I need a word to describe a phenomenon, and the best word that fits is “parallel construction”.
No, not that type of parallel construction. I do not mean the specific type where the police use illegal means to obtain evidence and then build on that evidence to make a case while constructing a fabricated story about how they managed to figure everything out.
I mean a more generalized version of this idea. Parallel construction where a fabricated story is conceived of in order to achieve some particular aim. This is a special type of fabricated story. It’s specifically designed, in advance, to fit a series of facts and events (that may be in the past, present, or future), but provides a completely different and intentionally misleading interpretation of events.
9/11 is an example of this type of parallel construction. I’ve already covered it 8 years ago on this blog.
I’ve heard accusations that even String theory is a type of parallel construction, designed purposefully to have broad explanatory power, and yet intentionally a misleading and incorrect version of physics, the purpose of which is to send young academics on wild goose chases, wasting their youth and brain power, in order to keep real physics known only to a select few (who pay the rest of physicists to waste their lives and careers on total nonsense). I haven’t studied this question as deeply as I’ve studied 9/11, but it would not surprise me.
How can you tell whether or not the explanations someone is giving you are this second type of parallel construction?
Here’s how: the story that’s being sold will have explanatory power, but it will not be able to explain all events related to the story.
For example, the 9/11 Commission’s fabricated story cannot explain Building 7. The story about fires bringing down the building is simply untrue (this is a fact, no amount of Community Notes mobbing through sock puppet accounts, or fake “debunkings” on Snopes, will ever change this).
Similarly, String theory is incapable of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics in any meaningful way. Physicists have long complained about about how useless it is for explaining various physical observations.
How can you tell whether someone is simply mistaken, or purposefully misleading you? That requires evidence of them purposefully ignoring evidence, or making contradictory statements. We know that 9/11 is this second type of parallel construction for various reasons, but perhaps most prominently is that government officials in fact have been caught making contradictory statements and ignoring evidence.
What other instances of parallel construction have you noticed?