| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
Ali Mohamed who I have mentioned on numerous occasions was a key figure behind WTC 93.
If you want to unlock the relationships it helps to know which terrorist was involved in planning which attacks. Given that he was arrested in 1998 it seems unlikely that he was still a key player in WTC 2001.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm joining this debate a little late, and have only got up to page six, but let's jump in with some basics...
Ishmael says:
| Applied Epistemology excludes implausible realities |
The Cambridge online dictionary says:
implausible adj
difficult to believe, or unlikely
Now, that which is difficult to believe is that which goes against your accepted paradigms, whilst that which is unlikely is that which seems to go against the apparent laws of physics.
The idea that, 'Western governments/'Intelligence' (sic!) agencies wouldn't be involved in anything so nasty because they wouldn't do that' is a common paradigm, but is only a hypothesis that may or may not be true.
However, the idea that the random distribution of aviation fuel spilled during the impact of a plane into a tower, and flammable materials already in the tower, would produce such an even fire that structural weakening caused by it could be so uniformly distributed that it causes the tower to collapse in on itself, does seem rather unlikely.
Far more probable than an even distribution would be for the fire to be more intense on one side or towards one corner of the building, causing, were the fire intense enough to provoke structural damage, one side to collapse before the other(s). This in turn would cause the building to lean towards, and eventually fall over to, one side or another.
For three fires to defy the odds of probability and cause three buildings to collapse neatly in on themselves in quick succession would certainly seem highly unlikely.
That is, if we think about the physics of the situation, not the politics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Dear Mexkris, welcome aboard etc etc. You clearly have no idea of our understanding of physics if you think predicting the effect of planes being deliberately crashed into skyscrapers is within our understanding of physics. If we did the experiment, say, a hundred times then, but only then, could any of us speak of probabilities.
The "Don't Know" position is always welcome in Applied Epistemology when everybody around is expressing diverse opinions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Mick beat me to it.
"Far more probable than an even distribution would be for..."
[Armchair theoretical engineering thought experiment omitted.]
What is most probable is that yours and our collective grasp of the factors and effects involved is inadequate to the accurate prediction of outcomes.
Even Galileo didn't know how rapidly the cat would hit the ground until he tossed it out a window of the tower of Pisa -- yet somehow you know how a building should fall under these circumstances? Breathtaking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The best way to think of this problem is to consult the notes of the CIA Steering Group when they were trying to decide whether to do the deed themselves or leave it to Al-Qaida. Their first problem was how to get the physicists to do the number-crunching without telling them the actual problem (academics can be tiresomely liberal when it comes to incinerating their fellow-citizens).
Finally they agreed to judge the effects of a plane crashing into twin skyscrapers in downtown Kabul..... Unfortunately the dog has done a whoopsie on the rest of the report but I am sure you can fill in the gaps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Well, my point is really that a building of that height is more likely to topple to one side than collapse neatly in on itself, as any slight wobble that high up will begin to pull the whole thing over to one side.
My other (more important) point is that conspiracy theories in general should not automatically be written off just because many who espouse them push their interpretations of events too far, or push other wilder theories.
If you follow this way of thinking, and immediately write off anyone who offers such propositions as 'nut-jobs' or 'fruit loops' then you are using a pattern of 'logic' which asserts:
Mr. X believes proposition A, which is contentious.
Mr. X also believes proposition B, which is clearly outrageous.
Therefore, everyone who enterertains proposition A must be a lunatic/nut-job/fruit loop/etc.
This is obviously a non-argument, and just a lazy way to write off ideas that clash with our paradigms, similar to the kind of 'logic' also used by people like James Randi when asserting (essentially) that nothing that we can't already understand ever happens, and so anyone who claims that it does is a fraudster!
I might as well say, "I met a bloke down the pub who believes he's a shape shifting alien. He also believes that the earth goes around the sun. Therefore everyone who believes that the Earth goes around the sun is a nutter!"
