991? Maybe.

  • Jiggs

    I am stunned by the prudishness and naivete of many of these comments.
    Oh yeah, this is “DISinfo.com.”
    Thaaat explains it. Great job, guys!

    There is an occult, esoteric, numerological significance to this. Just because we don’t understand the symbolic language being used, it doesn’t mean it’s gibberish. Nothing more foolish looking than someone mocking what they obviously don’t understand.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Understanding symbols…and their use in everyday life…does not necessarily make the most outrageous and even ridiculous stretching of credulity suddenly okay and perfectly logical.

      No one’s contesting that symbology is important and appears in surprising places…but this particular instance is so ludicrous that it makes even hardened conspiracy fans shudder with vague embarrassment.

      • Jiggs

        And that’s precisely where you’re wrong. There is nothing “ridiculous” about the numbers “911,” numerologically speaking. It is only “ridiculous” and “outrageous” and illogical to the unlearned.

        I’m not saying that a Simpson’s episode was used to deliberately foreshadow 911. It could very well be a very odd coincidence. How the hell would I know. What bothers me is that the “doubters” have absolutely no reason, other than their own bias, to be so confident that it WASN’T deliberate, yet they’re the one’s using loaded and marginalizing words and expressions like “conspiracy theorist,” “wacko,” “nut job,” etc., which is right out of the globalist disinfo handbook.

        Granted, the Simpson’s 911 episode DOES “stretch credulity.” Everything I’ve ever learned about the Illuminati has “stretched” my credulity! I have no idea where you’re coming from re: 911, maybe you believe the government story, which no doubt makes the Simpson’s connection seem pretty silly. But, if you’re like the majority of Americans who doubt the “official” conspiracy of 19 Arabs theory, seeing “911” pop up on a Simpson’s episode two years before the event makes us sit up and take notice. Only a fool, in my opinion, would glibly write it off as a “coincidence” and leave it at that. Yes, it could be a coincidence. Or, not. If it’s a coincidence, no worries. If it’s not a coincidence, then maybe we’re deeper down the rabbit hole than we think.

        Peace.

        • Andrew

          He’s not saying there’s anything ridiculous about the numbers 9 and 11, he’s saying there’s something ridiculous about the idea that the numbers’ occult significance would somehow make a few seconds of a Simpsons episode integral to the WTC conspiracy four years later. Saying there’s no connection is not saying they’re gibberish.

          To use a metaphor, I don’t have to know what Sasquatches are to be pretty certain they’re not felines, even though both are mammals.

  • Jiggs

    I am stunned by the prudishness and naivete of many of these comments.
    Oh yeah, this is “DISinfo.com.”
    Thaaat explains it. Great job, guys!

    There is an occult, esoteric, numerological significance to this. Just because we don’t understand the symbolic language being used, it doesn’t mean it’s gibberish. Nothing more foolish looking than someone mocking what they obviously don’t understand.

  • Tunaghost

    The joke is that it’s only 9$ to ride a greyhound to New York. It’s a shot at how very cheap Greyhound buses are, and it’s so large because the animators had to make sure the viewers noticed it. The idea that nothing happens by “accident” on television is completely ridiculous.

  • Tunaghost

    So using the phrase “conspiracy theorist” to describe someone who is theorizing a conspiracy to explain an event is “douchey”? Good defense. No, really, there is no way anyone could find fault with that. No way at all.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Understanding symbols…and their use in everyday life…does not necessarily make the most outrageous and even ridiculous stretching of credulity suddenly okay and perfectly logical.

    No one’s contesting that symbology is important and appears in surprising places…but this particular instance is so ludicrous that it makes even hardened conspiracy fans shudder with vague embarrassment.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Speaking for those who went to school for broadcast communications and advertising (which is an enormous factor in my abiding hatred of pop media)…

    …nothing noticeable is EVER on TV by accident. NOTHING. Either its part of the mood and atmosphere…or its there because an advertiser paid for it, or because the shape in relation to other objects has relevance to the director.

    …but what the relevance is…thats purely subjective…so you’re correct in the sense that it doesn’t mean what fervent conspiracists want it to…but to understand the language of modern programming and visual entertainment…you have to have been in the belly of the beast.

    If I were to deconstruct a show that might have been eerily too close for comfort regarding 9/11…it would be the episode of “The Lone Gunmen” that featured a plot by members of the US government and allies to attack the US at various sites using hijacked airplanes…to jump start support for war in oil bearing nations in the Middle East. Essentially, months before fiction became reality…they nailed it. Now thats uncanny. But a Simpsons episode with a 9 next to twin towers in the background…or a clock falling in the yard…not quite so damning.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    Icke is, no doubt, wrong and deeply flawed.
    But I have to give him credit for articulating in a most reasonable and convincing way why he has the “RIGHT” to be wrong.

