thesyntaxera, I'm not a philosopher, but let me see if I understand your point. Take the example of the reports of molten metal after the TT collapse. Someone has come forward with this assertion, and skeptics have pointed out that we don't really know that it's true, and it's not very plausible. I think what you're saying is that since we can't definitively prove that there was no molten metal, we're using "inductive" logic. Is that right? I can see that our case would be stronger if we could prove there was no molten metal, but is that reasonable to expect? It seems to me that someone who asserts a conspiracy has the burden of proof on him. And skeptics have pointed out that the "evidence" they have falls far short.
For example, the video you linked to called Loose Change starts off with the flashes when the airliners hit the WTC buildings, asserting how they're mysterious. He goes into great detail about the one best view we have, and says that the flash happened before the nose hits the building. But it's obvious to even me that the nose is hitting the building at the time of the flash, we just can't make it out in the video because the very front is in the shade of the building and it blends in. The part he says is the nose is really just the part of the fuselage that's still in sunlight - you can easily tell by looking at the distance in front of the wings compared to other video frames. This is just in the first ten minutes of the hour-long video. If he starts off with blatant lies, why do I want to watch the rest?
Good points. You highlighted a couple interesting things, yes you are correct in the literal sense of the word regarding induction. My point so far has been that every item a skeptic has used to debunk the conspiracy suffers from the same conflict of logic that one will find in the conspiracy circles. A skeptic disagrees with the notion of conspiracy based on the inference they make from the same evidence that is available with a bias leaning toward debasement of the conspiracy circles findings. Since the entire process is one of thought, as well as research, you are limited in the amount of investigation you can do, which ultimately leads one to utilize induction, which is unacceptable when investigating a mass homicide.
What I have gathered from the other posts on this thread is that it is more logical to believe the official story. What I am trying to get across is that without public access to all official evidence and a thorough investigation no one will ever know the complete truth.
It is in the interests of all to know. Considering the implications, as well as the players involved in the case of 911 I think there is more than enough cause for concern in the minds of most people of average education regarding things like world politics, history of foreign policy, and so on.
I heard a quote once:
"I just want the american people to understand that it's entirely understandable, that the american people could not possibly understand."
It makes sense in the context of what the average citizen knows and thinks about the government and our place on the globe. All of this is interrelated obvisouly because this event is literally the single biggest thing that will probably happen in my lifetime besides the far remote possibility of a greater war.
To be realistic we do live in a society where the power resides in the few, and the few are connected to the other few who are in power, and these few that are collectively in power are members of other international regulating organizations which is sort of an over arching regulatory body for the world.
isn't that like...every conspiracy that has ever been told?
Yes, and no. No in that all of the phoney terms that have been created to explain all this ridiculous nonsense are not true. And yes in that we live in a world that is like that.
It's just government as usual..so what if they go to Bohemian Grove, or are Skull and Bones members, or masons...none of that matters because those are just mysterious traditional things the few in power have done for ages.
but I digress.
Does someone who asserts a conspiracy have the burden of proof? I don't think it's a matter of having it or not, it's about not having all the information in the first place.
Why watch the rest of the video...because, in this particular case, they lay out a no frills "what does it all mean" montage of video and testimonial evidence that in detail explains how the entire thing could have been pulled off. It gives specific and traceable sources of information, that at least could be investigated and debunked one at a time.
Some asked why try and debunk the evidence of a CT adherent, if you'll never convince them...and the answer is simple...because you have to!!!!
IT'S CALLED DEDUCTION!!!!
I think I have layed out a fairly reasonable set of reasons why this is an important matter worth debunking....because whatever happened is being obscured by all the ravenous skeptics and CT followers who are too eager to figure it all out themselves.
In truth all Loose Change does is say basically that...there is a lot of loose change in this case.
So I ask again:
Why not one frame of the pentagon plane? I'm sure one single frame will not compromise national security, as far as "protecting camera locations" you can clearly see all the cameras that dangle from the outside in many publicized photo's. There is even the unreleased video from the gas station. One frame from that maybe? All we need is one picture of a plane.
Why not release some of the 6,000+ classified photo's that were sealed during the investigation?
Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.
Why didn't they test for explosives? As far as I know, no such test was ever done, but I am not certain, if there is documentation and testimony of negative results on explosives then where is it?
Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?
If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.
