Epistemology and the 911 Attacks

[timhau]

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

No. It's just identification.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There's an old maxim, originated by Alexei Sayle, that anyone who employs the word "workshop" in a context other than light engineering is a twat.

I would submit that the same is true of anyone who employs the word "epistemiology" in any sincere context whatsoever.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

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

OK. So talk us through the actual analysis you have performed to reach the conclusion that there was 'not enough' WTC steel left at the end of the collapses. That virtually the whole of both buildings was 'turned to dust'.

Show figures - or reasonably verifiable estimates - that lead to your conclusions. Then there will be something in your posts to debunk.

But so far all you've said amounts to "Ooooh ... what a lot of dust!" , and on this 'evidence' you come to a very dramatic conclusion about hitherto unknown exotic weaponry, with an inexplicable delivery system, that produces utterly unique results. A remarkable claim indeed.

So - show us your analysis. Put up or shut up.

 

[Quiproquo]

OK. So talk us through the actual analysis you have performed to reach the conclusion that there was 'not enough' WTC steel left at the end of the collapses. That virtually the whole of both buildings was 'turned to dust'.

Show figures - or reasonably verifiable estimates - that lead to your conclusions. Then there will be something in your posts to debunk.

But so far all you've said amounts to "Ooooh ... what a lot of dust!" , and on this 'evidence' you come to a very dramatic conclusion about hitherto unknown exotic weaponry, with an inexplicable delivery system, that produces utterly unique results. A remarkable claim indeed.

So - show us your analysis. Put up or shut up.

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Everything else is mostly speculation, this we can agree on.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Ah, the classic truther bait-and-switch. First claim the evidence proves an inside job, then, when it's pointed out that the evidence doesn't prove any such thing, try to discredit the same evidence that you were originally relying on.

Dave

 

[timhau]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you.

But isn't that just an epistemological problem?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Everything else is mostly speculation, this we can agree on.

Ah, the classic truther bait-and-switch. First claim the evidence proves an inside job, then, when it's pointed out that the evidence doesn't prove any such thing, try to discredit the same evidence that you were originally relying on.

Dave

Not just a bait-and-switch, but an outright misrepresentation. The evidence was "whisked away right after the attacks"... over a period of several months, and only to end up in landfills while being poured over by multiple agencies and several thousand people. But yeah, I guess July 26, 2002 (the day the last debris from Ground Zero was processed. A 321 day project, BTW¹) qualifies as "right after".



1. Taken from "Anatomy: World Trade Center / Staten Island landfill recovery operation".

 

[GlennB]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Everything else is mostly speculation, this we can agree on.

I was responding to WTC Dust, who is a DEW believer and has reason to believe (we're told) that .... well, read my post above. In this case the seismic record alone disproves his theory. Falling dust will not register a significant seismic signature, whereas the three WTC collapses did. So, no, my demand is not dishonest and neither is "everything else speculation" in the case under discussion.

If you wish to address other specific 9/11 CT theories, fire away.

 

[Loss Leader]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Everything else is mostly speculation, this we can agree on.

I thought we were talking about epistemology. Why answer a question that calls 9/11 into question when we're supposed to be assuming a conspiracy? You have yet to explain how any of your thoughts might logically be even possible given that 9/11 was an inside job.

Please see my last post.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Everything else is mostly speculation, this we can agree on.

And to address the crux of this post directly: You commit some epistemological fallacies in this statement. I've already addressed one in my post above i.e you conclude that the forensic evidence cannot be commented on because it was "whisked away". Examination of the history of the event shows this as incorrect.

But really, the fundamental error you commit here in that post is the presumption that the evidence cannot be examined, thus "... Everything else is mostly speculation". This only holds true for you truthers; for the rest of us who've studied said evidence, this is patently false. Regarding the veracity of the hijackings, we have victim statements made via calls prior to the jets crashing. We also have radar data. In a couple of cases, electronic data recovered from the jets themselves. Testimony from the GTE operators regarding the calls made by the victims. A stray, accidental radio broadcast from one of the hijackers, who thought he was addressing his flight's passengers. Etc. Regarding the cause of the building collapses: The steel was examined before it was "whisked away", and multiple studies have been published on that. The Worcester Polytechnic study is one example. University researchers, such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl examined the steel (albeit superficially; since he was right there in the middle of the recycling process, he of course could not conduct the sort of extended examination that the Worcester Polytechnic (WPI) researchers did)). And so on. The cumulation of attempted refutations to each of these pieces of evidence have each failed in turn, and at a meta level, they also end up contradicting each other (witness the contradiction between DEW and thermite advocates, for example, or no-planers and "planes were fake" adherents). Whereas the cumulation of evidence supports a narrative common to all of them, and that is that hijackers flew jets into buildings, and two of the in New York collapsed due to structural compromise and fires further weakening an already injured building. The evidence for this is mutually supporting, and it all converges on that conclusion.

But when you hold a viewpoint contradictory to the cumulation of evidence, it's convenient to avoid confrontation of it.

