Brooker on 9/11 conspiracies

[Mr. Tea]

And what do we find at the very bottom of this vast power structure?

STATIONERY!

So whether you want to bring down a corporation or a terrorist network, all you have to do is choke off their supply of pens, staples and post-it notes and the rest will come crashing down.

 

[noel emits]

Sounds like a job for -

 

[droid]

Maybe, I don't know. I think it's mostly down to the idealism I was talking about. I don't see what's so wrong about that anyway. Obviously there are all sorts... But I don't really understand this sort of diss.

My problem with this point of view comes down to systemic vs the conspiracy mindset again. If one believes that exposing the truth behind 911 will somehow eliminate the negative forces in US politics, then you just dont know anything about US history. The 'system' has killed countless more people and committed far worse atrocities than 911.

Oh, not really. What do you care anyway? Can't people decide what they are concerned about? Is it just about being taken seriously?

As far as Im concerned, the aim of activism is to affect change, and it seems a shame that so many people have been led down a path least likely to do that in a country that desperately needs a revival of popular politics.

 

[Mr. Tea]

My problem with this point of view comes down to systemic vs the conspiracy mindset again. If one believes that exposing the truth behind 911 will somehow eliminate the negative forces in US politics, then you just dont know anything about US history. The 'system' has killed countless more people and committed far worse atrocities than 911.

Yes, this is something I've always thought about this kind of conspiracy theory: there's already any amount of dodgy, dishonest and totally despicable stuff that we know goverments, the media and big business have committed historically and continue to commit, so why do we need to invent even more crimes to pin on them? And if the most vocal and visible opponents of the establishment are those on the wacky fringe, that's going to discredit people with more serious gripes.

I should add that I don't think anyone questioning the official version of the events of 9/11 is necessarily on the 'wacky fringe' , and I'm sorry if I've given that impression in this thread. I guess you've also got people like David Icke who are wacky however you slice it, and idiots with a sort of reverse credulity syndrome who'd swear blind grass is orange just because the 'official story' is that it's green.

 

[droid]

I should add that I don't think anyone questioning the official version of the events of 9/11 is necessarily on the 'wacky fringe' , and I'm sorry if I've given that impression in this thread. I guess you've also got people like David Icke who are wacky however you slice it, and idiots with a sort of reverse credulity syndrome who'd swear blind grass is orange just because the 'official story' is that it's green.

One thing Ive noticed recently (and sorry to generalise), is that a lot of non US 911 truthers, tend to be climate change skeptics (its a conspiracy by scientists to increase funding/oil men to discredit enviromentalists) and anti-MMR immunisation (its a conspiracy by pharmacutical compaines to boost profits), which I think is a symptom of the conspiracy mindset - you find one, and suddenly everything is a conspiracy.

Focaults pendulum and all that.

 

[noel emits]

The 'system' has killed countless more people and committed far worse atrocities than 911.

And continues to, but on US soil? I doubt most American's would entertain that idea. As we know it's always much harder to get a grasp of what it means for people in far away lands.

As far as Im concerned, the aim of activism is to affect change, and it seems a shame that so many people have been led down a path least likely to do that in a country that desperately needs a revival of popular politics.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy?

Actually I do think that in some ways this has led to a level of awareness in people that would not have been there previously. For instance look at the questioning of the response to Katrina.

And people are entitled to their curiosity, whether you consider it ultimately a waste of time or not. I do agree though, most of the focus has unfortunately been on the big distractions and unprovable theories.

this kind of conspiracy theory:

What kind of conspiracy theory, the good kind or the bad kind?

I don't think that having not entirely unfounded suspicions about shadowy (criminal) goings on should necessarily be labelled a 'conspiracy theory' in that sense that presupposes something with that title has no basis in reality.

there's already any amount of dodgy, dishonest and totally despicable stuff that we know goverments, the media and big business have committed historically and continue to commit, so why do we need to invent even more crimes to pin on them?

True, but then I don't think the idea is really to invent stuff. And people would like to see certain high profile government names tried for their part in alleged war crimes, lies, deception, corruption etc. Why not.

And if the most vocal and visible opponents of the establishment are those on the wacky fringe, that's going to discredit people with more serious gripes.

Yes, and I doubt this causes the old PTB to lose much sleep. But then I think the underlying 'gripes' that people have probably come down to the same sorts of things in the end. Perhaps you mean 'more serious' in terms of how the problems are approached.

 

[crackerjack]

Actually I do think that in some ways this has led to a level of awareness in people that would not have been there previously. For instance look at the questioning of the response to Katrina.

