Circularity of the "never happened before" argument

[1337m4n]

Let's talk the Truther argument that the WTC couldn't have collapsed due to fire because "it's never happened before". The traditional method of debunking this involves pointing to examples like the Kader Toy Factory or this tower in Egypt. This method has proven ineffective because the Truthers always manage to move the goalposts: first it's "no steel building has collapsed due to fire", then when you provide examples like the Kader Toy Factory it becomes "no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire", then when you provide the Windsor building it becomes "no steel skyscraper has ever COMPLETELY collapsed due to fire", etc. The Truthers can theoretically keep moving the goalposts like this until they demand an identical collapse of an identically designed building.

Instead, there's a better way. You can show with simple logic that the "never happened before" argument is a circular reasoning fallacy. First, we consider their claim:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.

Next, we work in the supporting "never happened before" argument:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.
--WARRANT: No building with (insert criteria X here) has ever collapsed from fire.

This is the basis of the Truthers' case. Although one could easily point out that the claim doesn't follow from the warrant, there's a bigger flaw with this argument: namely, the WTC itself. The WTC would obviously meet criteria X, whatever X happened to be. This means that the World Trade Center itself would falsify the warrant. So within the warrant to this argument is the inherent assumption that the WTC did not collapse from fire:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.
--WARRANT: No building with (insert criteria X here) has ever collapsed from fire.
----SUPPORTING ASSUMPTION: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.


...and now the problem is obvious: the warrant used to support the claim is essentially the same as the claim itself. The WTC did not collapse from fire, because it did not collapse from fire. If that's not circular reasoning, I don't know what is.

This is all, of course, a complicated way of saying that there has to be a first time for everything--otherwise, nothing could ever happen.

Your response, Truthers?

 

[gumboot]

The problem is the Conspiracy Theorist argument is that no building had collapsed from fire prior to 9/11. That essentially slips them out of the circular reasoning noose.

-Gumboot

 

[Hokulele]

No, the problem with this argument is the futility of using logic when discussing things with CTists.

 

[Mangoose]

there's a bigger flaw with this argument: namely, the WTC itself. The WTC would obviously meet criteria X, whatever X happened to be. This means that the World Trade Center itself would falsify the warrant.

Yup, for everything there is a first time. The first occurrence of anything falsifies the claim that X could not happen.

burnvictim77 made a similar point in pointing to the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was the first time a bridge ever collapsed due to wind-induced harmonic resonance. And due to the mind-boggling complexity of airliner mechanical systems, I think that often airliners that crash because of mechanical trouble do so through a unique confluence of factors, that is, it is the first time a plane crashes for precisely that set of contributing factors.

 

[stilicho]

This argument is similar to the 'unprecedented put options' canard. The fact is, 'unusual put options' are traded daily on the world's derivative exchanges.

It's also similar to the arguments that begin "what are the chances..." Using that type of reasoning you could argue against your own existence very easily.

 

[bonkey]

What steel-construction high-rises have previously been collapsed through a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collaopse here> made to look like fire.

What??? None???

You mean its the first time a building with <insert criteria here> has ever been collapsed by conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire?

Well, gosh. That pretty much proves that you must be wrong and that it couldn't have been collapsed by a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire.

What's that, I hear you say? My logic is stupid? Say no more. I agree completely.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Let's talk the Truther argument that the WTC couldn't have collapsed due to fire because "it's never happened before". The traditional method of debunking this involves pointing to examples like the Kader Toy Factory or this tower in Egypt.

I think the primary mistake is believing this actually refutes their argument. As you've pointed out, it doesn't work. I am of the opinion that it doesn't refute their argument, either. Now, that withstanding, when a truther lies and says "no steel frame structure has ever collapsed", yes, you can bring up one of numerous examples. But the kernel of their argument... their premise.. is correct. It has never happened before. So, to me, trying to argue that it has is a bit silly. I mean, in a sense, they are right. It has never happened.

The reason the argument is terrible is because their implication is what is absurd. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible. _EVERYTHING_ that has ever happened happened once, for the first time.

 

[Totovader]

There's two methods that I think are effective against this claim- one of them addresses another circular reasoning fallacy within the claim:

1) To claim that something has "never happened before" and it's therefore impossible would mean that the towers did not exist: these towers were unique, nothing like them had ever been built before.

