Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE?

[Pikey]

Its quite some time since I last visited the Lions den mainly due to the ipersonal nsults and the playing the man not the ball tactics employed by the usual culprits.

For example this one from Bushwacker:-

[Stephen]

[pepik]

Critics corner is a great place to test your theories out. So far, on a scale of one to 10, I haven't seen an alternative theory that would score above 1.

Until you come up with something coherent, logical, plausible, and consistent with the evidence, your smug confidence isn't worth anything. Nobody ever convinced the grassy knoll people, but so what? Is there consensus on anything in this world?

[Alex_V]

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[Stefan]

Ian makes a good point.

The current official theory (blink and there'll be a new one) of the events of 9/11 is a theory, and as "critics" (i.e. people who support it to such an extent that you use your free time defending it online) you don't have to support it with evidence, but your position is flimsy if you refuse to.

Take WTC7 as an example - there is no "alternate" theory of what happened to WTC7 - there is ONE independent theory (that it was destroyed by controlled demolition) and an official hypothesis (this is being charitable - "statement" is probably closer).

As you no doubt realise in order to be a theory it needs to be a testable hypothesis of how one series of events led to another; in this case how explosives led to the straight down collapse of a building. This is testable and indeed in CAD has been tested - break columns and you will be able to make an identical building fall in exactly the same way. Several qualified independent experts have also weighed in working theoretically and said much the same - looking at the building plans Danny Jowenko was able to say quite matter of factly the order of demolition inside the building which would lead to a collapse with the features we see.

This does not prove that this happened per se but it is a working and testable theory in which the process could be repeated on an infinite number of identical buildings with the same results everytime, thereby proving that controlled demolition could have caused the WTC7 collapse.

While with the official account we have no theory. We have nothing near proof that fire and debris damage could cause the collapse we saw. Our hypopothesis here simply says "there were fires for six or so hours, and there was some damage we could see, and we can speculate as much damage as we want in the unphotographed area (so let's say it was all scooped out) - the building then collapsed. Therefore the first caused the second".

This is not a theory at all since in all the time waiting for it there has been no attempt to explain how the first set of events (the fire and debris damage) could lead to the second (the collapse we actually saw - straight down, high speed, into its own footprint) and therefore the theory cannot be tested by CAD or otherwise. Since no one has ever put together a model of how damage primarily to one side of a building and limited (or even to be generous "raging inferno") fires could lead to the straight down collapse we saw, we cannot even theoretically try to reproduce the effects. It is nothing. Barely even a hypothesis.

So despite your trying to paint yourselves as rationalists, you believe a statement with no reasoning beyond "one thing preceeded the other, therefore the first thing caused the other" this is not a theory - it is known as a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical falacy, and is one of the oldest sloppy arguments in the book.

[KP50]

[Bushwacker]

It seems to me that there are in fact three main aspects of 9/11 that can be considered:

1. Why the buildings fell down, which is the matter mostly discussed here. With the NIST Report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 we have an extremely detailed analysis of the available evidence and a conclusion based on it. This was written by a variety of experts, many outside the US government, and is the best investigation anyone is going to get. The truth movement has not managed to refute any part of it, all they can say is that they disagree with the conclusions. However, contrary to how Ian would like the movement to operate, many alternative theories are put forward. Some are simply ludicrous, NPT, beam weapons and nuclear bombs, while others are merely totally implausible, explosives and/or thermite planted in the towers, but there is no evidence for any of them that withstands examination. Notably some theories have been effectively abandoned along the way, pods on the planes for instance, and it seems fewer truthers are now arguing that no plane hit the Pentagon.
As Stefan points out above, we are still waiting the NIST report on WTC7, the subject of much discussion.

2. How the planes were directed into the buildings. For this, the official story relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, a rather less satisfactory document than the NIST Reports, but which nevertheless builds up a full account of the hijackers' operations, supported by a reasonable body of evidence. While routinely ridiculing this account, truthers have not actually managed to disprove any of it, and largely seem to have lost interest in suggesting alternatives in any depth, merely talking vaguely of remote control.

3. Why the US government failed to prevent the attacks. This is very likely the aspect the administration was most concerned about, and the reason they resisted the establishment of a 9/11 commission, and it is the area where the Commission Report is least satisfactory. This is the area the 9/11 families are most interested in, and the area truthers are not interested in at all, because of their core belief that elements within the administration were responsible for 9/11.

We thus have the bizarre situation that truthers spend nearly all their time on the aspect in which they have absolutely zero prospect of success, disproving the NIST Reports to the extent that a fresh enquiry is ordered. If instead they tackled aspect 3 as above, they would be tackling the area in which the 9/11 Commission Report is weakest, an area where the former chairman and deputy say they were lied to, an area where they would get solid support from the families, and an area where they stand at least some chance of a new administration wanting a new enquiry.

However, I think it unlikely that truthers will accept my advice!

[Alex_V]

[KP50]

[pepik]

Yes but this is the infinite argumentativeness approach - randomly throwing out eyewitness testimony, accepting some parts of some peoples eyewitness accounts but rejecting the parts you don't like, trying to create all kinds of confusion to obscure the one consistent fact - nobody saw the plane miss the pentagon or anything else hit the pentagon, and the witnesses say they saw the plane hit the pentagon. You seem to believe you can put aside that fact and focus on something else. This is before we even get to the physical evidence, of which there is plenty.

Meanwhile you can't even come up with an alternative theory which you are willing to defend, or explain why on earth someone would go to so much trouble to make it look like a plane hit the pentagon without having a plane hit the pentagon, seeing as a) they intended to attack the pentagon and b) they had a plane they wanted to make disappear headed right for it and c) all other parts of the plan involved planes hitting buildings.

[ian neal]

[marky 54]

[Alex_V]

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[Alex_V]

[Alex_V]

[marky 54]

[Alex_V]

It's an emotive subject, but I have to side with Pepik here - what has been done with those witness accounts is scandalous. McQueen and Griffin's use of those accounts to try and support a CD is a disgrace in my opinion, and it's one of those areas where I really get angry. Read any one of those 503 accounts and tell me that they support the idea of a CD!

We're back to 'affirming the consequent' really though aren't we? They saw a flash, and a CD might have a flash, so it's a CD. They heard a bomb sound, and CDs might have a bomb sound, so it's a CD. He claims a different flightpath, and an inside job might have included a different flightpath, so it was an inside job. If you see enough of these leaps of faith in print or on youtube, then you might start wrongly believing it was definitely a conspiracy.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

I think we have set a new standard for ridiculous arguments - you are saying that when I quote someone saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon, that unfairly suggests they support the official story? The official story is that a plane hit the pentagon, what the hell are you talking about?

[KP50]

[ian neal]

[marky 54]