Circularity of the "never happened before" argument

[1337m4n]

Bumping for ergo and RedIbis who have decided to resurrect the stupid "never happened before" canard yet again.

 

[Mr.D]

Bumping for ergo and RedIbis who have decided to resurrect the stupid "never happened before" canard yet again.

Is this the first time you've ever done that?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just to point out how utterly retarded the "first time in history argument" is... By the same logic everything on this entire planet is a ruse because everything that happened for the first time in history is obviously impossible on the grounds that they have no prior precedent. In laymen terms they call this a paradox.

I know it's been pointed out before but since you bumped the thread...

 

[WTC Dust]

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?

You might claim that I am "moving the goalposts" when I say that no other building was destroyed in the same manner as the WTC buildings were.

Maybe the Murrah building (but only because the Murrah building looked like post-attack WTC 6).

 

[WTC Dust]

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

I don't see that as a problem with the questions about 9/11.

If no other buildings were destroyed that way prior to 9/11 or after 9/11, it's a legitimate issue.

Why believe something that has never happened before or since, especially when planes have on more than one occassion crashed into buildings without the resulting damage that was seen on 9/11.

 

[Architect]

Structural analsysis.

(Web) fairy stories about weapons for which no evidence exists.

People who design tall buildings for a living.

Incompetent charlatans who play games with boxes.

Voluminous scientific analysis.

Wild hand-waving by pharmacists.


Yup, I know which side I'm going with.

 

[Travis]

I don't see that as a problem with the questions about 9/11.

If no other buildings were destroyed that way prior to 9/11 or after 9/11, it's a legitimate issue.

Why believe something that has never happened before or since, especially when planes have on more than one occassion crashed into buildings without the resulting damage that was seen on 9/11.

A B25 is so different in terms of kinetic energy to a 767 that it isn't even funny.

Or do you know of other instances where steel skyscrapers had unfought fires that survived?

 

[fess]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Empire State building was constructed a little differently than the twin towers.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't see that as a problem with the questions about 9/11...

...but what you see is not the problem even if it is a problem for your understanding.

..If no other buildings were destroyed that way prior to 9/11 or after 9/11, it's a legitimate issue.

Why believe something that has never happened before or since, especially when planes have on more than one occassion crashed into buildings without the resulting damage that was seen on 9/11.

No "it" is not the legitimate issue where the "it" you refer to is being the first instance. The legitimate issue is "why did the WTC buildings collapse on 9/11?" And that legitimate issue has been extensively addressed. If you question the accepted explanations it is your burden of proof to show what is wrong with those explanations and provide a better explanation.

Being the first instance is irrelevant as is your reference to other and different planes crashing into other and different buildings.

 

[Travis]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Empire State building was constructed a little differently than the twin towers.

Indeed, it had masonry incorporated into it as was required by building codes of the time. It was also framed quite differently.