9/11 and Contingency

[John Blonn]

This is a set of questions and issues aimed at Truthers, but they are also open for discussion for the entire skeptic community.

Over in the The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy thread, I've been struck by a feature of CIT's theory which is actually generalizable to all 9/11 CTs and to CTs in general: denial of contingency.

How am I using 'contingency' here, and what do I mean by the above observation?

Contingency is the opposite of necessity. When something is necessary, it could not have happened any other way. Both premises and conclusions can be necessary. If something is contingent, it could have happened another way, or not happened at all.

Both conditions and conclusions, causes and effects, can be either necessary or contingent.

For instance, in traditional deductive logic, a conclusion must be accepted if 1) the argument is valid and 2) the premises are true. For example, given

1. All mammals are warm-blooded.
2. A tiger is a mammal.
3. Therefore a tiger is warm-blooded.

we must accept (3) if the argument is valid (it is) and if the premises (1) and (2) are true. 3 is thus a necessary conclusion.

Similarly, there can be necessary conditions. For instance, for pure water to freeze at STP, the ambient temperature must be less than or equal to 0 degrees Celcius - this is a necessary condition.

Contingency is trickier - a contingent condition or conclusion is one in which it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. For instance, take the argument:

If I jump off a cliff, I will die.

The conclusion "I will die" is contingent on many factors - if I have a parachute, or if there's a lot of fluffy pillows at the bottom of the cliff, I won't die. Or I might - what if the parachute is not packed correctly? In most cases, I'll slam into the ground and die. My death is contingent on many factors.

Similarly, conditions can be contingent. For instance:

I look outside and see the street is wet. I reason:

The street is wet; a condition for this to occur is that it recently rained.

This argument is based on a contingent condition - yes, it is the case that if it rains, my street will be wet, but not necessarily! It could have happened another way. For instance, it could have snowed. Or, a helicopter could have flew by and dropped a load of water on the ground. Or, a bunch of kids with hoses could have wet the street. Or, even if it does rain, one could put a tarp on the street, preventing it from getting wet. Rain is not a necessary condition for the street being wet - it is a contingent condition.

What does this have to do with 9/11? The real world is so complex that we can rarely discover all the necessary conditions or conclusions to any cause or effect. Our world is too complex, there are too many variables. We deal with contingency every day. Buf if you look at any conspiracy theory about 9/11, you'll find that CTers live in a world of necessity.

Every aspect of that day had purpose. Everything was planned to the minutest detail. Take the collapse of WTC7. To a skeptic, we see contingency - given different starting conditions, WTC7 could have stood up. Same with the towers, or even the 9/11 event itself - given different conditions, things could have happened a different way. This is contingency; we accept this.

Truthers do not see this, however - everything (or the most important things) that occurred that day happened necessarily. WTC7 HAD to fall given that it DID fall. The problem at heart with their thinking, I think, is that they cannot accept that WTC7 might not have fallen. They can't accept that WTC1&2 might not have collapsed. They can't accept that 9/11 might not have happened! They live in a world of necessity; all that happens is explainable and planned; similarly, all plans and conditions lead to necessary conclusions.

In CITs world, the fact that one of the lamp posts crashed into Lloyd England's world was necessary for the operation - and of course it must be! The only way it fits into their world is if the lamp post and Mr. England were set up ahead of time, planned, necessary. Because it happened, it MUST have happened. Their Weltanschauung is one with relatively few necessary premises; thus, they can construct a world of relatively few necessary conclusions.

The question for truthers is, then: What aspects of 9/11 were 'contingent,' and which were 'necessary?' Are there any aspects of the day that were not 'planned' ahead of time? How would we know?

The question for everyone else is: In what other places (9/11 CTs or no) do you see this type of thinking, where everything that happens has a purpose, a clearly defined set of necessary conditions that lead to necessary conclusions? And what does this tell us about knowledge in general?

ETA: I am not a philosopher, and I apologize if I'm not using these terms in a precise way. You don't have to necessarily agree with me!

 

[Horatius]

[/B]The question for everyone else is: In what other places (9/11 CTs or no) do you see this type of thinking, where everything that happens has a purpose, a clearly defined set of necessary conditions that lead to necessary conclusions? And what does this tell us about knowledge in general?

