I just watched the DVD Broken City, which is the story of a corrupt mayor of New York City. Though it is set in the year 2012, there's some reason for thinking that the filmmakers had Rudy Giuliani in mind when they made it. In the film, during a political debate, the mayor boasts of how he has been fixing the broken city of New York. Strangely enough Giuliani had written an article in which he boasts of saving the broken city of New York. In the film we discover that the mayor has a secret partnership in a demolition company and is using his position to generate business for it.
What's interesting is that Giuliani was the person responsible for approving the contracts for the demolition companies that hauled away the steel of the WTC buildings after 9/11. That makes him responsible for destroying evidence at a crime scene. If it turns out that - like the mayor of "Broken City" - Giuliani also had a secret partnership with a demolition company, then he might be guilty of other crimes, as well.
I keep expecting the films you cite to actually defend 9/11 truth. But I take it what you have in mind by "9/11 Truther Film" is something like: a film that includes a high level conspiracy?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm missing something, and you can explain it.
Hollywood is in the entertainment business, not necessarily the truth business. Documentaries might be interesting, but they don't sell. Further, a film that came right out and stated, either explicitly or in narrative, that 9/11 was an inside job would most likely be die before it was made. There was a film last year that tried to do it and never got to production stage.
ReplyDeleteBut what Hollywood can do is make films that have 9/11 Truth themes. For example, all the films I listed here involve the false flag scenario that Truthers think occurred on 9/11: terrorist attacks that were really carried out by a different party in order to justify or bring about a certain action. This is much more specific than the term "high level conspiracy" that you use.
In the case of "Broken City," the filmmakers almost certainly mean to allude to Rudy Giuliani. Once we accept this notion, then the fact that the mayor in the film has a secret partnership in a demolition company becomes much more interesting, and 9/11 Truther related.
Now are the filmmakers themselves actually 9/11 Truthers, or are they simply using 9/11 Truther themes when making movies? I wouldn't know. I do think the film "Iron Man 3" is much too explicit to dismiss as just an attempt to capitalize on 9/11 Truther films. There is an explicit reference to Osama bin Laden as another kind of Mandarin - a false flag terrorist used by somebody to achieve their own ends.
Perhaps someday Hollywood will allow a more explicit film using 9/11 Truth themes. We will have to wait and see.
I still fail to see it (<--Surely something we can agree on!). "False flag" type scenarios and other "high level conspiracy" themes make for great, thrilling fiction - before and after 9/11. That some people believe that the events of 9/11 were like what is portrayed in such fiction doesn't seem to me to warrant the term "9/11 Truther Film." On this logic, the show 24, which frequently contained material like this, but was written by pro-Bush administration fanatics, would be a "9/11 Truther TV series."
ReplyDeleteNow, if someone could show the following:
(i) Films of this sort noticeably increased in frequency after 9/11, and
(ii) The increase is actually due to filmmaker sympathy with truther claims re:9/11, rather than some independent factor (e.g. increased appetite for terrorist-related thrillers, the high entertainment value of alternative versions of current events, etc.),
then maybe a case for the term "9/11 Truther Film" could at least get off the ground.
I think the burden of proof is on you, JDB. How many pre-9/11 films, books, TV shows, etc., had false flag terrorist events in them? As to 24, how many false flag terrorist events occurred in them?
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the films I listed, there is strong reason to think they were inspired by adopting 9/11 Truth themes. I'll go into detail, if you insist. But first, have you seen the films yourself?
"I think the burden of proof is on you, JDB."
ReplyDeleteWhen someone - not in response to anyone else - asserts that some people are advocating in some way for a position they don't say they are advocating for, I don't see how the burden of proof could be on anyone other than the person making this assertion. In any case, I didn't even make a burden-of-proof claim. I simply pointed out that your conclusion about these films doesn't follow from the thin, surface-level evidence you present; that has nothing to do with the burden of proof. (And I didn't even so much as argue for the contrary position, that these are not pro-truther films.)
"How many pre-9/11 films, books, TV shows, etc., had false flag terrorist events in them?"
I don't know - which is precisely the point! Someone trying to convince me of your view would have to include this kind of information in their argument.
"As to 24, how many false flag terrorist events occurred in them?"
