Social Distortion

”...But even as Mr. Jones’s title and academic credentials give hope to the conspiracy theorists, his role in the movement may undermine those same credentials. What happens when science tries to function in a fringe crusade?” (1)

Uh-uh, no he didn’t! Oh, yes he did!

Dismissive Pharase #2. I’ll give him a pass on “conspiracy theorists” this time, I mean, he can’t help it. “Fringe crusade” on the other hand is a trifle hasty.

Much in the same vein as the earlier “subculture” remark, we see again a tendency to diminish how many people suspect the official 9/11 narrative as insufficient. Nearly half those polled in New York last year don’t buy the party line, and again, Zogby’s latest poll suggests roughly the same attitude across the country.

Then of course, there are the unofficial polls:

”...his role in the movement may undermine those same credentials.” 

Wishful thinking? Power of suggestion?

See, I can do it too!

”...his role in writing a lop-sided hit piece may undermine his writing credentials.”

It’s easy!

Imperial Distortion

Gravois also takes a swing at Alex Jones, (wouldn’t be boilerplate 9/11 bashing if he didn’t, the template has evolved somewhat), singling out his recitation of PNAC’s Pearl Harbor statement, which means that;

”...To Alex Jones and to those in the audience, this was as good as finding the plans for September 11 in the neoconservatives’ desk drawers.” (2)

He also asserts that many 9/11 Truthers “as they call themselves” know the passage by heart. No. No, they don’t. 

Let’s not single out the poor Neocons for this kind of unwarranted suspicion anymore, I mean, they only borrow from Brzezinski.

”...The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ....” (3)

”...America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being…” (4)

”...Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat ...” (5)

He also thought facilitating the mujihadin was a great idea back in the day…

”...it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. ... What was most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?...” (Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998)

So, really, we can see that the notion of a catastrophic event perpetrated by a widely perceived threat and then seized upon to enable a radical imperial agenda is not the isolated domain of the Neocons, in fact, Brzezinski was Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser.

Is this “as good as finding the plans for September 11 in the neoconservatives’ desk drawers”? 

Of course not. It’s Straw Man #1.

Occam’s Razor cuts both ways

After metaphorically poking Alex Jones in the eye a couple of times, Gravois reveals his general derision for “conspiracy theories” in three paragraphs which I urge you struggle through.

Just after the light distortion ending with “Louder!” start with the sentence “One of the most common intuitive problems people have…” straight through to ”...A bridge is out, and paranoia yawns below.” (Link.)

One of the most common examples of recidivism by the clear-eyed rational defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is invoking Occam’s Razor to cut through the blather of alternative narratives regarding 9/11. 

Blogger Ron Leighton has boiled away the fat on that technique;

One of the favoritest pastimes of nationalist ass-kissers , deaf, dumb and blind flag-wavers and those who just want a shortcut to looking smart… is to laugh about… Conspiracy Theories, a category of weirdness far worse, it is felt, than say ‘liberal’, for instance. As for booby prizes, they go to those, right, left and center, who chuckle the loudest and most-snearingly (sic) about “Conspiracy Theories”, while the raspberries are reserved for those who consider them to one extent of another, no matter how carefully. It’s a sure sign of intellectual pretension to ridicule “conspiracy theories.” Rarely is much thought given to distinguish one theory from another or to evaluate any of them on their merits. For instance, Bill Clinton being a secret Communist who consorts with bisexual dwarves is put in the same “Conspiracy Theory” category as is questions about 9-11…

There are always really wacky or just plain factually challenged theories, and they never help either (which raises potential questions about the origins of those ideas). The only thing that matters, though, to the Conspiracy-mockers is the question: Does the Conspiracy Theory reflect badly on their beloved America (the concept, not the place or the people)? And this is crucial. If so, it is rejected out of hand as mere “anti-Americanism.” If the Conspiracy Theory, on the other hand, reflects well on their beloved America (the concept, not the place or the people), it gets the reverse treatment: blind and complete acceptance. Republicans and others, without seeing the irony, call the science behind the idea of global warming “junk science.” Something similar happens with “conspiracy theories”. Case in point is the competing theories about 9-11. The Official Conspiracy Theory starring Osama Bin Laden and 19 mysterious hijackers is simply unquestionable no matter how many questions and contradictions remain, no matter how “junk science” it is. Conversely, any theory, and there are many, of various quality, that questions the Official Conspiracy Theory starring Osama Bin Laden and 19 mysterious hijackers is immediately and completely laughable, by default ? and this is considered obvious, not challengeable, putting the entire matter in the realm of faith, not reason.

The more sophisticated of the Conspiracy Theory mockers who fancy themselves debunkers deploy the logical principle known as Occam’s Razor, or often merely appear to. Occam’s Razor is a logical principle “attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham)” which “states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.” Of course, it happens that Occam’s Razor is often thrown around carelessly and thoughtlessly, a prop for political theater posing as serious, open-minded discussion, much like Republicans scream “junk science” when defending junk science. Sometimes the Razor-wielder doesn’t realize how dripping with irony it is to ridicule a Conspiracy Theory via Occam’s Razor while failing to recognize how deep it might cut into their own preferred, politically-correct, pro-America theories.

The best recent example I can think of that deploys the logical principle of Occam’s Razor in such a way as to discredit conventional theories in favor of a “conspiracy theory” is BYU physics Professor Steven E. Jones’ paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse. In this paper, which I invite everyone to read, Jones makes a plain, clear and convincing case that, from a physical point of view, the controlled-demolition-caused collapse theory easily trounces the conventional fire/damage-caused collapse theory. That is, the former accounts for the facts far better than the latter while making fewer assumptions, in keeping with Occam’s logical principle. But do you think this will cause the thoughtless Bin Laden-haters, Bush-lovers and people who think they’re smart ‘cos they read Christopher Hitchens (or at least his headlines) to even think twice? It should, but in too many cases I think it won’t. The funny thing is, Jones’ paper will likely be cited, without even being read or seriously considered, as an example of crazy conspiracy theories…”

I’ll say. I don’t think the stuff about nationalism is at play in Gravois’ case, though.

A bad ending

“A bad beginning makes a bad ending.” ? Euripedes.

The balance of the article can be guessed at fairly accurately. Having exposed a general contempt for alternative 9/11 narratives (say Conspiracy Theories), the content drifts from asserting common sense over “disinformation campaigns” to re-asserting the points of view of experts who will have no truck with ideas that call into question their own theories, (even if just means revising them to reflect other physical realities), to the inferred rabid nature of some of the Chicago conference attendees.

As the songbird fades away, and the divebombing ceases, and we clear away the bird-poop and vomit, we see a catalogue of shop-worn techniques cluttering the ground… from ‘guilt-by-association’ to ‘assault with Occam’s razor’ to this doozy;

“Hence, in the world of mainstream science, Mr. Jones’s hypothesis is more or less dead on the vine.” (6)

Physics and Chemistry are no longer “mainstream”.

Wow. 9/11 did change everything.

NOTES

(1) Professors of Paranoia, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006.

(2) IBID

(3) Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books (1997) pp. 24-25 (Emphasis added.)

(4) IBID, pp.35-36

(5) IBID, p. 211 (Emphasis added.)

(6) Professors of Paranoia, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006.