Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Afghanistan Fallacy Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_afghanistan_fallacy#28498 Post contents: I'm familiar with the arguments. The "debunking" is not credible; the sources are shaky, and the rules of evidence are employed (a) extremely credulously to facts that support the inside job thesis and (b) hyper-skeptically to all evidence to the contrary. I particularly find the idea that the buildings did not collapse from the jet planes and the associated fires and weakening of the structural steel laughable, with "professors of philosophy and religion" like Griffin quoting various crackpots rather than real structural engineers to support their claims. Let's consider the elephant in the room: why could the government that invovled thousands of individuals and dozens of agencies on a 9/11 conspiracy not plant a few WMDs in Iraq, since that too would have furthered Bush and the neoconservatives' plans. It's true, many mistakes were made before 9/11, but I find the idea it was an operation of some faction within the U.S. government laughable. It doesn't pass the straight face test, and the evidence in support is shoddy. The biggest problem with most conspiracy thinking is that no evidence can convince them otherwise. The conclusion is pre-ordained. Indeed, what do we make of Osama himself cheering on the attacks and the various "brothers" by name? Oh, just a minor factual problem, I'm sure. Sent at: 2008 12 02