Brooker on 9/11 conspiracies

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
vimothy said:
There's just too much semantic bullshit in this thread
Obviously semantics is a large part of where the argument is, yes.
vimothy said:
And was there a 9/11 conspiracy? I.e., was there US governmental involvement? I think it's pretty clear that there wasn't because of all the reasons I've listed.
Aside from the accuracy or otherwise of what you think it means to talk about 'con-theories', broad generalities are not explanations of specificities. The 'reasons' here are still very much of the kind 'all things I say are untrue are untrue because they are untrue things.' So it's circular. By your own (or is it Karl Popper's?) reckoning you can't give any reasons that can not be refuted. But we can see this working the other way. Hypothetical examples supporting the premise can always be chosen in place of others. Another tactic is the spurious charge that a given hypotheses may not be adjusted to account for new information. Again this would seem to work both ways.
vimothy said:
I'm not saying that there was no 'conspiracy' (pejorative sense) because it's unthinkable (to an ideologue like me, natch), but because it's not very plausible and nothing you've said has made it seem more so.
(Pejorative in the sense that conspiracies are generally held to be bad things in countries that value open political processes? :slanted:)

But what is this 'it' that you wish to be persuaded of, or hold to be not very plausible? Is 'it' made of straw perhaps?

To say that a thing stinks, in multiple ways, and that the official 'conspiracy theory' is not corroborated by adequate evidence (to say the very least of it), is not a conspiracy theory, although it might suggest that certain people appear to be lying. What it is is strong grounds to doubt the accuracy of the 'official' narrative and to start asking questions about what really happened, if one is so inclined.

Naturally in the course of this, hypotheses will be proposed, 'narratives' suggested, even. And why the heck not? This is one of the main tools that people use to try and understand events and sequences of events, and the relationships between them. You have narratives in your head that you favour, others may find them less plausible. YMMV.

But it's not even this is it? Merely asking questions is enough to invite accusations of conspiracy theorising (pejorative sense). What is a little bizarre, not to say somewhat dismaying, is that some, who should perhaps know better, appear so damn eager in wanting to shut down enquiry into, or even discussion about, this. Although I think I can see some possible causes of that.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
1, I don't want to shut anything down noel, and have just spent ten pages debating the issue with you. What I want you to do is what you have not done -- to present evidence rather than just imagine it. 1+1+1+1+1..... equals at least 1.5. Remember? Just tell me what the 1s are. I can imagine multiple explanations of 9/11. As can my six year old niece, who has theories of her own. To say that something could have happened is not to say anything at all, especially when it is supposedly corroborated by spurious stuff like comparisons between the organisational structure of corporations and terrorist groups or talking about "global coups".

2, You ain't the only person with a theory. This thread is simultaneously about your 'conspiracy theory' and conspiracy theories more generally. Why your's and not their's? What about Srebrenica? The Protocols? Why Christianity and not Zoroastrianism?

But what is this 'it' that you wish to be persuaded of, or hold to be not very plausible? Is 'it' made of straw perhaps?

The "it" is merely something more than pure conjecture. I guess "it" may well be made of straw, or smoke perhaps. I was trying to get you to come out with statement stronger than 'thate's just what I choose to believe', but I guess given that we live in a world of postmodern relativism where it's all much the same it hardly really matters, right?
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
What I want you to do is what you have not done -- to present evidence rather than just imagine it. 1+1+1+1+1..... equals at least 1.5. Remember? Just tell me what the 1s are.
Why? There are loads of reasons to question the fuck out of this. If you don't think so then fine, whatever. Find out for yourself or don't. But for me much of this thread, why I felt I wanted to comment in the first place, was about the myths of what exactly was being discussed around this. But, no - I knew before now that going into details on a forum is to descend a bottomless pit of claims and counter claims. It's really not my business to try and convince you of anything or otherwise, it makes no difference to me.
The "it" is merely something more than pure conjecture. I guess "it" may well be made of straw, or smoke perhaps. I was trying to get you to come out with statement stronger than 'thate's just what I choose to believe',
So there we have it, a confession. Of course - that's all you want - a 'theory' to hold up and say well you can't prove that. As if that means that there is nothing to question here.
As for this 'just what I choose to believe' business, you said that before and I didn't reply because I don't appreciate the snide tone and there doesn't seem to be much point anyway. But 'believe' what exactly?
vimothy said:
just what I choose to believe, just like you choose to believe that US intelligence was involved in 9/11.
As a proposition saying 'US intelligence was involved' is so general as to be meaningless. So no, how can I 'choose' to believe that. Something like that is a possibility, but so what, it's beside the point. But why the fuck should I make a statement for your benefit beyond what I am saying? Craziness - it's like you want to ask people to say the right 'wrong' things so you can disagree with them. Did you learn that from your six year old niece?
but I guess given that we live in a world of postmodern relativism where it's all much the same it hardly really matters, right?
Says the man who thinks there's no point in asking what the truth about this is. I know this is dissensus and we're supposed to be polite and civilised but fuck off is the only reasonable response to this.