Really, the fundamental epistomological fallacy you're falling to overall is called "Simple Minded Certitude" (you also display elements of sanctimony in your post at the top of this thread, but that's a discussion for another time). Rather than confront the evidence, examine it, look for flaws, look for story contradictions, you instead make an attempt at a grandoise-sounding statement impugning others' viewpoints, invoking ideology, and reversing the argument ad populum on its head by implying that the public meekly accepts this supposedly fake story about 9/11. What you do not do is examine the details of the history, or the volumes of evidence and analyses of such evidence itself. And because of this, your foundation remains hollow, devoid of true substance, and empty of actual meaning.

There is no "epistemological revolution" in September 11th. But there is at least one person with an internet account and a thesaurus - you - who thinks that grand pronouncements with no support might be passed off as such.

In the end, a viewpoint such as yours is generated only when a person doesn't properly comprehend what epistemology actually is. The foundations of knowledge, and the issues of what people know and how they know it is something that has been studied, debated, and pontificated on for a very long time now, and applying it to the narrative of 9/11 takes quite a bit more than reciting the standard cop outs of denigrating the hoi polloi with nonspecific, overgeneralized impugnments. And thinking to deny evidence based conclusions on a broad-spectrum, very vaguely stated ideological charge is delusion at best. In summary, when dealing with the history of 9/11, it helps to address the history of 9/11 while attempting to analyze the mindsets of the audience of it. And as a side element, it also helps to know the details of 9/11. So far, you've achieved none of that.

 

[The Almond]

And to address the crux of this post directly: You commit some epistemological fallacies in this statement. I've already addressed one in my post above i.e you conclude that the forensic evidence cannot be commented on because it was "whisked away". Examination of the history of the event shows this as incorrect.

But really, the fundamental error you commit here in that post is the presumption that the evidence cannot be examined, thus "... Everything else is mostly speculation". This only holds true for you truthers; for the rest of us who've studied said evidence, this is patently false. Regarding the veracity of the hijackings, we have victim statements made via calls prior to the jets crashing. We also have radar data. In a couple of cases, electronic data recovered from the jets themselves. Testimony from the GTE operators regarding the calls made by the victims. A stray, accidental radio broadcast from one of the hijackers, who thought he was addressing his flight's passengers. Etc. Regarding the cause of the building collapses: The steel was examined before it was "whisked away", and multiple studies have been published on that. The Worcester Polytechnic study is one example. University researchers, such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl examined the steel (albeit superficially; since he was right there in the middle of the recycling process, he of course could not conduct the sort of extended examination that the Worcester Polytechnic (WPI) researchers did)). And so on. The cumulation of attempted refutations to each of these pieces of evidence have each failed in turn, and at a meta level, they also end up contradicting each other (witness the contradiction between DEW and thermite advocates, for example, or no-planers and "planes were fake" adherents). Whereas the cumulation of evidence supports a narrative common to all of them, and that is that hijackers flew jets into buildings, and two of the in New York collapsed due to structural compromise and fires further weakening an already injured building. The evidence for this is mutually supporting, and it all converges on that conclusion.

But when you hold a viewpoint contradictory to the cumulation of evidence, it's convenient to avoid confrontation of it.

Really, the fundamental epistomological fallacy you're falling to overall is called "Simple Minded Certitude" (you also display elements of sanctimony in your post at the top of this thread, but that's a discussion for another time). Rather than confront the evidence, examine it, look for flaws, look for story contradictions, you instead make an attempt at a grandoise-sounding statement impugning others' viewpoints, invoking ideology, and reversing the argument ad populum on its head by implying that the public meekly accepts this supposedly fake story about 9/11. What you do not do is examine the details of the history, or the volumes of evidence and analyses of such evidence itself. And because of this, your foundation remains hollow, devoid of true substance, and empty of actual meaning.

There is no "epistemological revolution" in September 11th. But there is at least one person with an internet account and a thesaurus - you - who thinks that grand pronouncements with no support might be passed off as such.

In the end, a viewpoint such as yours is generated only when a person doesn't properly comprehend what epistemology actually is. The foundations of knowledge, and the issues of what people know and how they know it is something that has been studied, debated, and pontificated on for a very long time now, and applying it to the narrative of 9/11 takes quite a bit more than reciting the standard cop outs of denigrating the hoi polloi with nonspecific, overgeneralized impugnments. And thinking to deny evidence based conclusions on a broad-spectrum, very vaguely stated ideological charge is delusion at best. In summary, when dealing with the history of 9/11, it helps to address the history of 9/11 while attempting to analyze the mindsets of the audience of it. And as a side element, it also helps to know the details of 9/11. So far, you've achieved none of that.

I do believe that ends the thread. Bravo.

 

[Oystein]

...Falling dust will not register a significant seismic signature, whereas the three WTC collapses did...

Excuse the pedantery, but I know from experience that a 100lb sack of cement, which is nothing but dust, does create quite a whoomp when it falls one floor down

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I do believe that ends the thread. Bravo.