2) To get to the heart of the claim and where it originated is to address the claim that structural steel does not melt from fire. The claim is obviously false, but the reason we do not see many examples of it it because ALMOST ALL fires are a) protected by fireproofing, and b) fought by firefighting efforts. The ONLY examples we have where this has not happened are the ones mentioned. If conspiracists try to move the goalpost, that's what I point out: the reasoning behind their argument. I often hear the claim in response to the Kader toy factory that it was "poorly constructed"- apparently conspiracists think that's their only defense, but it only works in the favor of supporting the fact that fire can weaken steel- and did.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I often hear the claim in response to the Kader toy factory that it was "poorly constructed"- apparently conspiracists think that's their only defense, but it only works in the favor of supporting the fact that fire can weaken steel- and did.

The claim that the Kader toy factory was poorly constructed is an interesting one, that merits some careful examination. The Kader toy factory violated local building codes in two respects. One of these respects, if I recall correctly, related to the provision of external walkways and can have had no possible implication for the susceptibility of the building to fire damage. So let's look at the other violation.

This was, in fact, that local building codes required multi-storey buildings to be concrete-framed because of the susceptibility of steel-framed buildings to fire damage. In other words, the way in which conspiracists claim to Kader toy factory to have been poorly constructed is that it possessed the very steel framing that they claim cannot collapse due to fire. So while, on the face of it, the "Kader toy factory violated building codes" appears to have some spurious validity, with a moment's critical examination it becomes self-debunking, and spectacularly so.

As for the "never happened before" argument, I'm a research scientist, so if I thought things couldn't happen because they've never happened before, I'd be out of a job.

Dave

 

[X]

The problem is the Conspiracy Theorist argument is that no building had collapsed from fire prior to 9/11. That essentially slips them out of the circular reasoning noose.

-Gumboot

When they say this, aren't they in effect admitting that the WTC buildings did collapse due to fire?

 

[Cuddles]

What steel-construction high-rises have previously been collapsed through a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collaopse here> made to look like fire.

What??? None???

You mean its the first time a building with <insert criteria here> has ever been collapsed by conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire?

Well, gosh. That pretty much proves that you must be wrong and that it couldn't have been collapsed by a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire.

What's that, I hear you say? My logic is stupid? Say no more. I agree completely.

I like this argument. Don't bother trying to debunk the argument, just point out that their own logic says that it couldn't possibly have been a conspiracy.

 

[Totovader]

When they say this, aren't they in effect admitting that the WTC buildings did collapse due to fire?

Yes- it's a risky venture, but they try to create enough doubt that it couldn't happen by trying a bit of concession which they think will reward them via argument from incredulity. The problem is- they can't possibly be consistent with the claim: One minute they'll be rolling their eyes saying "first time in history", and the next they'll be talking about free fall speed and squibs.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

just respond with this:

for the entirety of human civilization the human race boasted no structures with a room higher than 400m, then suddenly in 1974 we are to two believe we had 2?

the towers never existed

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What steel-construction high-rises have previously been collapsed through a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collaopse here> made to look like fire.

What??? None???

You mean its the first time a building with <insert criteria here> has ever been collapsed by conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire?

Well, gosh. That pretty much proves that you must be wrong and that it couldn't have been collapsed by a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire.

What's that, I hear you say? My logic is stupid? Say no more. I agree completely.

The reason the argument is terrible is because their implication is what is absurd. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible. _EVERYTHING_ that has ever happened happened once, for the first time.

Yep. Just throw it back at them:
- No skyscraper the size of the Twin Towers have ever been demolished prior to 9/11, therefore the Twin Towers were not demolished (still leaves WTC7 open for them, though).

- No controlled demolition prior to 9/11 has ever employed thermite, therefore thermite was not used to bring down any of the towers.

- Etc...

When they say this, aren't they in effect admitting that the WTC buildings did collapse due to fire?

Yeah, but they only use it to make the "official story" sound outrageous: "It had never happened before 9/11, so why should we believe it happened on 9/11?"

It's stupid and illogical, but not at all surprising.

