Epistemology and the 911 Attacks

[timhau]

The exposition of the 9/11 official narrative as a lie has the potential then to shatter the community's cohesiveness, and thus its capacity for survival. This is frightening to members of the community, for whom the collective survival is far more important than who did what on that day nine plus years ago.

Oh yes, the most pathetic response of the chronically irrelevant: YOU DISMISS US BECAUSE YOU FEAR US!

Yawn.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

By means of time, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, when thus treated as the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory, since none of our faculties are deductive. Because of the relation between the Ideal of practical reason and our concepts, space is just as necessary as, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the things in themselves; with the sole exception of the discipline of pure reason, the noumena are what first give rise to, so regarded, the phenomena. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the Ideal (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) can not take account of the Categories. The intelligible objects in space and time have lying before them the paralogisms of practical reason, yet our sense perceptions occupy part of the sphere of the thing in itself concerning the existence of the things in themselves in general. We see in advance that the epoche is an agreement of a transcendental grounding of the stream of noematic descriptions with the judged noematic descriptions. It must not be supposed that natural causes exist in our ideas; with the sole exception of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, philosophy proves the validity of, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the phenomena, our a priori concepts. In which of our cognitive faculties are our sense perceptions and space connected together?

 

[angrysoba]

By means of time, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, when thus treated as the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory, since none of our faculties are deductive. Because of the relation between the Ideal of practical reason and our concepts, space is just as necessary as, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the things in themselves; with the sole exception of the discipline of pure reason, the noumena are what first give rise to, so regarded, the phenomena. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the Ideal (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) can not take account of the Categories. The intelligible objects in space and time have lying before them the paralogisms of practical reason, yet our sense perceptions occupy part of the sphere of the thing in itself concerning the existence of the things in themselves in general. We see in advance that the epoche is an agreement of a transcendental grounding of the stream of noematic descriptions with the judged noematic descriptions. It must not be supposed that natural causes exist in our ideas; with the sole exception of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, philosophy proves the validity of, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the phenomena, our a priori concepts. In which of our cognitive faculties are our sense perceptions and space connected together?

You are right! And yet you are wrong!

It is plain that multiplicities of phenomenology become adjusted to, by a freely actualizable return to the task of clarifying noematic descriptions, modes of consciousness. Galileo tells us that natural causes exclude the possibility of natural reason. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions can not take account of, thus, the objects in space and time. I now shift the weight of transcendental evidence of the whole of conscious life from the ego to experiences. The thing in itself, insomuch as the transcendental unity of apperception relies on the noumena, is what first gives rise to the employment of the intelligible objects in space and time, and the discipline of human reason, indeed, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it is the clue to the discovery of disjunctive principles. Philosophy (and it is obvious that this is true) is the clue to the discovery of our sense perceptions, since knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori. Our ideas, irrespective of all empirical conditions, would be falsified. With the sole exception of the thing in itself, what we have alone been able to show is that pure reason is a representation of the objects in space and time. I assert, in natural theology, that pure logic is by its very nature contradictory, as we have already seen. Multiplicities of transcendental subjectivity synthetically constitute all particular instances of pure and genuine evidence that ever become prominent, by conscious conversion into the corresponding experiences. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, the paralogisms of human reason have nothing to do with, for these reasons, the paralogisms of human reason.

 

[Loss Leader]

However, I am interested not in debating what conspiracy narrative is the valid narrative to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center towers but the ideology which is behind an operation I personally assume was carried out by a rogue network belonging to the State intelligence apparatus, be it as it may.

Translation:

Assuming 9/11 was an inside job, what could their idiology have been?

Okay, I'll go with you. Let's engage in that useless thought experiment.

I believe it was designed not so much to influence foreign and domestic policy, but was construed as an attempt to change human nature itself.

Why would you believe this? In order for 9/11 to have worked, the conspirators would have had to bet heavily on the stability of human nature. They would have had to hope that human nature was such that people would look for someone to blame, look to the government for leadership, backed the government with fewer questions, take their anger out militarily - all things that have historically (and experimentally) been shown to be the essence of human nature when faced with a trauma or threat.