I see it pretty much everywhere in the CT movement, and have commented on it before:

A few people have alluded to the same idea, and it's one I wrote a post on a long time ago - that you can't be a little bit MIHOP. For your pre-wired WTC7 (or 6, or whatever one you want to discuss) demolition to look anywhere believable as a "natural" event, it has to have suffered some sort of damage. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would accept it just falling down. So we absolutely, with no ifs ands or buts, need it to be damaged.

To get that damage, we absolutely need one of the towers to fall on it. Where else can we get the damage from? So we need at least one of the towers to fall. Of course, we can't simply rely on the plane to do the job; one might miss, or just barely hit, or might even be re-taken by the passengers, or crashed prematurely like flight 93. So to be absolutely sure that the towers fall, we have to wire them too, and we have to make absolutely sure that the planes hit the towers, and hit them squarely enough that the collapses again look "natural". So now we're into full on woo territory, with some invisible hand wiring all the buildings, while also guiding the planes to their impact, all to make it possible to hide the demo of WTC7. Lose any one element of the plan, and the whole house of cards falls, and everyone watching goes, "WTF?!? Why did that just happen?", and you lose everything you worked so hard for.

You can't be a little bit MIHOP. It's all or nothing.

I'd say this is why they believe everything that happened was required to happen - if any one element had failed to happen, then it would have blown the conspiracy wide open. Their choices then become, recognize that there is no conspiracy, or conclude that everything was engineered to occur exactly as it did.

And of course, they'll never conclude that there's no conspiracy, so we end up where we are, as you've identified.



And in thinking about it, this also explains why they bother with the "Flight 93" conspiracy. Flight 93 must have been shot down as part of the plan. If it had been crashed as a result of passenger actions as reported, that would mean it's ultimate target wasn't hit by a plane, and so the target would have been left pre-wired with explosives, because, hey, all the targets were pre-wired, right? There's no way the conspiracy would have allowed such a huge piece of evidence to be left intact, so obviously they never intended for the plane to reach it's target. But, they also couldn't have counted on the passengers to do the job, and if the plane had reached it's non-wired target, then the target would not have collapsed as all the others did, thus revealing the fact that the collapses were staged. So, not wanting to reveal the plot in either manner, Flight 93 must have been shot down as a necessary part of the plan!

Or, it all happened as reported. But that's just silly talk!


Now my brane hurtz!

 

[Cuddles]

No argument with the substance of your post, so I'll just add the obligatory nitpick:

Similarly, there can be necessary conditions. For instance, for pure water to freeze at STP, the ambient temperature must be less than or equal to 0 degrees Celcius - this is a necessary condition.

You can't be at STP and below 0^oC at the same time.

I'd say this is why they believe everything that happened was required to happen - if any one element had failed to happen, then it would have blown the conspiracy wide open. Their choices then become, recognize that there is no conspiracy, or conclude that everything was engineered to occur exactly as it did.

It's even worse than that. They believe that everything must have happened as it did because otherwise the conspiracy would be obvious to everyone, but at the same time they believe that the conspiracy is obvious to everyone. Remember, it's exactly the same people who claim an incredibly complex conspiracy that fooled everyone who also claim that 84% (or whatever the current amount they claim) of the population believe in the conspiracy.

 

[deep]

ETA: I am not a philosopher, and I apologize if I'm not using these terms in a precise way.

Yes, that's quite clear. I'm not sure if you even understand what you're arguing here.

---

All arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or unsound.

An argument is made up of two or more related propositions (at least one premise, and one conclusion).

Propositions are necessary or contingent, and possible or impossible.

---

An example of a necessary proposition would be, "the Earth is either under 10 years old, or over 5 years old".

An example of a contingent proposition would be, "there are nine planets in our solar system".

---

A more relevant example of a contingent proposition would be, "when controlled demolition experts rig a building with explosives, the building will collapse when the explosives are detonated". It's not necessary, because the explosives could be faulty, the wiring could be faulty, etc.

Like I said, I don't believe you even understand what you're attempting to argue here.

