The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

[Ian David]

Charlie Veitch was once one of Britain’s leading conspiracy theorists, a friend of David Icke and Alex Jones and a 9/11 'truther'. But when he had a change of heart, the threats began. He talks to Will Storr.


'The poster boy for a mad movement': Charlie Veitch Photo: Will Storr


On a June afternoon in the middle of New York’s Times Square, Charlie Veitch took out his phone, turned on the camera and began recording a statement about the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.

“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” he started. “That it was not in any way as the official story explained. But, this universe is truly one of smoke screens, illusions and wrong paths. If you are presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group want to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect, and I do.”

To most people, it doesn’t sound like a particularly outrageous statement to make. In fact, the rest of the video was almost banal in its observations; that the destruction of the towers may actually have been caused by the two 767 passenger jets that flew into them. But to those who subscribed to Veitch’s YouTube channel, a channel he set up to promulgate conspiracy theories like the one he was now rejecting, it was tantamount to heresy.

“You sell out piece of s---. Rot in hell, Veitch,” ran one comment beneath the video. “This man is a pawn,” said another. “Your [sic] a f---ing pathetic slave,” shrilled a third. “What got ya? Money?” So runs what passes for debate on the internet. Veitch had expected a few spiteful comments from the so-called “Truth Movement”. What he had not expected was the size or the sheer force of the attack.

More:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html

[BlueStreak]

1. In today's world, the way-out-there crazies are obscuring attention on some important issues

The teabaggers have these childish notions about what government does and how it needs to be funded. But the problem is that when they lay out a position at the far end of the spectrum, the establishment welcomes that by staking out the polar opposite position. What happens is that all the corruption, waste , and bad priorities in the middle don't really get any attention at all. "You are either with us or agin' us."

It is the same way with the "truthers". They cling to some ideas that are at best far-fetched, if not altogether preposterous. But in the process, that allowed all the authoritarians to lay out the polar opposite position. "Look at those crazy truthers. Have you ever seen anything more crazy than that? Everything they are saying is crazy, right? Only a crazy person would give them the time of day."

But in fact there are some serious questions that were never addressed about 911 and probably never will be. In all likelihood, it wasn't as simple as Osama sitting in a cave dreaming this up. And it wasn't so overt as Rudy Guiliani and Bush's brother hiring a bunch of secret agents to plant explosives in the towers. In between those two poles are important questions.

[Ian David]

3. I lean toward the LIHOP camp. n/t

[BlueStreak]

4. Some of that is beyond any dispute

Let's break it down.

LIHOP = Let It Happen On-purpose

Obviously "they" let something happen. Who is "they"? There are lots of different parties. For this post, let me just address the top echelon: Bush, Cheney, and Rice.

They let "it" happen, but we don't really know if they knew what "it" was. Obviously the PDB was pretty darned specific, but it didn't give an exact date and target address. What seems to be the case is that they all went on their merry way and took no specific actions in response to the PDB. If they had known a specific date and place, would they have acted? We'd all like to hope so, but at minimum the American people should have received an answer to just what they did know.

And then there is the really insidious part, which is "on purpose". What would be the motive for that? Well, it is not a conspiracy theory to quote directly from the PNAC document. Clearly these people had already thought through the "opportunity" that would be presented by "some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". And we know that they, in fact, did act quickly on that opportunity. What we don't know is the piece in the middle. If our government was not hoping and waiting patiently for such an event, is there anything that could realistically have been done to have thwarted this.

It seems to me those have always been reasonable questions, and the fact that the commission didn't go anywhere near this leads to suspicions that I consider to be well-founded.

The JFK questions remain open precisely because the Warren Commission obviously swept some important things under the rug. And these 911 questions will remain open for the same reason, like it or not.

[Ace Acme]

6. It's not a conspiracy theory to quote PNAC

It's a conspiracy fact. PNAC engaged in a conspiracy to set the USA on a course of global domination.

And they succeeded. A conspiracy that has since proved to be a bipartisan one.

[siligut]

2. He explains the draw of conspiracy theories

“I was absolutely spangled from the nightclub when my best friend said ‘Charlie, you know you’re Right-wing and you joined the Army? Well, they were lying to you.’ I’m like, ‘What?’ He said, ‘9/11; it wasn’t as you think.’ It was almost like an initiation into a cult, a religion. You’re being given special knowledge.”

This is why there are ditto-heads and Beck fans, they think they are in the know, that THEY are special because they know the "truth". He also talks about how he was disowned and shunned with extreme prejudice once he saw through the falsehoods, can't have reality spreading among the troops.

[CJCRANE]

5. No one can give the truth to you, you have to (attempt) to find it for yourself.

If you can put all of your biases aside then you stand a chance of getting closer to the truth (given time). However, no single source will give you the whole picture.