The 911 attacks were in this sense an attempt to institute an epistemological revolution on mankind, by the imposition of a new ideology, through subversive and deceptive means, to a humanity that no longer believes in, or is no longer capable of believing in, ideologies, after and since the failed political systems of the 20th century.

There is literally no reason to believe any of that. What evidence do you have that humanity (not just Americans, but all humans) had lost the ability to believe in things? What evidence do you have that democracy, theocracy, oligarchies, or any other systems had failed by 2001?

Nine-one-one has thus, in a sense, brought God back into a world in which, according to Nietszche, God is dead.

Okay, nothing you're saying is logically connected to anything else you're saying. I could through all of my cable stations and it would be more coherent.

The WTC attacks are therefore, in my view, the latest mass ideological system adopted by, or imposed onto, mankind, and probably the last.

Name one other mass ideological system adopted by, or imposed onto, mankind.


And, I'm done trying to take this seriously. I'm going back to my rerun of Stargate: Universe.

 

[R.Mackey]

idiology

I see what you did there.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And, I'm done trying to take this seriously. I'm going back to my rerun of Stargate: Universe.

TJ is way hotter than Chloe.

 

[Brainache]

Hey! I've been away from this forum for a while. I left because I could see that every one of the Truther claims had been shown for the rubbish that it was and they were producing nothing new that was even slightly interesting.

I see that is still the case.

Carry on.

 

[Quiproquo]

Translation:

Assuming 9/11 was an inside job, what could their ideology [are lame ad hominem attacks all you have to add to this debate?] have been?

That's a paraphrase, not a translation.

Why would you believe this? In order for 9/11 to have worked, the conspirators would have had to bet heavily on the stability of human nature. They would have had to hope that human nature was such that people would look for someone to blame, look to the government for leadership, backed the government with fewer questions, take their anger out militarily - all things that have historically (and experimentally) been shown to be the essence of human nature when faced with a trauma or threat.

I am talking here about Man's moral, ethical nature. Nine-one-one worked because Man's social nature remained the same, as you point out.

What evidence do you have that democracy, theocracy, oligarchies, or any other systems had failed by 2001?

I wrote about a humanity that no longer believes in, or is no longer capable of believing in, ideologies, after and since the failed political systems of the 20th century. Democracy, theocracy, oligarchies do not belong to this category.

Okay, nothing you're saying is logically connected to anything else you're saying. I could through all of my cable stations and it would be more coherent.

I am describing the ethical nature of Man. This quote from Nietzsche is therefore eminently logical.

Name one other mass ideological system adopted by, or imposed onto, mankind.

Nazism.

And, I'm done trying to take this seriously.

Then why are you wasting your time trying to debate me?

I'm going back to my rerun of Stargate: Universe.

Nothing like escaping reality through a fantasy world.

 

[Quiproquo]

You are right! And yet you are wrong!

The celebration of sophism. How degenerate.

This can only beg the logical question: why are you here if you do not believe in rational discourse?

 

[alienentity]

Nine-one-one worked because Man's social nature remained the same, as you point out.

You are oddly referring to the date as 'nine-one-one'. The date was 11 September, so 'nine-eleven', or 9/11.

9-1-1 is the emergency number used in North America.

 

[Athyrio]

You are oddly referring to the date as 'nine-one-one'. The date was 11 September, so 'nine-eleven', or 9/11.

9-1-1 is the emergency number used in North America.

I think the terminology is an imposition of a new ideology, a result of that danged epistemological revolution.

 

[TjW]

The celebration of sophism. How degenerate.

This can only beg the logical question: why are you here if you do not believe in rational discourse?

Many of us believe in rational discourse. Alas, as with many endangered species, it is too seldom seen, and misidentifications are common.

 

[Quiproquo]

But in discussing the ideology you are assuming a conspiracy. It's a bit like saying "let's assume that Santa is real...." as a starting point in a discussion about Christmas.

Lionking, the mere statement of an assumption does not make it causally false, as Anti-Truthers contend ad nauseam on this forum. In the same way, the statement of a hypothesis does not signify it's falsity.