If we are in the business of challenging paradigms, we should generally, as Mick says, accept the 'we don't really know' hypothesis as the best option in most cases.
After all, when everyone 'knew' that God created the universe with our world at its centre, the idea that the Earth went around the sun was highly implausible!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Since we are radical revisionists it is imperative that we don't get daft. Believing conspiracy theories is being daft. Coming up with your own conspiracy theories is Applied Epistemology. There is an enormous difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
| Believing conspiracy theories is being daft |
'Believing' most theories is being daft. The sensible line is to accept only working hypotheses.
'Conspiracy theories' covers a plethora of ideas, some daft, some quite sensible.
As I think we agree, 'we don't really know' is often (/usually) the best hypothesis.
My real point is that we shouldn't tar everything in a particular camp of theories with the 'daft' epithet just because some of the theories are daft.
Furthermore, the 'daftness' of a particular theory should not be allowed to affect our perception of the evidence that is used to back up the theory, the evidence should be examined as to its authenticity, however daft the theory that someone may have twisted it into may be.
Ammonites in Ireland used to be taken as proving that St. Patrick had turned the snakes to stone (but afterwards the heads just happened to have fallen off all of them!) The present day perception that that is a daft belief doesn't mean that ammonites don't exist. Of course, as we can now fit them into a different theory, we accept their existence easily enough, but were we to lack a theory for them, many would claim that they are all forgeries, and that to believe otherwise is daft!
And remember that occasionally that which we consider to be daft turns out not to be so daft. A famous case is that of the Académie Française des Sciences who, in the18th century were extremely sceptical of reports of meteors. Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry, told his fellow Academicians, "Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!" That made a lot of sense before we began to understand what lies beyond the Earth in a different way, and was probably eminent reasoning upon an idea that was (in its day) obviously very daft indeed!.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm the controlled explosion theory. It requires someone to smuggle the explosives into the towers, hide them, and then to organise the detonation of these explosives, whilst simultaneously crashing the planes into said towers.
You then have the perfect explanation of why the towers went straight down, without a wobble. Brilliant.
Is it the most simple explanation?
Really?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | Well, my point is really that a building of that height is more likely to topple to one side than collapse neatly in on itself.... |
You base this conclusion on what evidence? Where are the observations of comparable building collapses? Please list.
Otherwise, you need to start questioning the rapidity with which you leap to ill-informed conclusions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | My other (more important) point is that conspiracy theories in general should not automatically be written off just because many who espouse them push their interpretations of events too far, or push other wilder theories. |
You have not absorbed what you have read on this site.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Ishmael said
| You have not absorbed what you have read on this site. |
Well, sorry, actually I have not read what you have absorbed on this site! Having joined late, I am still getting up to speed. Actually, I apologise beforehand for said 'speed' as my internet access is not the best in the world, so I may take some time.
I see that you entertain certain conspiracy theories, I suppose my real objection is the use of derisory terms such as 'nut jobs' and 'fruit loops', which are usually a lazy way to avoid having to refute any suggestions one doesn't agree with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| 'Conspiracy theories' covers a plethora of ideas, some daft, some quite sensible. As I think we agree, 'we don't really know' is often (/usually) the best hypothesis. |
Conversely, the Don't Know position is just as abused. If you can tell us one conspiracy theory that has turned out to be true (yes, that's right, it's the usual M J Harper Challenge, just one will suffice) then your position is at least tenable. Until then it is more or less mandatory to treat them all as daft, by definition as it were. The fact that there are various fruitcakes on this site does not alter the position.
Except of course any that you yourself come up with...that is always the Golden Exception in these hallowed halls.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the sexual abuse scandal in the Church? Isn't it fair to say that the hierarchy conspired against children, by moving bad priests to different parishs and refusing to get rid of them. The pope still won't take responsibility and continues to blame it on Satan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
A perfect example, Rocky. Where were all the conspiracy theorists when something real was going on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