    What’s more, even though I like to make fun of Icke the same as the next guy does, I do trust in his fundamental humanity. That’s way more than I can say for the likes of George Bush (either of them), the Queen of England, Bill Gates, Lloyd Blankfein or Glenn Beck.

  • Goatz4u

    I’m beginning to think this site is another CoIntelPro pile. While the average person may be content reading this site, I am not. This sites drivel covers only that which is well documented, obvious, ridiculous, unimportant and is good only for the oblivious. I have never seen anything here that has made me stop and think in the past 10 days of reading it. I have found more interesting and better information in the comments that any of the articles. Even the second paragraph in this article sound like disinfo. Just the way it was written sounds like BS. I am not saying David Icke is or isn’t a crackpot nor do I know if there is any truth to the simpsons episode. However, I will tell you the same thing I know about godlikeproductions.com (an airforce psyops site), your full of shit and I’m calling you out on it. The BS paraded on here will only keep you staring at the rabbit hole, if you want to go down it you have to pull your head out of this sites ass.

  • Goatz4u

    I’m beginning to think this site is another CoIntelPro pile. While the average person may be content reading this site, I am not. This sites drivel covers only that which is well documented, obvious, ridiculous, unimportant and is good only for the oblivious. I have never seen anything here that has made me stop and think in the past 10 days of reading it. I have found more interesting and better information in the comments that any of the articles. Even the second paragraph in this article sound like disinfo. Just the way it was written sounds like BS. I am not saying David Icke is or isn’t a crackpot nor do I know if there is any truth to the simpsons episode. However, I will tell you the same thing I know about godlikeproductions.com (an airforce psyops site), your full of shit and I’m calling you out on it. The BS paraded on here will only keep you staring at the rabbit hole, if you want to go down it you have to pull your head out of this sites ass.

  • Jiggs

    And that’s precisely where you’re wrong. There is nothing “ridiculous” about the numbers “911,” numerologically speaking. It is only “ridiculous” and “outrageous” and illogical to the unlearned.

    I’m not saying that a Simpson’s episode was used to deliberately foreshadow 911. It could very well be a very odd coincidence. How the hell would I know. What bothers me is that the “doubters” have absolutely no reason, other than their own bias, to be so confident that it WASN’T deliberate, yet they’re the one’s using loaded and marginalizing words and expressions like “conspiracy theorist,” “wacko,” “nut job,” etc., which is right out of the globalist disinfo handbook.

    Granted, the Simpson’s 911 episode DOES “stretch credulity.” Everything I’ve ever learned about the Illuminati has “stretched” my credulity! I have no idea where you’re coming from re: 911, maybe you believe the government story, which no doubt makes the Simpson’s connection seem pretty silly. But, if you’re like the majority of Americans who doubt the “official” conspiracy of 19 Arabs theory, seeing “911” pop up on a Simpson’s episode two years before the event makes us sit up and take notice. Only a fool, in my opinion, would glibly write it off as a “coincidence” and leave it at that. Yes, it could be a coincidence. Or, not. If it’s a coincidence, no worries. If it’s not a coincidence, then maybe we’re deeper down the rabbit hole than we think.

    Peace.

  • Andrew

    He’s not saying there’s anything ridiculous about the numbers 9 and 11, he’s saying there’s something ridiculous about the idea that the numbers’ occult significance would somehow make a few seconds of a Simpsons episode integral to the WTC conspiracy four years later. Saying there’s no connection is not saying they’re gibberish.

    To use a metaphor, I don’t have to know what Sasquatches are to be pretty certain they’re not felines, even though both are mammals.

  • DeepCough

    For anyone that thinks the Simpsons needs to dedicate a whole episode to lampooning conspiracy theory
    claptrap like this, well, prognosticatively enough, those shrewd bastards did that too!
    (See: “Gone Maggie Gone,” Season 20, Episode 13; also, for further viewing, check out “Thank God, It’s Doomsday,” Season 16, Episode 19).

  • DeepCough

    For anyone that thinks the Simpsons needs to dedicate a whole episode to lampooning conspiracy theory
    claptrap like this, well, prognosticatively enough, those shrewd bastards did that too!
    (See: “Gone Maggie Gone,” Season 20, Episode 13; also, for further viewing, check out “Thank God, It’s Doomsday,” Season 16, Episode 19).