That's a wholly spurious connection. Katrina was about incompetence, indifference and racism. 9/11 troofers are hooked on something else entirely.

(Unless you're talking about the handful of folks who maintain the levees were deliberately detonated who, I believe, are nuts).

 

[noel emits]

It seems *troofer* bashing has become something of a pastime in itself. It's getting kind of tiresome and a little unpleasant in tone.

What is this homogeneous mass of beings known as *troofers*?

 

[Mr. Tea]

What kind of conspiracy theory, the good kind or the bad kind?

As opposed to the demonstrably barking (Icke et al) or the mean-spirited but ultimately harmless (Shakespeare nicked all his plays from someone else; the moon landings were faked).

 

[Mr. Tea]

One thing Ive noticed recently (and sorry to generalise), is that a lot of non US 911 truthers, tend to be climate change skeptics

Really? Now this does surprise me, because there's a pretty good case to be made for the existence of a conspiracy, involving the petrochemical industry, certain conservative politicians and a handful of unscrupulous and none-too-scientific scientists who are promoting exactly this line of thinking.

(its a conspiracy by scientists to increase funding/oil men to discredit enviromentalists)

Umm, why would oil men promote the doctrine of climate change to "discredit scientists", or for any reason? You've rather lost me here, I'm afraid.

Also, it's funny people should make a fuss about something like the MMR vaccine (which protects children against potentially dangerous diseases, oh noes) when it's not in the least far-fetched to describe the symbiotic relationship between the psychiatric industry and manufacturers of antidepressants and other prescription drugs as a 'conspiracy'.

 

[noel emits]

My problem with this point of view comes down to systemic vs the conspiracy mindset again.

The 'system' has killed countless more people and committed far worse atrocities than 911.

there's already any amount of dodgy, dishonest and totally despicable stuff that we know goverments, the media and big business have committed historically and continue to commit, so why do we need to invent even more crimes to pin on them?

faking videos of OBL, rigging huge criminal investigations, actioning PNAC plans, creating favourable conditions for corporations to steal oil, etc

It's just reasonable, normal people now. I could have these discussions down the pub.

i wouldn't exaclty say im suprised at the lack of imagination and brains displayed by everyone else but its disappointing none the less

So basically what it comes down to is this arbitrary line between the corruption, manipulation and lies that is acceptable to discuss, because doing so will not put you at odds with quotidian majority opinion, and that which is labelled 'conspiracy theory' and therefore by implication beyond the pale of reasonable consideration.

But systems and conspiracies are not mutually exclusive, they are inextricably linked, symptoms of each other. So it's not about choosing a favourite 'mindset', it's about being able to use a number of different maps to understand a situation. There are systems, and there are particulars, and there are exceptions.

Some of this looks looks a lot like old school political factionalism - arguing over what is or isn't suitable for inclusion in the party line, tarring dissenters or people who say things you don't like the sound of with brushes like 'cultists' or 'troofers'. But there are 'true believers' all around - it's just always easier to see it in other people.

Ultimately I agree with saying that arguing about these things is not a particularly useful way to spend time. The world is rapidly approaching a number of what look like irreversible crisis points and we should concern ourselves with things we can actually do, lives we can change, fun we can have.

But there's the thing. If you did want to effect a global coup, and were in a position to do so, what would be the three main points you would want to exert pressure on?

Global terrorism
Environmental disaster
Economic collapse

But then why would anyone even consider such a thing when there's plenty of other evil to be getting on with. Who has the time?

 

[noel emits]

Anyway, I'm out of here for now. Don't call me - I'll be on the beach.

 

[mms]

no one from the inside has revealed it as an inside job, this would have happened ages and ages ago especially for something on this scale, which, would have meant a huge plot ( to murder friends and colleagues) that would have to be kept quiet.
Osama bin laden has claimed responsibility, discussed the bombing, on grounds which we all understand very well, threatened further attacks and further attacks have been carried out, men have pleaded guilty to them.

 

[vimothy]

No, it's not. You have inferred that. But what you say above isn't the same as saying 'at the behest of' anyway.

It's not the same no, but I'm just trying to imagine how your nudges and winks would actually work in practice. So say that 9/11 was planned and executed by a "US intelligence agency". Lets say that they wanted to embroil the US in a drawn out war. Why would they want to do that? Well, you've suggested that its for the benefit of those who benefit. Fair enough, but that only leaves a few options:

• The intelligence agency was told to do so ("at the behest of") by a higher corporate power
• The intelligence agency is indistinguishable from the corporate powers profiting from the War on Terror
• The intelligence agencey did it out of the goodness of their own hearts, because they're big fans of the corporate powers and want them to have lots of money

I haven't inferred it at all -- you have inferred it. I'm exploring it. And I don't believe it, but it's simply one of the few motivating factors that would explain why a US government agency would want to plan and execute 9/11.

