Didn't watch the video, don't really feel like it, don't think it's necessary. WhatI will say is this, conspiracy theories give factual evidence a bad rep. Take the Kennedy Assassination, I have heard endless arguments about the state of Oswald's mental health, his sharpshooter skills, things he's said to people prior to the assassination, and on and on and on. What I never hear is anyone provide logical arguments explaining the discrepancies in the forensic data, such as if Oswald shot Kennedy from the book depository why did his head snap in the opposite direction than it should have? I've also heard every crazy conspiracy theory in the book on who did it, why, different networks, and so forth. Because of all those conspiracy theories with no proof being linked to logical theories about gaps in established facts, people who talk about these gaps are unfairly lumped in with conspiracy theories.
As for 9/11, I know what I know and from what I've heard about the evidence of these theories, it really doesn't change anything that I don't already know. 9/11 was the impetus for military expansion and increased defense measures, it was also the impetus for the suspension of basic American freedoms in the form of the Patriot Act. It was also the impetus for the approval of many acts of torture, wrongful arrest and imprisonment, bypassing of formal trials, and more. I know a very good argument can be made that 9/11 was the impetus for invading Iraq. I know that the invasion of Iraq benefitted a good deal of contractors that are very clsoe to the Bush Administrion. I know the facts about our intelligence on Iraq were grossly manipulated to the point of, in some cases, being outright fabrications. I know that military expansion has traditionally been a right-wing goal since long before 9/11. I know that support for these measures would not have been as unanimous without 9/11. I know that the Bin Laden family has ties to the Bush family, and I also know Osama bin Laden was originally set up by the CIA.
Say these theories are right, what really changes? If they're wrong and 9/11 really was an act of international terrorism, does it justify allowing the government to hold anybody they deem a terrorist indefinitely without trial? Does it justify using the event to push the country into a war with a country that had nothing to do with it? All the evidence that points to ways that Bush colleagues were benefitting from the war, shouldn't it have been enough to stop him from being re-elected? Osama being initially set up by the CIA isn't enough to prove he's still working with them, but shouldn't it be enough to tell teh American people that we need to demand and end to the interventionalist policies in the Middle East because they always seem to come back and bite us in the ass? Nothing this conspiracy theory, using the term simply for the sake of labeling it, says changes anything about any of this. If it's true, it's just one more shred of evidence of corruption on top of what is already a fairly big mountain. The only thing introducing a theory based on evidence that doesn't concretely prove anything but rather casts doubt on established facts does is make people with the same goal who use established facts look weaker in argument.
Log in to comment