 

[technoextreme]

I think the primary mistake is believing this actually refutes their argument. As you've pointed out, it doesn't work. I am of the opinion that it doesn't refute their argument, either. Now, that withstanding, when a truther lies and says "no steel frame structure has ever collapsed", yes, you can bring up one of numerous examples. But the kernel of their argument... their premise.. is correct. It has never happened before. So, to me, trying to argue that it has is a bit silly. I mean, in a sense, they are right. It has never happened.

The reason the argument is terrible is because their implication is what is absurd. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible. _EVERYTHING_ that has ever happened happened once, for the first time.

Actually your wrong. 9/11 was not the first time a steel structure collapsed from fire. In fact it's pretty common among bridges. Kuwait has numerous buildings that were decimated because of Iraq setting fires. In reality as other people have pointed out previous events can be used to debunk. Even though a bridge is not a skyscrapper it does show that steel has no inherrent ability to disperse heat which protects the structure.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yep. Just throw it back at them:
- No skyscraper the size of the Twin Towers have ever been demolished prior to 9/11, therefore the Twin Towers were not demolished (still leaves WTC7 open for them, though).

- No controlled demolition prior to 9/11 has ever employed thermite, therefore thermite was not used to bring down any of the towers.

Ding Ding Ding!

This is the correct answer.

I always find it absolutely hilarious to hear someone claim it was thermite because buildings falling due to fire "have never happend before." I have asked this, and of course never gotten an answer: Give a single example of a building demolition that was done using thermite?

The stupid thing is, you know, there could actually be an example of it (I don't think there is), but even if there were, these idiots wouldn't know of it because they are blowing out their arse.

 

[Alareth]

I never believed the truthers were right before therefore I never can.

 

[CHF]

From what I gather, virtually everything that happened on 9/11 was unprecedented.

So am I surprised that I'd see unprecedented building collapses on that same day? No, not really.

 

[1337m4n]

In response to all the non-answers I am getting in this thread, I have decided to bump this.

I'd like to see how JHarrow and LastChild respond to this.

 

[LastChild]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened. Now correct me if I’m wrong but even according to the official 9/11 theory I don’t believe the towers are said to have collapsed from fire alone either. So talk about your “ circular reasoning”.

This is pretty much what you get here at JREF…

Debunker:” You toofers are always claiming fire can’t destroy a building”

Me: “No that’s not what I said at all.”

Debunker:“Well then look at this Windsor building. What have you huff huff got to say about that moonbat huf huff…?

Me: “What am I suppose to say about it? Did it suffer global collapse?”

Debunker:“Ah no but but if it can suffer partial collapse from a fire why can’t it suffer complete collapse from a fire?!? huff huff fart burp take that moonbat!” Besides it was built different then the WTC! Ha ha! Got Ya!

Me: “So then why did you post it as a comparison?”

Debunker: “Never mind that twoofer! Stop dodging and just answer the question tick tick snort huff burp…”

Me: “Well maybe if the foundation was involved it could possibly cause collapse of the rest of the building but even that has never happened that I know of. I’ll tell you what why don’t you point to a steel constructed high-rise suffering complete global collapse from a fire alone ever in the history of the world?”

Debunker:” No fair No fair! Just because its neeeeever happen doesn’t meeean it can’t eeeeeever happen. See you’re debunked! Ha Ha I’m gonna stundie you and everyone’s gonna laugh at you. Take that toofer!!! I… Wha…? HUH??... Yeah Ma I’ll be right up I’m pawning a twoofer on the computer and… huh ? NO I’m not looking at porn! Yeah I told you I did I’ll be right up Ma… All right Ma I told you I’m busy right now. Ah all right Ma! Excuse me twoofer? That was my Mommy… and ah um I gotta go up stairs and wash the brown spots out of my underwear. So you got lucky this time twoofer! Oh yeah TWOOFER I almost forgot what about the Kader toy factory and the highway overpass? Seeee? It can happen! HA! HA! ”

Me: “Not really and they’re not exactly high-rise buildings either are they…?”

Debunker: Stop Stop moving the goal posts! Listen Toofer I’m gonna .. huh? YEAH MOM I’LL BE RIGHT UP! AND YES I DID MY HOMEWORK! Ahhh man….. I can’t ever have any FUN!