  • Grek

    Yes, in our society in this day and age, using the term “conspiracy theorist” can in fact be “douchey”. That is through no fault of the term itself, but because the term “conspiracy theorist” has been subverted by our media to be synonymous with adjectives like “crazy”, “insane”, “whacko”, and “nuts”. Like I said, nothing wrong with the literal term itself, but the connotations that we are conditioned to associate with this word make many uses of it by certain individuals or organizations “douchey”. Many people in our media use the term when they are trying to make someone look bad, as a way to discredit what they have to say or ideas they are trying to get across. They know that if they can connect an individual or group to the term “conspiracy theorists” in the heads of the masses, that will reduce the chance of anything they have to say being taken seriously. So in closing, when the term “conspiracy theorist” is used in the above context, it is in fact a “douchey” move.

  • Anon

    The trouble with these extreme conspiracy theorists is that they lack a fundamental understanding of statistics. Coincidences happen. If you press a random number generator enough times, it will produce the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6. There is no ulterior motive, only chance. In the case of the Simpsons episode, it wasn’t even a coincidence (A $9 sign next to an image of the twin towers? Are you kidding me? It would’ve been different if the 911 attacks were predicted in an episode, but a one-second shot of a leaflet?)

    If ”the illuminati” really had a hand in the 911, why on earth would they tell the Simpsons writers? And more importantly, why would they include (a frankly pathetic reference to it) in the episode? Only the most gullible, credulous and irrational individuals would believe such a thing.

    It’s hardly a surprise that extreme conspiracy theorists are usually isolated paranoid/social maladjusted/depressives. The cognitive distortions are rife…

    • anon

      Sadly, my husband is one of these “gullible, credulous and irrational” people. He now thinks that every single famous person is a mason/in league with the devil/an illumanti member.

      To be honest, I am so close to leaving him. It’s getting too much, now.

  • Anon

    The trouble with these extreme conspiracy theorists is that they lack a fundamental understanding of statistics. Coincidences happen. If you press a random number generator enough times, it will produce the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6. There is no ulterior motive, only chance. In the case of the Simpsons episode, it wasn’t even a coincidence (A $9 sign next to an image of the twin towers? Are you kidding me? It would’ve been different if the 911 attacks were predicted in an episode, but a one-second shot of a leaflet?)

    If ”the illuminati” really had a hand in the 911, why on earth would they tell the Simpsons writers? And more importantly, why would they include (a frankly pathetic reference to it) in the episode? Only the most gullible, credulous and irrational individuals would believe such a thing.

    It’s hardly a surprise that extreme conspiracy theorists are usually isolated paranoid/social maladjusted/depressives. The cognitive distortions are rife…

  • Anon

    The trouble with these extreme conspiracy theorists is that they lack a fundamental understanding of statistics. Coincidences happen. If you press a random number generator enough times, it will produce the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6. There is no ulterior motive, only chance. In the case of the Simpsons episode, it wasn’t even a coincidence (A $9 sign next to an image of the twin towers? Are you kidding me? It would’ve been different if the 911 attacks were predicted in an episode, but a one-second shot of a leaflet?)

    If ”the illuminati” really had a hand in the 911, why on earth would they tell the Simpsons writers? And more importantly, why would they include (a frankly pathetic reference to it) in the episode? Only the most gullible, credulous and irrational individuals would believe such a thing.

    It’s hardly a surprise that extreme conspiracy theorists are usually isolated paranoid/social maladjusted/depressives. The cognitive distortions are rife…

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Speaking for those who went to school for broadcast communications and advertising (which is an enormous factor in my abiding hatred of pop media)…

    …nothing noticeable is EVER on TV by accident. NOTHING.”

    …except that in interviews and audio commentaries, the creators admit to mistakes happening quite frequently. This happens in a lot of shows, especially when the animation is done overseas. You can see mistakes in animation occuring all the effing time in these early episodes of the Simpsons. Claiming that “nothing noticable” (what does that mean, anyway?) appears on screen by accident is simply not true, regardless of whatever class you took in school.

    Not that it matters to the topic. As others have pointed out, just because there is a large number nine next to the twin towers doesn’t mean it’s a message. Signal vs. noise here, people.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Sure, when an interviewer labels Noam Chomsky a “conspiracy theorist” its a little douchey because he’s said time and time again that there’s no conspiracy, everything he’s talking about is public record and out in the open. No one is trying to cover anything up, the culprits just count on people not noticing or giving a shit. Applying the term inappropriately is certainly douchey.