And I would prefer it if you didn't try and speak for me.

Spare me the self-righteousness, noel. I was pretty fair -- if I wasn't, and I included in my summary items not attributable to you, point them out.

I think it is meaningful to talk about 'behind the scenes' dealings, interests and agendas, but not necessarily along the lines of the dots you are drawing there.

They were your lines! Just point out where I've described what you've said unfairly, and if I'm wrong, I'll apologise.

 

[droid]

Umm, why would oil men promote the doctrine of climate change to "discredit scientists", or for any reason? You've rather lost me here, I'm afraid.

To discredit environmentalists. So that when it all turns out to be a sham no one will ever listen to them again.

I'm not claiming the logic is particularly sound, but its the most commonly held conspiracy theory about climate change.

 

[vimothy]

9/11 conspiracy theories are interesting to me along two dimensions. Firstly, I find them to be a peculiar kind of solipsism. It's all about us, us, us, me, me, me at the centre of it all. If a tree falls in the developing world, it's somehow connected to the actions of the "west", probably some combination of colonialism and neo-colonialism. It's all about geopolitics as computer game, except we're the only ones playing. Secondly, conspiracy theories tend to the belief that governments are all powerful. The fact that problems persist is not proof that they are not, but that they are malevolent. Hence, AIDS is curable but the cure is suppressed, the developing world could be rich if our governments wanted it, the US military can make people invisible, 9/11 was an inside job, the Apollo moon landing was faked -- everything would be fine if only the powers that be would click their fingers and make it so.

 

[vimothy]

Classic essay: The Paranoid Style in American Politics -- Richard Hofstadter, Harper's Magazine, 1964

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).​

 

[mms]

9/11 conspiracy theories are interesting to me along two dimensions. Firstly, I find them to be a peculiar kind of solipsism. It's all about us, us, us, me, me, me at the centre of it all. If a tree falls in the developing world, it's somehow connected to the actions of the "west", probably some combination of colonialism and neo-colonialism. It's all about geopolitics as computer game, except we're the only ones playing.

This is the best point anyone has made so far in this arguement.

 

[Mr. Tea]

So basically what it comes down to is this arbitrary line between the corruption, manipulation and lies that is acceptable to discuss, because doing so will not put you at odds with quotidian majority opinion, and that which is labelled 'conspiracy theory' and therefore by implication beyond the pale of reasonable consideration.

Or the not-so-arbitrary line between activities there is abundant evidence for and activities there is scant or at best circumstantial evidence for (and which there is often a lot of evidence *against*). Or between activities that have a clear benefit for a well-defined group of people and activities that are so convoluted and nefarious as to be implausible.

Vim's point about the 'solipsism' of conspiracy theories is very well made, by the way.

 

[droid]

Some of this looks looks a lot like old school political factionalism - arguing over what is or isn't suitable for inclusion in the party line, tarring dissenters or people who say things you don't like the sound of with brushes like 'cultists' or 'troofers'. But there are 'true believers' all around - it's just always easier to see it in other people.

Funny you should say this as those you have quoted above represent a spectrum of political views, some at the opposite end to the others. Maybe 'logical factionalism' would be more accurate.

For my own part, Ive engaged with 911 truthers many times, and Ive had ridiculous arguments and illogical positions (with no credible evidence to back em up) aggressively thrown at me time and time again, and am then usually abused and called a 'New world order schill' when I refuse to accept these ideas, so there might be an element of fatigue here.

I'm happy to keep an open mind, and there is certainly a range of possibilities and a spectrum of plausibility, and I agree that there are holes in the official story, I just don't think its worth dedicating your life to.

Ultimately I agree with saying that arguing about these things is not a particularly useful way to spend time. The world is rapidly approaching a number of what look like irreversible crisis points and we should concern ourselves with things we can actually do, lives we can change, fun we can have.

So, ultimately, we agree?

Im gonna go and link to this article and institutional vs conspiracy thinking again. I believe this is the crux of the matter and it hasnt really been defined here.

* What characterizes conspiracy theorizing?

