Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Logic.

 

[Max Photon]

Along those lines I think that it has been proven beyond a resonable doubt that OBL, al-Qaeda and those associated therewith had the motive, the means and the opportunity to pull off their plans. It was well known that Bin Laden wanted to do serious damage to the U.S. and that he had a hand in the 1993 WTC bombing. It was also well known that al-Qaeda was likely to try another attack. Their motivation was the disruption of the world economy and causing fear among the American people, as well as the rest of the world's population.

Proven? Because of the reverb in the media?

But if disruption of the world economy is a genuine concern, look beyond the media deception:

"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility."

David Walker
US Comptroller

There has been no credible evidence presented yet that establishes a motive on the part of anyone else, especially those within our government, to cause so much chaos and destruction, especially on their own population.

Well, first off, the chaos and destruction was truly minuscule compared to that which we have delivered upon Iraq. (I forget, why did we attack?)

Second, no motive? Given that there is a faction bent on expanding the power of the executive branch - thereby obliterating the checks and balances of the US Constitution and the protections they afford - and given that post 911 there has been a tremendous concentration of executive power, is it fair to say there is no motive? (Oh that's right...we have to give up our freedoms to protect them.)

 

[gumboot]

Well before you choose a lens you have to know your patch size. If we're talking 35mm I'd go with about a 50mm lens because that's closest to human perception. Anything longer or wider will distort things. On the other hand if we're talking, say, 16mm patch, you'll want a 25mm lens for the same perspective.

 

[Max Photon]

This is a reasonable question.

My answer is that there is no practical difference between the Scientific Method and criminal investigation, which would seem to be the only alternative. The mechanisms and the traditions are different, but both follow the same logical pattern.

If you wish to disprove this, you may begin by presenting a question central to yours or any other theory of September 11th that cannot be answered by the Scientific Method. Your answer, Max?

Why was the evidence to such a horrendous crime destroyed?

 

[R.Mackey]

Why was the evidence to such a horrendous crime destroyed?

You didn't answer my question, and a lot of it wasn't destroyed. What was destroyed was done with the consent of the FBI.

 

[Max Photon]

You didn't answer my question, and a lot of it wasn't destroyed. What was destroyed was done with the consent of the FBI.

I believe I did answer your question.

 

[twinstead]

Max claiming the evidence was 'destroyed' is a slippery slope toward 'lack of evidence is evidence of wrongdoing'. The burden of proof is of course upon you to prove a large amount of evidence was destroyed prior to inspection for nefarious purposes.

Remember, all your bluster aside, this is a pretty serious roadblock for you.

 

[R.Mackey]

I believe I did answer your question.

You believe incorrectly! I asked you to provide a way to distinguish between the Scientific Method and the alternatives. Give me something that cannot be solved by the Scientific Method.

All you did was ask me some non sequitur about destruction of evidence. It's rare for a question to be incorrect, but somehow you still managed.

 

[gumboot]

It should be pointed out that none of the evidence was destroyed. The FBI sorted through all of the debris, removed all of the evidence they could use, and then approved disposal of everything else which wasn't evidence.

So to claim any evidence was disposed is incredibly dishonest. What you're actually claiming is that the FBI's forensic teams - which closely examined all of the debris - failed to identify some evidence and that you - despite not being forensically qualified and never having sorted so much as a thimble of WTC debris - somehow know it's evidence.

Which is, frankly, laughable.

 

[Max Photon]

Max claiming the evidence was 'destroyed' is a slippery slope toward 'lack of evidence is evidence of wrongdoing'. The burden of proof is of course upon you to prove a large amount of evidence was destroyed prior to inspection for nefarious purposes.

Remember, all your bluster aside, this is a pretty serious roadblock for you.

Okay....dustified....

 

[twinstead]

Goodness. I suppose if one is to ask a question with a question, at least that question should be pertinent.

 

[OldTigerCub]

Proven? Because of the reverb in the media?

Since the media is the most reliable source of the goings-on within the government, I would trust that they reported a faithful account of the findings of the many investigating agencies, both governmental and privately owned.

But if disruption of the world economy is a genuine concern, look beyond the media deception:

"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility."

David Walker
US Comptroller

I will concede that our own fiscal irresponsibility has likely caused more damage to the economy than the events of 9-11 in some respects, though the motive of al-Qaeda still stands. Not knowing when this quote was made, I can't comment on the implied assertion that Bin Laden and his organization were hiding in caves. They weren't before the attacks of 9-11, though they most likely were when it was clear the US was going into Afganistan to capture or kill them.

Well, first off, the chaos and destruction was truly minuscule compared to that which we have delivered upon Iraq. (I forget, why did we attack?)

