Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Virilio has been data-captured.
The interesting thing about the "inside job" 9/11 conspiracy theories, I think, is how totally solipsistic they are. They reduce history to a conspiracy perpetrated by the West, whether the victim is the rest of the world or the West itself. Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and the hijackers are written out of the picture entirely. The idea that non-Westerners - but especially Arabs/Muslims, apparently - might have agendas and conspiracies of their own simply doesn't figure at all.
This is an argument that gets trotted out all the time, in various contexts. It's not a clincher. For some people it might be useful, to shake them out of a particular frame, but it proves nothing in and of itself.The interesting thing about the "inside job" 9/11 conspiracy theories, I think, is how totally solipsistic they are. They reduce history to a conspiracy perpetrated by the West, whether the victim is the rest of the world or the West itself. Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and the hijackers are written out of the picture entirely. The idea that non-Westerners - but especially Arabs/Muslims, apparently - might have agendas and conspiracies of their own simply doesn't figure at all.
Don't have much of one, as I don't know much about it. I don't think it was an inside job
Fair. But more interesting would be the response to what isn't the bottom of the barrell, hard line 'it was Bush's plan conceived with the devil' inside jobs types. There's degrees to the skepticismThe interesting thing about the "inside job" 9/11 conspiracy theories
There's some merit to it, but it's also a sneaky way of just calling someone a racist instead of refuting their argument.This is an argument that gets trotted out all the time, in various contexts. It's not a clincher. For some people it might be useful, to shake them out of a particular frame, but it proves nothing in and of itself.
Did Spike Lee prompt you to bump this thread?Ive noticed 9/11 theories becoming slowly acceptable online in the way JFK theories are. I wonder how it's legacy will look in 50 years
It completely skewers the hardline inside-job theory, because it requires the existence of a large number of actors so dedicated to helping the US "deep state" perpetrate a fake terror attack that they were prepared either to die in the process or to spend the rest of their lives in a prison camp. It's the fever dream of a halfwit, which is precisely why it appeals to you so strongly.This is an argument that gets trotted out all the time, in various contexts. It's not a clincher. For some people it might be useful, to shake them out of a particular frame, but it proves nothing in and of itself.
The idea that one or more fairly senior people in the US intelligence establishment had some idea that something major was brewing, and either failed to prevent it through massive incompetence or wilfully declined to do anything for whatever reason, is orders of magnitude more plausible, and at any rate far harder to falsify, than the inside-job idiocy.Fair. But more interesting would be the response to what isn't the bottom of the barrell, hard line 'it was Bush's plan conceived with the devil' inside jobs types. There's degrees to the skepticism
Both those theories fall under "inside job".The idea that one or more fairly senior people in the US intelligence establishment had some idea that something major was brewing, and either failed to prevent it through massive incompetence or wilfully declined to do anything for whatever reason, is orders of magnitude more plausible, and at any rate far harder to falsify, than the inside-job idiocy.
That's not actually an argument though, is it?not really. you dont think these things through. you just pick up what seems to you a useful line of attack from someone else, and keep using it, in every circumstance. it's a bit tedious really.