I'm pretty sure that close to every single plot of 24 involved bad actors within the government working with terrorists. But depending on where you place the "false flag" goalpost, the answer will range anywhere from "some" to "constantly." But I don't see why this even matters (it was, after all, a reductio) - you can't seriously think that just because someone employs false flag terrorist events in a contemporary thriller, they are supporting 9/11 Truth in particular?
"there is strong reason to think they were inspired by adopting 9/11 Truth themes. I'll go into detail, if you insist."
I don't insist, and you can do what you'd like. I'm simply arguing that the way you have presented these posts doesn't make very much sense. In any case, the false flag category is of course way broader than "9/11 Truth", so it's not even clear what it means for this theme to be a "9/11 Truth" theme. That's like saying a movie where someone goes undercover is therefore promoting a "Mossad" theme.
"But first, have you seen the films yourself?"
No - did I presuppose having seen them in any of my statements? If there is an ineffable quality that supports your point, let me know. Otherwise, to make your case you'd have to show that the mere incorporation of false flag elements, as well as capitalizing on contemporary events, is somehow unusual or noteworthy in a relevant way post-9/11.
(I should say, Iron Man 3 has been discussed in this connection in fairly prominent places. Here is a skeptical take:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/whats-the-meaning-of-iron_b_3233533.html
And here is someone with your take, who complains about it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/348606/truther-element-sours-iron-man-3-jim-geraghty)
Yes, you did make a burden of proof claim:
ReplyDeleteNow, if someone could show the following:
(i) Films of this sort noticeably increased in frequency after 9/11, and
(ii) The increase is actually due to filmmaker sympathy with truther claims re:9/11, rather than some independent factor (e.g. increased appetite for terrorist-related thrillers, the high entertainment value of alternative versions of current events, etc.),
then maybe a case for the term "9/11 Truther Film" could at least get off the ground.
I don't know of any pre-9/11 films that had false flag terrorism in their plots. Do you? And I wasn't claiming that the filmmakers had "sympathy" with 9/11 Truther claims. Only that they were using 9/11 Truther themes.
I don't know - which is precisely the point! Someone trying to convince me of your view would have to include this kind of information in their argument.
I thought as much. First you claim that "false flag themes make for great, thrilling fiction - before and after 9/11." Then you admit that you don't know of any pre-9/11 films that have false flag terrorism scenarios. Since neither of us know of any such films, I think I have, at the very least, presented a prima facie case of perceiving the listed films as 9/11 Truther films.
I'm pretty sure that close to every single plot of 24 involved bad actors within the government working with terrorists. But depending on where you place the "false flag" goalpost, the answer will range anywhere from "some" to "constantly." But I don't see why this even matters (it was, after all, a reductio) - you can't seriously think that just because someone employs false flag terrorist events in a contemporary thriller, they are supporting 9/11 Truth in particular?
Again, I am not claiming that they are "supporting 9/11 Truth in particular." I'm claiming that they are using 9/11 Truth themes. But thanks for the info on 24. I'll have to watch all the seasons, now, to see how truthful you have been. I began watching the first season, but gave up after the wife experienced amnesia. Trying to fit too much drama into 24 hours made it just too tedious to watch. But now you've given me the motivation I previously lacked.
Since you haven't seen the films, I would need to explain the details in greater detail than the effort it would take for someone who isn't really that interested in this subject. I'll watch 24, even though I know I'll be incredibly bored. The films I listed, though not necessarily great, are entertaining. Let me know if you watch them. Then we can proceed with this discussion. Until then I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.
"Yes, you did make a burden of proof claim"
ReplyDeleteWhat you quote is not a burden of proof claim. It's an example of a claim about what someone would have to do if they set themselves the goal of showing that p, for a certain instance of p. But I can sort of see how this could be confused as a burden of proof claim, since it explains the "burden" of "proving" a particular proposition. Perhaps this is a verbal dispute and we are simply using "burden of proof" in different ways?
"I don't know of any pre-9/11 films that had false flag terrorism in their plots. Do you?"