Sadam had violated every U.N. resolution and condition of the cease-fire following the Gulf War, had stifled every effort by U.N. weapons inspectors, had fired on U.S. and other Allied planes patrolling the no-fly zone, had a history of using chemical weapons on his own people, was known to have pursued a nuclear weapons program, and had basically defied any and all demands by the international community to prove that his chemical weapons program and the weapons it produced had been eliminated.
As a side effect of the attacks by al-Qaeda, the U.S. had no tolerance for any further defiance to international law by a tyranical dictator, and was not about to give Sadam any room to breath, let alone reestablish any weapons program that might threaten the U.S. or any of our allies.

Second, no motive? Given that there is a faction bent on expanding the power of the executive branch - thereby obliterating the checks and balances of the US Constitution and the protections they afford - and given that post 911 there has been a tremendous concentration of executive power, is it fair to say there is no motive?

What faction might that be?

(Oh that's right...we have to give up our freedoms to protect them.)

What specific freedoms have we given up?

I tend to like Gumboot's analogy...and I think most of us look at the world through a 50mm lens. Actually my latest is a 28-75mm lens...I just bought a new camera...

 

[twinstead]

Okay....dustified....

Yea. Dustified. I stand corrected

 

[Max Photon]

It should be pointed out that none of the evidence was destroyed. The FBI sorted through all of the debris, removed all of the evidence they could use, and then approved disposal of everything else which wasn't evidence.

So to claim any evidence was disposed is incredibly dishonest. What you're actually claiming is that the FBI's forensic teams - which closely examined all of the debris - failed to identify some evidence and that you - despite not being forensically qualified and never having sorted so much as a thimble of WTC debris - somehow know it's evidence.

Which is, frankly, laughable.

Frank, are you laughing?


Gumboot, so you're saying the FBI deliberately, knowingly threw out steel members from the collapse initiation zones - in particular the fire-affected members - confident the steel members had no evidential value?

Wow they're good!

 

[gumboot]

I tend to like Gumboot's analogy...and I think most of us look at the world through a 50mm lens. Actually my latest is a 28-75mm lens...I just bought a new camera...

Conspiracy theorists seem to look at the world through a 80mm lens or even longer. As you may know, a longer focal length distorts the image by compressing depth perception, making it seem like everything is closer together, when in reality there's significant distance between them. It gives the impression that everything is linked, and that changing one thing will have an effect on everything else. It also distorts scale through forced perspective so the small insignificant thing appears much bigger and more important than it really is.

I get the impression people like George Bush look at the world through a wide angle lens which exaggerates the distance between objects, making it appear like you can tackle one thing without it having an impact on surrounding things.

Those who look through a 50mm lens realise that some things are linked and some things are not, and that addressing one thing with affect some, but not others.

 

[OldTigerCub]

Conspiracy theorists seem to look at the world through a 80mm lens or even longer. As you may know, a longer focal length distorts the image by compressing depth perception, making it seem like everything is closer together, when in reality there's significant distance between them. It gives the impression that everything is linked, and that changing one thing will have an effect on everything else. It also distorts scale through forced perspective so the small insignificant thing appears much bigger and more important than it really is.

I get the impression people like George Bush look at the world through a wide angle lens which exaggerates the distance between objects, making it appear like you can tackle one thing without it having an impact on surrounding things.

Those who look through a 50mm lens realise that some things are linked and some things are not, and that addressing one thing with affect some, but not others.

[slight derail]
My observation, as well, is that when looking through a 50mm lens, and keeping the other eye open, it becomes clear that the image is the most realistic. Things look just the same with or without, and you have a better feel for the realism of the view.[/slight derail]

 

[T.A.M.]

Also, please note that taking a teleological perspective on a problem does not preclude using the scientific method. In fact, it can be viewed as augmenting the scientific method with suspicion and speculation. Science is good for studying rocks or box turtles. Teleology is good for studying magicians.

I am sorry, but you can not AUGMENT (to make better) anything with suspicion and speculation...

JHC

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

As for this tired, annoying canard that somehow the "evidence" was destroyed is ridiculous.

I challenge you to provide proof that ANY EVIDENCE was disposed of PRIOR TO its analysis by a FORENSICS or CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, or PRIOR TO said team giving the ok for its disposal.

Removing the Steel and the debris from the site with the approval of said Investigators does not equal destruction of evidence.

TAM

 

[John Blonn]

False dichotomy, and a horrible massacre of 'teleology.'

 

[Apollo20]

Max:

9/11 is a mess as far as science is concerned. The "crime scene" was too large and was, albeit inadvertently, tampered with almost immediately by the rescue and recovery operations.

Photographs of GZ taken before the end of Oct 2001 show how much "clean-up" had been accomplished by that early date. Hence the crime of 9/11 will never be "solved" scientifically, mainly because of the lack of physical evidence.

Instead, we have to rely on the simulacra of second-hand reports fed to us through government agencies. This makes us detached from, and indifferent to, the real event.

Is that, (sort-of), what you are saying, Max?