 

[deep]

It's even worse than that. They believe that everything must have happened as it did because otherwise the conspiracy would be obvious to everyone, but at the same time they believe that the conspiracy is obvious to everyone. Remember, it's exactly the same people who claim an incredibly complex conspiracy that fooled everyone who also claim that 84% (or whatever the current amount they claim) of the population believe in the conspiracy.

For one thing, I'm only aware of the Scripps poll from 2006, in which one-third of Americans said they believe the US Government either assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them. Just because someone in the LC forum said 84% does not mean that everyone believes that to be the case.

Second of all, you're failing to acknowledge that opinions can change over time. At first, nearly everyone was fooled (including myself). It wasn't until years later that most people starting reexamining the evidence and questioning the validity of the US Government's explanation.

 

[John Blonn]

Yes, that's quite clear. I'm not sure if you even understand what you're arguing here.

---

All arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or unsound.

An argument is made up of two or more related propositions (at least one premise, and one conclusion).

Propositions are necessary or contingent, and possible or impossible.

---

An example of a necessary proposition would be, "the Earth is either under 10 years old, or over 5 years old".

An example of a contingent proposition would be, "there are nine planets in our solar system".

---

A more relevant example of a contingent proposition would be, "when controlled demolition experts rig a building with explosives, the building will collapse when the explosives are detonated". It's not necessary, because the explosives could be faulty, the wiring could be faulty, etc.

Like I said, I don't believe you even understand what you're attempting to argue here.

Your contingent proposition example is like my 'jump off a cliff example.'

If I jump off a cliff, I will die.

As I argued, the conclusion is not necessary, as I could have a parachute, the 'cliff' could be only 20 feet high, maiming but not killing me, etc. The argument is, actually, not valid, and thus not sound (an important distinction you rightfully point out). Your example:

If CD experts rig a building with explosives, the building will collapse when detonated.

is of a similar format in that the conclusion isn't necessary, as you point out.

And your necessary example is a tautology, which is one example of a necessary proposition, as you call it.

My presentation above wasn't very organized, indeed, but I'm not sure which parts you object to. Your reply consists of some important distinctions, but you didn't really challenge anything in the post. And anyway, I'm not sure what your response to the meat of the issue is - what did conspirators leave to chance on 9/11, and how would we know that this was left to chance?

 

[funk de fino]

Yes, that's quite clear. I'm not sure if you even understand what you're arguing here.

---

All arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or unsound.

An argument is made up of two or more related propositions (at least one premise, and one conclusion).

Propositions are necessary or contingent, and possible or impossible.

---

An example of a necessary proposition would be, "the Earth is either under 10 years old, or over 5 years old".

An example of a contingent proposition would be, "there are nine planets in our solar system".

---

A more relevant example of a contingent proposition would be, "when controlled demolition experts rig a building with explosives, the building will collapse when the explosives are detonated". It's not necessary, because the explosives could be faulty, the wiring could be faulty, etc.

Like I said, I don't believe you even understand what you're attempting to argue here.

After reading your post he seems it understands it better than you. If you understood it you would not be a truther bot.

 

[deep]

And anyway, I'm not sure what your response to the meat of the issue is - what did conspirators leave to chance on 9/11, and how would we know that this was left to chance?

In order to understand what the conspirators left to chance, or who the conspirators even were, you first have to understand what actually happened. I don't believe you fully understand that right now.

• What was the source of energy responsible for laterally ejecting 50 ton steel beams through the air, hard enough to penetrate into other buildings?
• With the building around it already having collapsed, what force caused the core of WTC1 to slowly and smoothly sink downward, seconds after the main collapse?

The problem is, you can't answer those questions without thinking ahead to what the answers mean in the context of your worldview. In other words, you're not capable of examining the evidence objectively.

To clarify my position: I don't know what was left to chance, because as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. Once we fully understand what happened, then we can move on to who, how, why, etc.

 

[deep]

After reading your post he seems it understands it better than you. If you understood it you would not be a truther bot.

After reading your post, I've concluded that it's incoherent. "he seems it understands it"? Did you just pick random words and throw them together?