Assumptions, related to deductive reasoning, are a central part in the act of thinking. As a proposition used to further prove other propositions, it is expected that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.

The scientific finding of a military-grade energetic material in the WTC dust and corresponding witness testimonies to secondary explosives during the collapse of the towers may provide further evidence for the alternative conspiracy narrative. Nothing wrong, illogical, or incoherent here.

Anti-Truthers themselves seem to rely heavily on the implausibility argument when debating the 911 controversy. The alternative conspiracy narrative in regard to 911 is simply impossible, or implausible, because it does not make moral and technical (to them) sense.

A strange assumption, since to believe this they must also believe that, as stated through the mainline conspiracy narrative, we are living in a "post-911" world in which everything has changed.

In this case why base your assumptions today on assumptions you had before the 911 attacks (ie for example such a covert operation is impossible)? Hasn't "everything" changed?

Unfortunately today we live in a world in which such an operation has the most possibility of occuring.

I am still blinded by the riddle, as it cannot be true.

 

[beachnut]

Hi, I am new to this forum.

Is that the truth?

I've read through many threads and I realize this topic is mainly dominated by anti-Truthers.

You mean anti-liars. 911 CTs are delusions, lies. 911 truth is anti-intellectual claptrap; you do anything about it.

However, I am interested not in debating what conspiracy narrative is the valid narrative to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center towers but the ideology which is behind an operation I personally assume was carried out by a rogue network belonging to the State intelligence apparatus, be it as it may.

19 terrorists did 911, you failed before you started.

Debunkers need not apply here, because there is nothing to debunk

You have debunked yourself.

Here our some of my thoughts on the philosophy which brought about, and led to, the conception of the dark, brilliant, and sinister 911 attacks against the WTC towers, and I would also like to hear yours if you have any ideas or you would like to elaborate on mine.

UBL said he would kill us, looks like you lack knowledge.

If this operation is indeed an insider intelligence operation, as I assume it is, then I believe it was designed not so much to influence foreign and domestic policy, but was construed as an attempt to change human nature itself.

It was not, so you failed.

The 911 attacks were in this sense an attempt to institute an epistemological revolution on mankind, by the imposition of a new ideology, through subversive and deceptive means, to a humanity that no longer believes in, or is no longer capable of believing in, ideologies, after and since the failed political systems of the 20th century.

Again, you failed to realize 911 was UBL keeping his promise to kill us; you failed to gather the required knowledge to understand 911.

Nine-one-one has thus, in a sense, brought God back into a world in which, according to Nietszche, God is dead.

More nonsense exposing lack of knowledge on 911. How do you spew this much nonsense and type at the same time?

The WTC attacks are therefore, in my view, the latest mass ideological system adopted by, or imposed onto, mankind, and probably the last. True public revelation of the ideological nature and origin of the artificial 911 myth is considered inconceivable by its designers, for it would destroy the collective, social, and moral basis upon which all modern human societies are founded. The necessity to keep the myth alive is existential in nature. In this optic there can be no other issue but success for and perpetuation of the myth.

Wow, pure nonsense.

Revelation of the myth will cause Western civilization itself to inevitably come to an end. We thus truly live in a "post-911" world, a world in which our sense perception has forever been altered, and one from which there will be no turning back.

More nonsense.

Such is the epistemological revolution which occurred on the day of September 11, 2001, in the city of New York, USA: sad, acutely tragic, and profoundly human.

Such is the nonsense of those with paranoid delusions.

 

[Oystein]

...an operation I personally assume was carried out by a rogue network belonging to the State intelligence apparatus, be it as it may.

Debunkers need not apply here, because there is nothing to debunk
...

Urrr how about the premise?

 

[The Almond]

Lionking, the mere statement of an assumption does not make it causally false,

But, it's perfectly within the purview, especially within the context of this forum, to challenge the veracity of assumptions; especially when they are the basis for an argument about some social/historical truth. Your OP presumed the guilt of the US government as a method for proving that human nature has somehow changed since 9/11. You then point to what are perhaps factual changes in US domestic and foreign policy, and you attempt to show that this was the work of some vast conspiracy. In the process, you commit a non-sequitur fallacy of the type If A then B, B, therefore A.