Thank you... thank you...

 

[Quiproquo]

Um, what? How is one's social nature different from one's moral, ethical nature?

I apologize for the confusion:

If you read my first post in it's entirety, you will note that I contend we cannot know the truth about the 911 attacks. This is my initial proposition. I contend the conspiracy was designed this way (for example, if a secret military research device was used to bring down the towers, then we cannot by definition know about it and thus explain the events.).

I believe Man is being imposed one and only one way of perceiving knowledge around him, while there exists others. For example, we can perceive reality through a priori knowledge.

This belief in a priori knowledge does not fundamentally make Truthers paranoid, delusional, or ignorant, as Anti-Truthers contend.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
(with thanks to the B/S Philosophy Generator here )

Sooo bookmarked! Thanks!

Hans

 

[GlennB]

I believe Man is being imposed one and only one way of perceiving knowledge around him, while there exists others. For example, we can perceive reality through a priori knowledge.

This belief in a priori knowledge does not fundamentally make Truthers paranoid, delusional, or ignorant, as Anti-Truthers contend.

But a priori 'knowledge' can fall apart in the face of evidence. In this case it does. ElMondo has already explained it. This cannot be ignored by a rational person.

But .... I have a horrible feeling you've been reading too much post-modernist deconstruction goobledeygook.. Soon you'll mention i

 

[tsig]

So what GlennB? The main demand of the Truth Movement is the opening of a new investigation into the attacks, to determine what happened. Since all the forensic evidence of the crime was whisked away right after the attacks, we cannot just "come up" with an analysis (without the evidence?), and neither can you. Your demand is dishonest.

Everything else is mostly speculation, this we can agree on.

I apologize for the confusion:

If you read my first post in it's entirety, you will note that I contend we cannot know the truth about the 911 attacks. This is my initial proposition. I contend the conspiracy was designed this way (for example, if a secret military research device was used to bring down the towers, then we cannot by definition know about it and thus explain the events.).

I believe Man is being imposed one and only one way of perceiving knowledge around him, while there exists others. For example, we can perceive reality through a priori knowledge.

This belief in a priori knowledge does not fundamentally make Truthers paranoid, delusional, or ignorant, as Anti-Truthers contend.

Why have a new investigation if "we cannot know the truth about the 911 attacks"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I apologize for the confusion:

If you read my first post in it's entirety, you will note that I contend we cannot know the truth about the 911 attacks.

This is, however, a faulty premise, since we seem to be able to know the truth. Even truthers appear to believe this. (Otherwise, why aske for a new investigation?)

This is my initial proposition.

In principle a fair proposition, but why should anybody take the time to discuss a subject based on an obviously false premise?

I contend the conspiracy was designed this way (for example, if a secret military research device was used to bring down the towers, then we cannot by definition know about it and thus explain the events.).

False again. If the weapon exists, the secret can be broken know about it. Anything that exists in the real world is in principle knowable.

I believe Man is being imposed one and only one way of perceiving knowledge around him, while there exists others.

And your evidence for that is?

For example, we can perceive reality through a priori knowledge.

Please explain how.

This belief in a priori knowledge does not fundamentally make Truthers paranoid, delusional, or ignorant, as Anti-Truthers contend.

If the belief in a priori knowledge takes the form of insistence on holding your preconceived notions in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is in fact attributable to one or more of the conditions you mention.

Hans

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This cannot be ignored by a rational person.

You're treading dangerously close to the reason why truthers are truthers.

 

[Loss Leader]

Um, what? How is one's social nature different from one's moral, ethical nature?

I apologize for the confusion:

If you read my first post in it's entirety, you will note that I contend we cannot know the truth about the 911 attacks. This is my initial proposition. I contend the conspiracy was designed this way (for example, if a secret military research device was used to bring down the towers, then we cannot by definition know about it and thus explain the events.).

I believe Man is being imposed one and only one way of perceiving knowledge around him, while there exists others. For example, we can perceive reality through a priori knowledge.

This belief in a priori knowledge does not fundamentally make Truthers paranoid, delusional, or ignorant, as Anti-Truthers contend.

What in the what now? I asked, "How is one's social nature different from one's moral, ethical nature?" I asked this because you contended, "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."

Rather than answer anything about man's social nature, and its dependence or independence from morality and ethics, you lecture that we can't know what happened on 9/11 and the reasoning that we're being asked to engage in (deductive) is somehow worse that philosophizing without evidence.

Whether it is or is not, you failed to even try to address my question. You said that the attackers tried to change our moral nature, but relied on our social nature to remain the same. You said that. I did not. So, I'll ask again: How is one's social nature different from one's morality? What evidence do you have that morality doesn't affect socialization?

Based on the answers you've given in this thread, it seems that you may be more interested in arguing whether 9/11 was an inside job than in talking about what inferences we can logically draw about the mindset and goals of the attackers taking a 9/11 conspiracy as a given assumption.

I would expect a more robust argument from you seeing as I am the only person in the thread even vaguely interested in your topic.