|
ok so because i have things to avoid in 3-d, i read this thread pretty carefully through and am interested by it but also a bit confused. the interesting elements are in the proliferation of interpretations of the available evidence--but i find myself wondering the extent to which the problem lay in the nature of the evidence in relation to what it is supposed to "explain"...there are a variety of what i think are frame-generated interpretive differends here. one of the main disputes, dispensed with early on in a way, concerned a political choice--how close one chooses to be to the official ad hoc "narrative" that was in place by the 13th of september 2001, the ur-moments of the idiotic "war on terror" (and all that has followed from that)--which appeared to shape whether the questions about what exactly caused the collapses are or are not material--for....well what?
problem no. 1 then: it seems self-evident that the "explanation" cooked up immediately after the attacks was not based on much of anything beyond the political need to generate a coherent-seeming response.
so it follows that there would by myriad problems created for this coherent-seeming response by subsequent investigations--simply because the narrative was based on nothing, on the loops of video footage--and the political choice was made that a Response was required because, in conservative-land, the absence of a Response was apparently understood as an indication of Weakness, and so there was no time to await any rational conclusions about what might have in fact happened.
from there, the politics surrounding the investigations, their results etc. follows in a straight line.
earlier in here, i think host noted that the ineptness and internal inconsistencies of the various reports on this topic were in themselves problematic--the process "stinks"---the problem with this is that it seems to make of the question of why the wtc buildings collapsed a kind of device for delegitimating the administration's entire "war on terror" etc.---now to be clear i think that the "war on terror" was illegitimate from the beginning, its motives transparent, its inconsistencies with the material world obvious simply because it was based on so little and could not have been otherwise.
that said:
a. could someone who has been engaged in tracking this issue explain to me exactly why the question of how the wtc buildings collapsed is the focus of the thread? in other words, what exactly do you see as at stake here, in this particular dimension of the retro-narrative?
another way of asking the same basic question:
based on this, what scenario do you think better explains not just the building collapse, but the events themselves? i understand that this would be a speculative exercise, but i am curious about the logic that extends the implications of the events at the center of the thread beyond themselves.
anyone?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|