ZouPrime
12th September 2006, 10:35 AM
This is probably something that has been already discussed somewhere in a thread or another, but for some selfish reason I wanted to start a new thread on it anyway.
Since 9/11, I (and many other contributors around here) have been able to follow the evolution of the conspiracy theorists claims as time goes on. A significant characteristic of their argumentation is that many of their claims are build on other, earlier claims without consideration of the "big picture" and the actual relevance of these previous claims. Case in point, the whole WTC1 and 2 "controled demolition" theory.
While standard investigation methology take evidences and leads them to their appropriate conclusion, this is not what happened with controled demolition; the 9/11 CT believers first made the claim ("it looked like controled demolition") and then evidences were "found" to support this theory; "squibs", "explosion heard by witnesses", "law of physics", "free fall", "pool of molten metal" and "use of thermite" were all brought up over the course of many years. This is a slow process, and as of now, most of the discussion around controled demolition are now centered on these elements of evidence instead of the very idea of controled demolition. This is somewhat bad for CTers and those who argue againt them, because it completely clound the huge problem of the initial claim; controled demolition simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Why would ANYONE, terrorists or government agents, decide to devise a plan that include the crash of planes of the WTC AND ALSO the "controled demolition" of the same buildings, almost simultaneously and secretly? What would be the goal? To make sure the WTC end up being destroyed no matter what? Like crashing planes on them wouldn't be enough to create a casus belli agains the middle east to begin with? Like it wouldn't make a point by itself? How could someone, anyone, be so stupid as to design a plan so complex and with so many unknown for absolutely nothing when the much simpler plan would do the same? Nobody in their right mind thinks like that, but the conspiracy theorists.
9/11 researchers have wrote thousands of pages and produced dozens of arguments over the year in order to justify an hypothesis that is, simply, incredibly ridiculous. Precious "research" energy is spent on this sand castle. But for some reason, these researchers just don't see it. Why?
Because, contrary to the scientific approach, the 9/11 for truth movement has been build on a noble but misguided principle of encompassing inclusivity. Anyone can "add" to the body of research whatever their expertise or the relevance of their arguments. All these "findings" are then presented as a block in documents such as Loose Change. Conflicting observations and hypothesis are not put one against each other for the sake of keeping the facade of some kind of consencus against the official version of the events.
This schoolyard "everybody is right, everybody can win" approach to research have tremendous repercution on the 9/11 researchers ability to actual arrive to an real theory. Because claims are not retracted, new claims are built on old claims, even if they don't themselves make sense. Without the ability to backtrack, the researchers are stuck, unable to advance in any a significant manner because of the arguments presented by the predecessors.
Note that the 9/11 researcher community, as a whole, did succeed in eliminating some hypothesis from its body of work. The "missile pod under the plane" is a good example: while some CT believers still use it, it has almost completely disapear from the "litterature". Like the "controled demolition" claim, the "missile pod" claim is completely moronic and doesn't make any sense. But fortunately, it has never been the springboard for new claims, and that's probably why the community has successfully got rid of it.
Since 9/11, I (and many other contributors around here) have been able to follow the evolution of the conspiracy theorists claims as time goes on. A significant characteristic of their argumentation is that many of their claims are build on other, earlier claims without consideration of the "big picture" and the actual relevance of these previous claims. Case in point, the whole WTC1 and 2 "controled demolition" theory.
While standard investigation methology take evidences and leads them to their appropriate conclusion, this is not what happened with controled demolition; the 9/11 CT believers first made the claim ("it looked like controled demolition") and then evidences were "found" to support this theory; "squibs", "explosion heard by witnesses", "law of physics", "free fall", "pool of molten metal" and "use of thermite" were all brought up over the course of many years. This is a slow process, and as of now, most of the discussion around controled demolition are now centered on these elements of evidence instead of the very idea of controled demolition. This is somewhat bad for CTers and those who argue againt them, because it completely clound the huge problem of the initial claim; controled demolition simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Why would ANYONE, terrorists or government agents, decide to devise a plan that include the crash of planes of the WTC AND ALSO the "controled demolition" of the same buildings, almost simultaneously and secretly? What would be the goal? To make sure the WTC end up being destroyed no matter what? Like crashing planes on them wouldn't be enough to create a casus belli agains the middle east to begin with? Like it wouldn't make a point by itself? How could someone, anyone, be so stupid as to design a plan so complex and with so many unknown for absolutely nothing when the much simpler plan would do the same? Nobody in their right mind thinks like that, but the conspiracy theorists.
9/11 researchers have wrote thousands of pages and produced dozens of arguments over the year in order to justify an hypothesis that is, simply, incredibly ridiculous. Precious "research" energy is spent on this sand castle. But for some reason, these researchers just don't see it. Why?
Because, contrary to the scientific approach, the 9/11 for truth movement has been build on a noble but misguided principle of encompassing inclusivity. Anyone can "add" to the body of research whatever their expertise or the relevance of their arguments. All these "findings" are then presented as a block in documents such as Loose Change. Conflicting observations and hypothesis are not put one against each other for the sake of keeping the facade of some kind of consencus against the official version of the events.
This schoolyard "everybody is right, everybody can win" approach to research have tremendous repercution on the 9/11 researchers ability to actual arrive to an real theory. Because claims are not retracted, new claims are built on old claims, even if they don't themselves make sense. Without the ability to backtrack, the researchers are stuck, unable to advance in any a significant manner because of the arguments presented by the predecessors.
Note that the 9/11 researcher community, as a whole, did succeed in eliminating some hypothesis from its body of work. The "missile pod under the plane" is a good example: while some CT believers still use it, it has almost completely disapear from the "litterature". Like the "controled demolition" claim, the "missile pod" claim is completely moronic and doesn't make any sense. But fortunately, it has never been the springboard for new claims, and that's probably why the community has successfully got rid of it.