Assuming you're trying to tell me that he understands it better than I do, why don't you go ahead and provide a specific example from the post in question -- show me where I fall short in my understanding.

 

[John Blonn]

In order to understand what the conspirators left to chance, or who the conspirators even were, you first have to understand what actually happened. I don't believe you fully understand that right now.

Granted. What don't I understand? Either:

a) You are undecided about what happened that day and therefore don't fully understand what actually happened. If so, then why level the charge against me?

or

b) You understand what happened that day, and have a general idea about the who and the how. Care to share this general position?

If b, then we can begin to unpack questions of chance, contingency, etc.

The problem is, you can't answer those questions without thinking ahead to what the answers mean in the context of your worldview. In other words, you're not capable of examining the evidence objectively.

Heh. :Irony:

To clarify my position: I don't know what was left to chance, because as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. Once we fully understand what happened, then we can move on to who, how, why, etc.

So you are an agnostic here then? You don't know if it was Al Qaeda or some shadowy conspirators?

::Note about the philosophical intro: We may be using words like contingent and necessary differently, and like I said, I may not be using them in the way real philosophers do. But that's OK. The first bit of the OP doesn't really matter, honestly - it's just a way to start thinking about what's necessary and what's not, no more no less. The important stuff is the 9/11 questions.::

 

[MRC_Hans]

Whatever you think of the OP, you are now making a derail. However, I will try to answer your questions, in relation to the OP:

What was the source of energy responsible for laterally ejecting 50 ton steel beams through the air, hard enough to penetrate into other buildings?

Necessity is that the beams were ejected with sufficient force (I assume that the 50 figure is guesswork, since I don't think we know the exact identity of the ejecta that hit WTC7).

Contingencies are:
- Explosives
- Kinetic energy of the falling buildings
- kinetic energy of the falling beams themselves, hitting structures and being deflected

Note that these contingencies are not mutually exclusive.

With the building around it already having collapsed, what force caused the core of WTC1 to slowly and smoothly sink downward, seconds after the main collapse?

Well, obviously, gravity is a necessity. Another is that the structure of the core must be compromized.

Contingencies are:
- Explosives
- Damage when the rest of the building was ripped from the core
- Damage from vertically deflected debris (we saw that damaging buildings some distance away, so of course it could also damage the core
- Damage from being crushed by the heap of debris
- The core was never constructed to stand on its own

Again, not mutually exclusive.

The problem is, you can't answer those questions without thinking ahead to what the answers mean in the context of your worldview. In other words, you're not capable of examining the evidence objectively.

You are speaking for yourself, here. It is absolutely possible, though not necessarily easy, to analyze each step of a chain of evidence, without implying a foregone conclusion.

To clarify my position: I don't know what was left to chance, because as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. Once we fully understand what happened, then we can move on to who, how, why, etc.

That is an elaborate way of saying that your mind is already made up and that you are not to be confused with facts.

Hans

 

[gumboot]

I think it's a common phenomenon in humans, and I think to some degree it makes sense. Humans are logical beings, and we categorise and order things. Our brains don't like randomness.

For some people that extends to rejecting the entire notion that randomness can exist at all. Enter religion. Religion is essentially the product of precisely the phenomenon you're referring to - nothing is random or chaotic - everything has some conscience, some human-like will behind it. Lightning isn't a random natural event; it's the Sky God when he's angry.

What follows of course from this logic, and is essentially the entire motivation for this line of thought, is "if we appease the Sky God we won't have to deal with any lightning".

It makes life manageable, because for most people the real world is too chaotic to deal with (this is especially true of humans living in "the wild" when religion first emerged).

It's no surprise to me that as we see the fall of religion, a new "ultimate will" is assigned to be behind every chaotic and frightening thing that happens. That's where Conspiracy Theories fit in. I predict that as the west becomes increasingly atheistic, conspiracy theories and "big government" paranoia will become increasingly prevalent.

 

[funk de fino]

After reading your post, I've concluded that it's incoherent. "he seems it understands it"? Did you just pick random words and throw them together?

Assuming you're trying to tell me that he understands it better than I do, why don't you go ahead and provide a specific example from the post in question -- show me where I fall short in my understanding.