Any conspiracy theory may or may not be true. Auto, oil, and tire companies did conspire to undermine the trolley system in California in the 1930s. Israeli agents did secretly attack Western targets in Egypt in 1954 in an attempt to prevent a British withdrawal. The CIA did fake a shipload of North Vietnamese arms to justify U.S. aggression. Conspiracies do happen. But a conspiracy theorist is not someone who simply accepts the truth of some specific conspiracies. Rather, a conspiracy theorist is someone with a certain general methodological approach and set of priorities.

Conspiracy theorists begin their quest for understanding events by looking for groups acting secretly either in a rogue fashion, or to fool the public. Conspiracy theorists focus on conspirators’ methods, motives, and effects. Personalities, personal timetables, secret meetings, and conspirators’ joint actions claim priority attention. Institutional relations largely drop from view. Thus, rather than seeking a basic understanding of U.S. foreign policy, conspiracy theorists ask, “Did Clinton launch missiles at Sudan in 1998 in order to divert attention from his Monica troubles?” Rather than examining the shared policies of Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson vis-à-vis Southeast Asia, as an examination of institutions would emphasize, they ask, “Did a group within the CIA kill Kennedy to prevent his withdrawing from Vietnam?”

* What characterizes institutional theorizing?

An institutional theory emphasizes roles, incentives, and other institutional dynamics that compel important events and have similar effects over and over. Institutional theorists notice individual actions, but don’t elevate them to prime causes. The point is to learn something about society or history, as compared to learning about particular culpable people. The assumption is that if the particular people hadn’t been there to do the events, someone else would have.

There are, of course, complicating borderline cases. A person trying to discover a possible CIA role in 9-11 could be trying to verify a larger (incorrect) institutional theory—that the U.S. government is run by the CIA. Or a person might be trying to demonstrate that some set of U.S. institutions propels those involved toward conspiring. Someone studying Enron may be doing so not as a conspiracy theorist concerned with condemning the proximate activities of the board of Enron, but rather to make a case (correctly) that U.S. market relations provide a context that make conspiracies against the public by corporate CEOs highly probable. The difference is between trying to understand society by understanding its institutional dynamics versus trying to understand some singular event by understanding the activities of the people involved.

* Does conspiracy theorizing create a tendency for people to depart from rational analysis?

In a famous study in the 1950s, researcher Leon Festinger wanted to find out how a religious sect would react when its prophecy that “the Earth was going to come to an end” failed to come true on the predicted date. When the fateful date arrived and nothing happened, did the believers cease to be believers? No. Instead they asserted that God had given humankind one more chance and they maintained the rest of their belief system intact. One is entitled, of course, to hold whatever beliefs one wants, but beliefs like those of the religious sect are not rational or scientific, for it is a basic requirement of scientific beliefs that they be in principle falsifiable. If a scientific hypothsis predicts X and not-X occurs (and recurs repeatedly), then the hypothesis ought to be doubted. If the hypothesis flouts prior knowledge, as well as current evidence, and is accepted nonetheless, then the behavior is often neither scientific, nor rational.

To the conspiratorial mind, if evidence emerges contradicting a claimed conspiracy, it was planted. If further evidence shows that the first evidence was authentic, then that, too, was planted....

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/julaug02shalom.html

And another good one here:

A CONSPIRACY THEORY is a hypothesis that some events were caused by the intractable secret machinations of undemocratic individuals. A prime example is to explain Irancontra as the secret rogue actions of Oliver North and co-conspirators. Likewise, another conspiracy theory explains the hostage-holding in Carter's last presidential year as the machinations of a “secret team” helping Reagan win the presidency. A conspiracy theory of Karen Silkwood's murder would uncover the names of people who secretly planned and carried out the murder. Bending usage, we could even imagine a conspiracy theory of patriarchy as men uniting to deny women status, or a conspiracy theory of the U.S. government as competing groups seeking power for their own ends.

Conspiracies exist. Groups regularly do things without issuing press releases and this becomes a conspiracy whenever their actions transcend of “normal” behavior. We don’t talk of a conspiracy to win an election if the suspect activity includes o*nly candidates and their handlers working privately to develop effective strategy. We do talk about a conspiracy if the resulting action involves stealing the other team's plans, spiking their Whiskey Sours, or other exceptional activity. When a conspiracy cause's some outcome, the outcome would not have happened had not the particular people with their particular inclinations come together.

Conspiracy theories may or may not identify real coteries with real influence. Conspiracy theories:

(a) Claim that a particular group acted outside usual norms in a rogue and generally secretive fashion.

(b) Disregard the structural features of institutions.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/125.html

And the original dissensus 911 thread: http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=3418