    When applying it someone who’s first reaction to something like is to formulate a conspiracy theory it is, I think, quite appropriate regardless of the connotations.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Yes…trivial errors happen in production…the cheaper you go, the more it happens. Yes…there is grass on the ground because they’re outdoors and they didn’t need to have a special reason to have grass on the ground…fine…nitpick…it doesn’t change the point…If something negatively impacts the intended product you will view…it is removed. What is left is either harmless to the overall intent…or chosen because of its significance. Either way, consideration was given as to whether an object or part of the background should be allowed to stay or be removed. If you see it, someone thought about it and chose for it to be there.

    But as for noticeable, let me be specific…if it is significant, highly visible, and obvious…it is there for a reason…you are supposed to notice it, it has a part to play. Yes errors happen, yes there is so much material made these days that quality has diminished…but the science of making sure that the intended vision/entertainment generally isn’t interrupted by unintended objects is still in place. And it was classes…not class…several years worth…leading to total burnout and the realization that advertising is truly Satan’s work on Earth…(and I don’t even believe in Satan…but if there were a Satan…thats where he would be employed). Mass Psychology, Psychology of Advertising, and more more more. If you knew the degree to which experts in language were cross consulted to determine the effectiveness of small combinations of specific words chosen for their power to resonate and linger in the memory with positive association…it might just fry your circuits.

    I’m still with ya on the signal vs noise bit though…not to mention that people, being infinitely varied, have endless imagination…and if we comb the whole of the mediascape for something with relevance to today’s political landscape…I’m sure almost anyone with determination can interpret whatever they want from anything that has been broadcast since Marconi first got busy with radio.

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Yes…trivial errors happen in production…”

    Errors happen in production. They usually catch the big ones. They’re not always successful. This is a far, far cry from your earlier claim that “……nothing noticeable is EVER on TV by accident. NOTHING.”, which is, I’m sure you’ll admit, absolute crap.

    “…it doesn’t change the point…If something negatively impacts the intended product you will view…it is removed.”

    Except when it isn’t. I’m not sure why you’re trying to suggest that television editors are somehow infallible at their profession when they will be the first to admit they are not. Even in advertising this happens after a commercial is broadcasted. Then someone catches it, and the commercial is either removed or altered. As for The Simpons, there are errors that are STILL included, more than ten years later. This is not uncommon in television shows.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    You can quibble over trivia, but flaws or no, there is an entire profession crafted around what I’m talking about…and you don’t have to believe it or agree with it…it’s still true.

  • anon

    Sadly, my husband is one of these “gullible, credulous and irrational” people. He now thinks that every single famous person is a mason/in league with the devil/an illumanti member.

    To be honest, I am so close to leaving him. It’s getting too much, now.

  • 6:13

    WELL I FOR ONE AM CONVINCED!! …that people will believe anything. Forgive me if I take neither side of this debate seriously.

  • 6:13

    WELL I FOR ONE AM CONVINCED!! …that people will believe anything. Forgive me if I take neither side of this debate seriously.

  • Drewcifer

    David Icke is not a crackpot. He struggled with disclosing what he feels he discovered about the whole lizard thing. People close to him suggested he not go forward with the info for fear it would taint his message, which it most certainly has. But, he decided to go ahead and publish his findings because he’s a good journalist. He describes in one of his interviews this process. He at first dismissed the people he interviewed as quacks, just as you label him now. However, he kept running across story after story from different people all over the world to the point where he just had to put aside his doubts and have an open mind. His research, which none of you have privy to, forced him to to conclude it might be real. He has never personally seen it happen, but his research must have had some merit. I think he’s just on a higher conscience level than most and they can’t perceive what he feels to be the truth. I like Icke. But I agree he seems to languish a bit on the more esoteric of things. That’s why I love Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Bob Chapman and others. I also like Len Horowitz, I think he falls somewhere between Alex and David on the more vs. less eccentric types.

  • Drewcifer

    David Icke is not a crackpot. He struggled with disclosing what he feels he discovered about the whole lizard thing. People close to him suggested he not go forward with the info for fear it would taint his message, which it most certainly has. But, he decided to go ahead and publish his findings because he’s a good journalist. He describes in one of his interviews this process. He at first dismissed the people he interviewed as quacks, just as you label him now. However, he kept running across story after story from different people all over the world to the point where he just had to put aside his doubts and have an open mind. His research, which none of you have privy to, forced him to to conclude it might be real. He has never personally seen it happen, but his research must have had some merit. I think he’s just on a higher conscience level than most and they can’t perceive what he feels to be the truth. I like Icke. But I agree he seems to languish a bit on the more esoteric of things. That’s why I love Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Bob Chapman and others. I also like Len Horowitz, I think he falls somewhere between Alex and David on the more vs. less eccentric types.

21
More in 9/11, Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theory, Humor, Simpsons
The Case Against Fluoride

[disinfo ed.'s note: The following is an excerpt from The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That...

Close