Grammer queen again eh? Two words typed in wrong place in sentence.

Your understanding of 911 and how his OP relates to it is where you fail.

Thats why you are a truther.

I see you have attempted another derail that shows your lack of understanding quite nicely. Thanks.

 

[deep]

It's no surprise to me that as we see the fall of religion, a new "ultimate will" is assigned to be behind every chaotic and frightening thing that happens. That's where Conspiracy Theories fit in. I predict that as the west becomes increasingly atheistic, conspiracy theories and "big government" paranoia will become increasingly prevalent.

So people will find comfort (as they did with religion) by categorizing everything as a conspiracy theory? Not sure I see the connection. If anything, it's the other way around- people find comfort in believing that the government will never allow anything bad to happen to them. They would defend that belief with rabid hostility, irrationally inventing reasons to ignore anything that would alter their perception of the government in a negative way.

Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that there's no such thing as a valid conspiracy theory. Is that correct?

 

[240-185]

All arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or unsound.

An argument is made up of two or more related propositions (at least one premise, and one conclusion).

Propositions are necessary or contingent, and possible or impossible.

It seems that you consider only a proposition either right or either wrong.
But what do you think about this: "This sentence is wrong" ?

(Welcome to everybody if you didn't read the welcome thread )

 

[TheRedWorm]

Welcome to the forum, 240-185!

 

[deep]

Grammer queen again eh? Two words typed in wrong place in sentence.

Your understanding of 911 and how his OP relates to it is where you fail.

Thats why you are a truther.

I see you have attempted another derail that shows your lack of understanding quite nicely. Thanks.

I'm not criticizing your grammar - the sentence I quoted did not make sense. It would take you literally three seconds to proofread the sentence before hitting 'submit' - if you're not willing to take the time to do that, be prepared for criticism when your message is incoherent.

Also, I see that you couldn't provide an example from my previous post. Instead, you conclude that I'm wrong because of a separate, unrelated belief. That's called a logical fallacy.

Finally, my post wasn't a "derail". The message you criticized was a direct response to the OP, on-topic. I have a right to question the criticism of an on-topic post. Fortunately, we've now established that your argument was fallacious, so we can move on.

 

[deep]

But what do you think about this: "This sentence is wrong" ?

As a proposition, it's logically impossible. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Cuddles]

For one thing, I'm only aware of the Scripps poll from 2006, in which one-third of Americans said they believe the US Government either assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them. Just because someone in the LC forum said 84% does not mean that everyone believes that to be the case.

Second of all, you're failing to acknowledge that opinions can change over time. At first, nearly everyone was fooled (including myself). It wasn't until years later that most people starting reexamining the evidence and questioning the validity of the US Government's explanation.

See? Even you're doing it. First you say that the only poll you're aware of says that 1/3 of people question reality, then in the next paragraph that changes to "most". Surely you can see why no-one actually takes truthers seriously when they contradict themselves so often?

 

[gumboot]

So people will find comfort (as they did with religion) by categorizing everything as a conspiracy theory? Not sure I see the connection. If anything, it's the other way around- people find comfort in believing that the government will never allow anything bad to happen to them. They would defend that belief with rabid hostility, irrationally inventing reasons to ignore anything that would alter their perception of the government in a negative way.

Incorrect. That bad things happen is undeniable and unavoidable. Religion does not seek to deny that bad things happen - it attributes bad things to God. This gives a "reason" for the bad things, and denies the chaotic random nature of many bad things. God gives your partner cancer to "test your faith". Your child dies because "God wanted them in heaven". Your country suffers from poverty because "God is angry for your lack of faith". And so on.

It's a bizarre sort of logic, because people would rather have bad things been done to them by a familiar entity that they understand, than by some vague unknown entity that they have no understanding of.

Thinking the government would never do anything bad does not provide comfort - quite the opposite. If you argue that the government could not do a bad thing, you must confront the fact that the bad things are the result of something else - something you have no control over, and no understanding of.

Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that there's no such thing as a valid conspiracy theory. Is that correct?

I believe conspiracies do occur, and I believe governments can be involved in conspiracies. However a "conspiracy theory", by its very definition, is false.