So vimothy, I'm not entirely sure what your purpose in arguing about this is really. You think 9/11 is all wrapped up and adequately explained. That's great, you don't need to worry about it. I know I don't want to! But I have to wonder a bit exactly where it is you are coming from when you come out with stuff like this:
vimothy said:
Narratives are very powerful, viral even (bleugh -- horibble term now). The US is discovering just how powerful in the GWOT, which is in many ways a competition of narratives.
vimothy said:
It's not what happened that counts, but what people believe happened. (Thank fuck AQ are worse at this than we are. Though AQ could be a clever CIA ruse, of course).
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Competing narratives. Yes, the poor US of A must contend with those who would claim that the idea of a 'War On Terror' is something of an Orwellian fiction, a hyperstition.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Obviously there's no simple end to it. People may or not agree about that business, it's no reason to fall out. That way 'they' win, whoever they are / were.

But, there is something else that smells pretty rotten to me here. I'm sorry to have to say that because this is a really good place on the whole.

So I have no further wish to engage with this thread really. Who's got the time for this crap?
 
Last edited:

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
I think you mean Sloane, not Eden - he's our resident Satanist around this way, or has claimed to be on here.

Thought my ears were burning. *lapsed*, I think would be a good word for it, I got rid of all belief systems. Load of rubbish. But I get called one still quite a bit. And it woulda been in both the CoS and pagan sense and the Christian sense, why bother to make up your mind when you can choose all of them? Buy more.

I think it's all about shock, and the inability to deal with random events, but I'm too tired to go further and I can't talk about stuff that hasn't happened to me personally.
 

luka

Well-known member
Noel emits on this thread is like a master matador taking on and effortlessly slaying hundreds of quite small bulls at once
 

vimothy

yurp
Luka, you legend! In a more just world, it would be you playing George Smiley in the remake of Tinker Tailor, not Gary Oldman.

It so excruciating to read the above that I only managed a couple of sentences, but I can assure you that I'm suitably embarrassed.
 

luka

Well-known member
Aw, thank you mate. When I get rich I'm gunna employ you as one of my private tutors in my court Comprisrd of intellectuals scholars and artists
 

sufi

lala
Noel emits on this thread is like a master matador taking on and effortlessly slaying hundreds of quite small bulls at once
Tragically this was his swan song here, driven off by the alt-right :eek:
how can we get him back?
anyone got any idea who was noel emits?
 

luka

Well-known member
Me and rich are friends with him on Facebook I think.nhes an Italian hippy in Brighton.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
It's important because this type of stuff has increasing currency in what passes for "alternative" culture and sends a lot of people off down dead ends. Those dead ends also play host to a lot of very stupid or dodgy politics (for example anti-semitism).

It's also important that these things are debunked because they act as a way of disempowering people - i.e. there is nothing which can be done in the face of such a huge conspiracy and everyone else is really stupid because they don't understand it.

As with creationism, it is a battle of ideas which can have real rammificiations in culture, politics, etc.

Yeah.

Noel was good.
 

luka

Well-known member
The whole 'massive conspiracies can't exist because they are impossible to maintain' is a totally fallacious straw man argument. How is it people can say that sort of thing while simultaneously believing a small conspiracy of cave dwelling Arabs managed to orchestrate the whole thing? Well which is it? Without getting into the details and what you do or do not believe about the whole business this doesn't make sense and also shows very little understanding of how secret operations might be carried out by...whoever.

This isn't debunking of any useful kind, it's just some twat comedian trying to show how rational and 'right thinking' he is.

He was the best we've ever had and this was his best ever performance. His hat trick at Wembley.
 

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
Can we talk about the rothschilds and antisemitism for a moment? Whats the dissensus on that hot potato of a topic? I have a feeling I already know the answer but it would be nice to clarify.
 

luka

Well-known member
Alright. Don't then. I wil. As a rule the Rothschild stuff shades into the Jews run the world protocols of Zion stuff and as such tends to be anti-Semitic. They're probably not as rich or as powerful as the conspiracy crowd makes them out to be. They probably don't run the world.

But obviously it's a tremendously wealthy, well connected and powerful family. Woebot is friends with loads of them.
 

luka

Well-known member
There's some Rothschild stuff in the cantos. Pound obviously was hugely anti Semitic.

He beleived that they were involved in fomenting and profiting from wars among other things.
 
Top