Jean Deaux wrote:
Blade Runner: First my compliments. A response with no profanity and using reason are really welcome. Kudos on a well done. I must however, take exception to some of your arguments.
You state that in spite of video proofs, no truths have been tested. I don't understand. To me, the truth rests in the wreckage of the building, collapsed on the ground. I see that as corroborating the videos of the take down. Right or did I miss something? The proof of the pudding is the eating.
First of all, unless you are an engineer or scientist who was actually there and investigating the wreckage, there is no way you can see the "proof in the pudding." Obviously, you are seeing what the conspirators want you to see. Much of which is 3rd, 4th, 5th and up to who the hell knows what generation of manufactured or manipulated evidence. Either that or you are seeing only what you want to see. Or a combination of both.
Quote:
I must admit there is conflicting data and contradictory evidence but I believe that is inevitable in view of the enormity of the event. Also, much effort has been made to cloud the events, to the detriment of the public and truth. The real NWO perpetrators should be brought to justice along with their local political stooges, but I think you will agree with me that that will probably never happen. Way too many BIG names and reputations on the line.
It baffles many of us why it is so difficult for people who have fallen for the conspiracy hype to accept the actual history of bin Laden's plan for a worldwide Jihad. The documentation of this overwhelms all the conspiracy theories combined.
The evolution of bin Laden's worldwide Jihad began a couple decades before 9/11. The founding of Al Qaeda dates back to the Russian invasion of A-stan in the 1970s, and in 1996, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed first presented the idea for the September 11 plot to bin Laden in Afghanistan. The evolution of this plan included recruitment, training, logistics, financing, coordination, communication, and strategy for the 9/11 attacks. In any criminal court of law, premeditation always carries more weight than post facto evidence. Every criminologist knows how easily post facto evidence can be corrupted, manipulated, even fabricated. But premeditated plans, which include admissions of guilt--or in this case, outright celebration of responsibility--are difficult, even impossible, to refute, or ignore.
The totality of 9/11 conspiracies is based solely on post facto "evidence." The real conspiracy belongs to bin Laden, Sheikh Mohammed, and all the Al Qaeda membership involved, and it is the only conspiracy with a payday.
Quote:
I submit there is no experiential relevance since there has never been a similar incident. What could be relevant to these collapses? There have, of course, been other demolitions destroying buildings, but nothing on the scale of the destruction involved here.
I have neither the time nor is there space here to get into the fallacy of comparing the entirely innovative and unique design, architecture, engineering, and construction of what became the tallest high rises in the world at the time. The architect himself said the design was unprecedented, that no buildings like the WTC towers had ever before been conceived and built. And, the idea of an intentional attack with jetliners on the towers never entered his mind. He did consider the possibility of an accident involving an aircraft, but given that the WTC was located in highly controlled airspace, he felt the possibility quite remote.
Quote:
As you know, empirical adequacy is based on practical experience without reference to scientific principle. We certainly had the practical experience and in view of the intensive scientific analysis of the circumstances, I don't believe this rings true. Experts in numerous fields have explained most of the anomalies in terms of the mininuke explosions and their results. At least from what I read. I suspect you disagree with that appraisal and that is fair enough. You, no doubt, have your own references.
Lastly, I fail to see where logical consistency plays a part. That, I believe, is basic to what "facts" one brings into play. To me it is true, but that is based on my research into the event, and the authors and their references on the topic. You may have read others who come to different conclusions and that, no doubt, answer your requirements for logic. I believe we can agree to disagree.
As you know, empirical adequacy is based on practi... (
show quote)
You cannot pick and chose which element of a sequential test for truth is valid or which ones you can dismiss. Logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance are just what they imply--a logical sequence to establishing the truth. These should be self-explanatory. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have failed to apply this test. Like the AGW hoax, the 9/11 conspiracies are a jumble of fabricated "evidence" manipulated facts, and outright lies driven by an ideological agenda.