, ,

“It would be very difficult to reconcile Tower 7 being a controlled demolition with any version of 9/11 that was not an inside job.”


The author here, Brian Dunning, uses too many negatives, not to mention tortured prose! Translation: If you think Tower 7 came down as a result of a controlled demolition, you must also think 9/11 was an inside job.

Not so. Why would I say that? One reason: the phrase ‘inside job’ is so poorly defined. ‘Inside job’ could mean a lot of things.

A more clearly defined sequitur would be: If you think Tower 7 came down as a result of a controlled demolition, you do not believe the official version of its destruction, as presented in government reports. The fact that you do not believe government reports about what happened on 9/11 does not imply that you think what happened occurred as a result of an inside job. It merely means you want to find out what actually happened. That’s why the phrase ‘9/11 skeptic’ is more accurate than ‘9/11 conspiracy theorist’.

I know, you will say that such locutions are just a dodge, so you don’t get Alex Jones’ed out of existence, thrown out of polite society, deplatformed, shut up, despised, ostracized, cancelled, and generally ignored. Alright, you can think that. I think the logic of the question is important, though.

Being skeptical of government reports is just a wise, practical way of dealing with information. Government reports are rarely accurate, because they are self-serving. It is efficient to disbelieve them, because the people who produce them are not trustworthy. That disbelief does not imply anything about alternate beliefs. That is, skepticism about government reports implies nothing about your beliefs outside of those reports.

So let’s stop using the phrase ‘inside job’ as well as ‘conspiracy theorist’, and the whole nomenclature of exclusion, where we exclude certain beliefs – and people – from free discourse. Let’s use language that is open to skepticism. If we define our beliefs solely by what we do not believe, we think both illogically and unproductively. Skepticism as a habit of mind is productive because it is inquisitive. We would rule out skepticism only if we want to rule out investigation of diverse ideas or hypotheses. Why would we want to do that?