1337m4n
11th May 2008, 01:04 PM
In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113078) we destroyed the last conceivable motive anyone has been able to think of for the controlled demolition of Building 7.
Some of you are understandably thinking "So"?
True enough, motive does not trump hard evidence. If you have hard evidence that Bob murdered Fred, then the question of Bob's motive becomes irrelevant to the fact that a murder did indeed take place.
However, there are two things that make the hypothetical demolition of Building 7 different from a simple murder case. Two reasons why the lack of any motive is damning for the "Truth" Movement's case:
1) It can hardly be said that there is "hard evidence" for the controlled demolition of Building 7. At best, all our "Truthers" can produce is speculation, based on little more than personal incredulity (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity): "It LOOKED like a controlled demolition", "Silverstein said 'pull' and I THINK that's pretty suspicious", etc. However, there is no hard evidence: no explosive residue, no videos or eyewitness records of sounds comparable to the sounds of the Landmark Demolition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ) (bear in mind that witness accounts of sparse, small, isolated "explosions" do not count, for obvious reasons), no seismic records indicating demolition blasts, no whistleblowers coming forward to say that a demolition of Building 7 was ordered or performed. There aren't even any calculations or analyses of the collapse that indicate controlled demolition was more likely than natural collapse.
Without hard evidence, the analogy of motive being irrelevant to the case of Bob murdering Fred, becomes non-applicable to the case of Building 7.
2) When there are alternative explanations available, an analysis of motives can make one of those explanations far more likely than the other. If we find that Fred was shot multiple times in the chest, it's true that we don't need to know anyone's motive in order to determine that a murder took place.
But, suppose there are no bullet holes in Fred's chest, just a bunch of smashed ribs along with various other bruises. Suddenly, murder is no longer the only explanation. There are now alternative explanations open. He could have been hit by a car full of drunk teenagers. He could have fallen from the building nearby. If Bob has no possible motive for killing Fred, one of these alternative explanations becomes much more likely than murder, all other evidence equal.
And so with Building 7, there are alternative explanations available. Controlled demolition is not the only known option for what happened to it. It could have suffered collapse due to a combination of falling debris damage and heat weakening. This explanation requires no motive. Controlled Demolition, on the other hand, DOES require a motive: nobody coordinates a massive conspiracy to blow up a 40-story building and cover it up, just for the sheer fun of it. It needs a motive, and thus far, no motive has been given at all, let alone one capable of justifying the massive expenditure of effort, money, and risk that would be required to demolish such a building in the middle of public eye and keep it hidden.
Think: criminal demolition is not as easy a crime to pull off as shoplifting from your local Wal-Mart. You've got purchase the equipment, which adds risk because the purchase orders for the explosives can be traced. You've got to set up the demolition without anyone noticing, which adds risk because setting up a demolition takes from weeks to several months and involves a great deal of work and manpower. Then, you'll need an alibi. For Building 7, this would be the debris that collapsed upon it from the nearby Tower, but as we already have a thread about, what guarantee would there be that Building 7 would actually take enough debris damage to create an effective alibi? Then of course, you risk eyewitnesses noticing the demolition and seismic sensors picking it up. If you're caught, it's no simple matter of fines and mandatory community service--you're going to jail for the better part of your life.
So we must ask, why would ANYONE go through that much trouble, risk, and expense? The fact that no Truther has ever come up with a satisfactory answer to that question, coupled with the fact that there is an alternative explanation available (fire and debris damage), makes that alternative explanation far more likely than any deliberate demolition.
And THAT, my friends, is why motive is important.
Some of you are understandably thinking "So"?
True enough, motive does not trump hard evidence. If you have hard evidence that Bob murdered Fred, then the question of Bob's motive becomes irrelevant to the fact that a murder did indeed take place.
However, there are two things that make the hypothetical demolition of Building 7 different from a simple murder case. Two reasons why the lack of any motive is damning for the "Truth" Movement's case:
1) It can hardly be said that there is "hard evidence" for the controlled demolition of Building 7. At best, all our "Truthers" can produce is speculation, based on little more than personal incredulity (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity): "It LOOKED like a controlled demolition", "Silverstein said 'pull' and I THINK that's pretty suspicious", etc. However, there is no hard evidence: no explosive residue, no videos or eyewitness records of sounds comparable to the sounds of the Landmark Demolition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ) (bear in mind that witness accounts of sparse, small, isolated "explosions" do not count, for obvious reasons), no seismic records indicating demolition blasts, no whistleblowers coming forward to say that a demolition of Building 7 was ordered or performed. There aren't even any calculations or analyses of the collapse that indicate controlled demolition was more likely than natural collapse.
Without hard evidence, the analogy of motive being irrelevant to the case of Bob murdering Fred, becomes non-applicable to the case of Building 7.
2) When there are alternative explanations available, an analysis of motives can make one of those explanations far more likely than the other. If we find that Fred was shot multiple times in the chest, it's true that we don't need to know anyone's motive in order to determine that a murder took place.
But, suppose there are no bullet holes in Fred's chest, just a bunch of smashed ribs along with various other bruises. Suddenly, murder is no longer the only explanation. There are now alternative explanations open. He could have been hit by a car full of drunk teenagers. He could have fallen from the building nearby. If Bob has no possible motive for killing Fred, one of these alternative explanations becomes much more likely than murder, all other evidence equal.
And so with Building 7, there are alternative explanations available. Controlled demolition is not the only known option for what happened to it. It could have suffered collapse due to a combination of falling debris damage and heat weakening. This explanation requires no motive. Controlled Demolition, on the other hand, DOES require a motive: nobody coordinates a massive conspiracy to blow up a 40-story building and cover it up, just for the sheer fun of it. It needs a motive, and thus far, no motive has been given at all, let alone one capable of justifying the massive expenditure of effort, money, and risk that would be required to demolish such a building in the middle of public eye and keep it hidden.
Think: criminal demolition is not as easy a crime to pull off as shoplifting from your local Wal-Mart. You've got purchase the equipment, which adds risk because the purchase orders for the explosives can be traced. You've got to set up the demolition without anyone noticing, which adds risk because setting up a demolition takes from weeks to several months and involves a great deal of work and manpower. Then, you'll need an alibi. For Building 7, this would be the debris that collapsed upon it from the nearby Tower, but as we already have a thread about, what guarantee would there be that Building 7 would actually take enough debris damage to create an effective alibi? Then of course, you risk eyewitnesses noticing the demolition and seismic sensors picking it up. If you're caught, it's no simple matter of fines and mandatory community service--you're going to jail for the better part of your life.
So we must ask, why would ANYONE go through that much trouble, risk, and expense? The fact that no Truther has ever come up with a satisfactory answer to that question, coupled with the fact that there is an alternative explanation available (fire and debris damage), makes that alternative explanation far more likely than any deliberate demolition.
And THAT, my friends, is why motive is important.