Supposing for the sake of argument that neither of us knows of pre-9/11 films that had false flag terrorism in their plots, this undermines the warrant for the claim that the mere existence of such films post-9/11 is evidence of a "Truther theme" in particular - unless the reason why we don't know of any is because one of us did research and determined that (i) there weren't any (or were comparatively few) and (ii) that this had some causal connection with the Truth movement.
But look! I discovered a helpful resource:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FalseFlagOperation
You can click on the categories and read their brief descriptions. Interestingly, in the Live Action TV category they don't seem to include anything from 24.
"Since neither of us know of any such films, I think I have, at the very least, presented a prima facie case of perceiving the listed films as 9/11 Truther films."
See the above point on why this is insufficient as a prima facie case.
"But thanks for the info on 24. I'll have to watch all the seasons, now, to see how truthful you have been."
ReplyDeleteLOL, I don't recommend watching 24 - total waste of time. (BTW, in my opinion the reason why the authors of 24 wanted to include bad actors within the government is precisely so they could mitigate the impression that they were pro-Bush fanatics.)
"But now you've given me the motivation I previously lacked."
The motivation you needed was to see if I'm accurately remembering and characterizing a fictional TV show? That's kind of weird!
"Since you haven't seen the films, I would need to explain the details in greater detail than the effort it would take for someone who isn't really that interested in this subject."
There is no need for you to explain the films - I'm really good at Googling, I even found support for your own view in the Iron Man 3 case. What I have been interested in is just the criteria you're using for calling something a "Truther film."
"Let me know if you watch them."
I at least independently have planned on watching Iron Man 3.
One final thing. You write:
"I am not claiming that they are "supporting 9/11 Truth in particular." I'm claiming that they are using 9/11 Truth themes."
This makes me realize what a waste of time this discussion - and your posts - might be. 9/11 Truth is a movement, not a narrative. So by "theme" you mean something like: one of the things they believe falls under category C. But this means that every film fits under any number of categories, and thus is an "X Film," for any movement X that has a belief that falls under some category C that happens in the film. Since you claim no actual ideological affinity between the filmmakers and the Truth movement, and since you have no interest in showing that there is actually a causal connection between these films and the Truth movement, it seems you simply have this very thin sense in mind. In which case, it would be absurd for anyone to disagree with you. A film where animals are saved is a "PETA film" and a "Vegetarian film" and a "Vegan film" and a "Humane Society film" and so on and so on. Now, this way of talking seems deeply misleading to me if one isn't also proposing the stronger claims. But if you stipulate the weaker sense, then it's just uncontroversial, albeit an almost content-less way of talking (Since, "Truther film" has no more content than "Film with false flag terrorism").
Let me know when you see the films, and we can continue this discussion.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, since the site you referred me to doesn't list any 24 episodes as involving false flag events, does that mean that you withdraw the claim that they do?
ReplyDelete"Let me know when you see the films, and we can continue this discussion."
ReplyDeleteNothing I've said falsely presupposes that I've seen any particular film - my original question was simply about the criteria you use to label films the way that you do. It's actually a really simple issue, easy to resolve(Note: one could see zero films ever and still discuss this question).
"By the way, since the site you referred me to doesn't list any 24 episodes as involving false flag events, does that mean that you withdraw the claim that they do?"
No, but it means that either I am mistaken or the TV Tropes list isn't exhaustive. In any case, the link is sufficient evidence that the false flag theme appears in prominent entertainment before and after 9/11.
(Let's be clear: I invoked 24 to offer a reductio of what - still! - appears to be your sole criterion for calling a film a Truther film. But if I'm right about how trivial your criterion is in my previous comment, then even if I'm right about 24, it actually unproblematically satisfies your criteria, since the intentions of the authors are irrelevant.)
Here are two discussions of one major plot in 24 that certainly fits the criteria:
ReplyDeletehttp://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2006/04/fox-tvs-24-features-traitorous.html
http://letsrollforums.com/tv-show-24-parallels-t11064.html?s=19936623d4ed94547c40eee4c067bc60&
One commenter in the second link even adds that "in every season we've had government insiders behind the bad guys or working with the bad guys".
Lol, even 911Blogger makes a 24-Truther connection regarding that season:
ReplyDeletehttp://911blogger.com/news/2006-12-09/season-5-dvd-24-uses-wtc-icon