The entirely correct response to what is basically a silly argument, is to challenge the assumption as being false, or unproven. Lionking, along with most of the other debunkers that responded have pointed this out. If you're interested in a completely useless debate (where we assume the existence of things for which no proof of their existence has been shown), then I demand that you spend equal time telling me how the combined force of Santa Clause and Unicorns also caused 9/11.

as Anti-Truthers contend ad nauseam on this forum. In the same way, the statement of a hypothesis does not signify it's falsity.

A hypothesis is untested, and therefore uninteresting. Again, I hypothesize that Unicorns destroyed the twin towers. Who cares?

Assumptions, related to deductive reasoning, are a central part in the act of thinking. As a proposition used to further prove other propositions, it is expected that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.

So, let me get this straight. As a pre-condition for debating your point of view, we have to agree that the primary assumption, an assumption we know to be categorically false, is true? Are you on drugs? Has this line of reasoning ever worked for you?

The scientific finding of a military-grade energetic material in the WTC dust and corresponding witness testimonies to secondary explosives during the collapse of the towers may provide further evidence for the alternative conspiracy narrative. Nothing wrong, illogical, or incoherent here.

That's been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. Your assumptions here are demonstrably wrong.

Anti-Truthers themselves seem to rely heavily on the implausibility argument when debating the 911 controversy.

Wildly inaccurate. We actually rely on facts, logic, context, mathematics and the trappings of legitimate scientific inquiry. Truthers rely in a misrepresentation of the implausibility argument (First time in history...).

The alternative conspiracy narrative in regard to 911 is simply impossible, or implausible, because it does not make moral and technical (to them) sense.

A strange assumption, since to believe this they must also believe that, as stated through the mainline conspiracy narrative, we are living in a "post-911" world in which everything has changed.

In this case why base your assumptions today on assumptions you had before the 911 attacks (ie for example such a covert operation is impossible)? Hasn't "everything" changed?

So, in addition to factual inaccuracy, you've added misrepresentation to your strategy. Cute.

Unfortunately today we live in a world in which such an operation has the most possibility of occuring.

I am still blinded by the riddle, as it cannot be true.

Let me get this straight, a secret cabal of US government officials decides that they want to change US foreign policy, so they decide to use a material that has never been used to destroy a tall building, in order to destroy 3 tall buildings, only after 2 have been hit by two jet airliners. The third, which falls for apparently no reason is demolished in the same way as the first 2, but it falls several hours later. The complexity of this operation involves hundreds of people at minimum, with complete secrecy, and without any guilt driven leaks or confessions after 9 years. This shadowy cabal has some motive, but it really has nothing to do with the strength of the US military, the US economy, oil revenues, or simple monetary gain for any party involved. Rather, this cabal has some more esoteric goals involving social change, which benefits no one in the short term, and really doesn't benefit anyone in the long term.

That's more likely than a few dozen pissed off Islamo-fascists who are out to kill as a ticket to an eternity's worth of virgins?

Really?

 

[Loss Leader]

That's a paraphrase, not a translation.

It depends on your definition of "translation." In any case, I spelled "ideology" wrong entirely by accident. I meant no subtle attack. I am, in fact, incapable of subtlety. My high school yearbook quote was, "This is my high school yearbook quote."

I am talking here about Man's moral, ethical nature. Nine-one-one worked because Man's social nature remained the same, as you point out.

Um, what? How is one's social nature different from one's moral, ethical nature? A society that finds tight clothing immoral is going to socialize that by walking around in loose clothing and being very stern with anyone who wears tight clothes.

Your morals tell you how to behave socially. It's why I sent my son up to strangers to beg for candy tonight, but why I would be horrified if he did it a week from now.

Can you give me an example of a moral, ethical belief that doesn't affect how one socializes with others?

I wrote about a humanity that no longer believes in, or is no longer capable of believing in, ideologies, after and since the failed political systems of the 20th century. Democracy, theocracy, oligarchies do not belong to this category.

What political systems do belong in that category?

I am describing the ethical nature of Man. This quote from Nietzsche is therefore eminently logical.

Unless you're at least half Vulcan, assume for the sake of argument that nothing you say will be "eminently" logical.

Nazism.

You claim that Nazism was a belief-system imposed on the human race. I disagree. First of all, Nazism may well not qualify as a belief system.

But, most importantly, the vast majority of the world never had the Nazi belief system imposed on them. The United States, for example, remained a democracy throughout the war. The King of England never left his throne. But a massive percentage of the world had almost no contact whatsoever with the Nazis. China, while having some diplomatic contact with Germany, was basically involved in a whole other World War II than Europe was. Ghana had almost no involvement in World War II and they had at least a couple million people.

Nothing like escaping reality through a fantasy world.

You would know. See? Nothing subtle about that one now, was there?

 

[A W Smith]

Lionking, the mere statement of an assumption does not make it causally false, as Anti-Truthers contend ad nauseam on this forum. In the same way, the statement of a hypothesis does not signify it's falsity.

Assumptions, related to deductive reasoning, are a central part in the act of thinking. As a proposition used to further prove other propositions, it is expected that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.

The scientific finding of a military-grade energetic material in the WTC dust and corresponding witness testimonies to secondary explosives during the collapse of the towers may provide further evidence for the alternative conspiracy narrative. Nothing wrong, illogical, or incoherent here.

Anti-Truthers themselves seem to rely heavily on the implausibility argument when debating the 911 controversy. The alternative conspiracy narrative in regard to 911 is simply impossible, or implausible, because it does not make moral and technical (to them) sense.

A strange assumption, since to believe this they must also believe that, as stated through the mainline conspiracy narrative, we are living in a "post-911" world in which everything has changed.

In this case why base your assumptions today on assumptions you had before the 911 attacks (ie for example such a covert operation is impossible)? Hasn't "everything" changed?

Unfortunately today we live in a world in which such an operation has the most possibility of occuring.

I am still blinded by the riddle, as it cannot be true.

Unimpressed am I by your logical fallacies

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#jargon

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#gibberish

 

[tsig]

Lionking, the mere statement of an assumption does not make it causally false, as Anti-Truthers contend ad nauseam on this forum. In the same way, the statement of a hypothesis does not signify it's falsity.

Assumptions, related to deductive reasoning, are a central part in the act of thinking. As a proposition used to further prove other propositions, it is expected that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.

The scientific finding of a military-grade energetic material in the WTC dust and corresponding witness testimonies to secondary explosives during the collapse of the towers may provide further evidence for the alternative conspiracy narrative. Nothing wrong, illogical, or incoherent here.

Anti-Truthers themselves seem to rely heavily on the implausibility argument when debating the 911 controversy. The alternative conspiracy narrative in regard to 911 is simply impossible, or implausible, because it does not make moral and technical (to them) sense.

A strange assumption, since to believe this they must also believe that, as stated through the mainline conspiracy narrative, we are living in a "post-911" world in which everything has changed.

In this case why base your assumptions today on assumptions you had before the 911 attacks (ie for example such a covert operation is impossible)? Hasn't "everything" changed?

Unfortunately today we live in a world in which such an operation has the most possibility of occuring.

I am still blinded by the riddle, as it cannot be true.

Well, you got something right.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yeah, that's a good one.

I think 9/11 Truth and its attendant conspiracies are a kind of parlour game for a lot of Truthers. They get to dream up their own narratives and sometimes get really upset if someone points out what an extreme lot of bollocks they are talking.

I think that Aaronovitch told of a Truther who approached him at the end of a Truther meeting at which he was applying logic to the theories and almost on the verge of tears plaintively asked him, "Why?...Why are you doing this?"

Most of what you all are doing is merely pointing and saying "Bollocks!" That isn't a proper debunking.

I really think that you and everyone who thinks like you is deluded about 9/11, and I am sorry for you in a real way.

You have believed the Big Lie of our time.