Arkan_Wolfshade
26th October 2007, 12:41 AM
Without a strong foundation, a solid architecture upon which to build, no construct; no matter how much effort is poured into it; can long stand. This is true not only for buildings, but for scientific arguments as well. So often, on these forums and other places, debates rage over whether some piece of data is indicate of the use of explosives in the Twin Towers or whether it has some other explanation.
I've addressed the general subject matter to some extent in my rant Explosions <> Explosives. I intend to take things to a more overarching level with this post.
Such debates ignore the overarching logical construct around the suggestion that explosives were used on 9/11. I shall endeavor to highlight these in as succinct a manner as possible that the aforementioned debates might be short-circuited and more meaningful dialogue occur.
Let X represent explosives, such as: dynamite, C4, nitroglycerin, etc. That is to say X is substance, or device utilizing one or more substances, designed specifically to explode. For the purposes of this discussion it is not something like a propane canister, a bottle of hairspray, etc.
Let TT represent the Twin Towers: for the purposes of this post/discussion I will treat the Twin Towers as one entity. That they were two separate buildings is not relevant to what I am about to put forth and will only muddy the waters if treated as two elements.
On 9/11, either the TT contained X, or they did not. I do not state this in a flippant manner. It is quite important to understand that on 9/11, if we magically inventoried the entire contents of the TT we would either find something that met the definition of X or we would not. This makes no assumption about why it was in the TT or who placed it in the TT; only that it is either there, or it is not.
So, we have a case that TT == [X|!X]
Now, we are not interested in TT == !X as this is an absence of something. We can not, with 100% certainty, prove the absence of something in a debate like this; so we will, instead, focus upon the positive claim of TT == X and see what logical structure must be built.
So, after magically inventorying the entire contents of the TT we have found X. There are two valid questions that can be asked next. The first of which is, "Is X there legitimately?"
If A represents X that is there legitimately, and B represents X not there legitimately then X==[A|B|AB]
The parallel valid question we can ask is, "Did X contribute to the collapse of the TT?" Now, this is a great question for engineers, physicists, etc (armchair or professional) to debate. It is not of interest to me for this post.
What is of interest is where X==B||X==AB. I'm not going to try to come up with scenarios where X==A; if they exist great, but what the debates always revolve around is B (illegitimate explosives in the Towers).
Okay, let's say that we've looked at all possibilities and the X we found in our inventorying can not be legitimately explained. This means an inside job, right? Not necessarily. We have smaller steps that need to be addressed before we can make such a claim.
So, we've uncovered illegitimate explosives in the towers on 9/11. We must now determine which of the follow is true:
(1) There was no evidence for the investigators to find
(2) There was evidence for the investigators to find, but they failed to do so
(3) There was evidence for the investigators to find, and they covered it up
Now, if (1) or (2) is true, then we have uncovered new evidence of which NIST, the 9/11 Commission, etc were not aware. If it is (2) that is true, then heads should roll for failing to do their jobs properly. If (3) is true, and this would be proven by some evidence equivalent to the Watergate tapes, then we have an inside job, right? Not necessarily. The why of the cover-up needs to be brought to light.
Parallel to this, we must ask questions such as:
* Were the explosives planted in coordination, or at least with the knowledge of those planning the airplane hijackings?
* Were the explosives planted with the intent of bringing down the towers? By themselves, or in conjunction with the planes?
* Were the explosives planted with, or without, inside help (building security, maintenance, etc)?
So, by now you're probably thinking, "Arkan, what's the short of all this?" Well, it breaks down like this:
* Proving there were explosives is one point of fact (regardless of who, how, or why)
* Proving a cover-up is a second, discrete point of fact (regardless of who, how, or why the explosives were planted)
* Proving how the explosives were planted is a third, discrete point of fact (it does not prove cover-up by itself)
* Proving an inside job is a fourth, discrete point of fact (possibly regardless of how, and does not prove cover-up)
What's the point of this? Focusing the debate
If someone says they have proof of explosives, and therefore 9/11 was an inside job, then they are making leaps of logic and have confirmation bias. The same holds true for proving no cover-up implying no possible inside job. Though each discrete point of fact may lend strength to other claims, they must each be evaluated and stand on their own.
By breaking the discussion down to this granular level we have simple questions that can be answered. We can see if someone is jumping the gun and leaping over intermediate questions that need to be dealt with first. We can see if someone is attempting to conflate to discrete claims to strengthen their case or confuse the discussion. It makes it manageable
I've addressed the general subject matter to some extent in my rant Explosions <> Explosives. I intend to take things to a more overarching level with this post.
Such debates ignore the overarching logical construct around the suggestion that explosives were used on 9/11. I shall endeavor to highlight these in as succinct a manner as possible that the aforementioned debates might be short-circuited and more meaningful dialogue occur.
Let X represent explosives, such as: dynamite, C4, nitroglycerin, etc. That is to say X is substance, or device utilizing one or more substances, designed specifically to explode. For the purposes of this discussion it is not something like a propane canister, a bottle of hairspray, etc.
Let TT represent the Twin Towers: for the purposes of this post/discussion I will treat the Twin Towers as one entity. That they were two separate buildings is not relevant to what I am about to put forth and will only muddy the waters if treated as two elements.
On 9/11, either the TT contained X, or they did not. I do not state this in a flippant manner. It is quite important to understand that on 9/11, if we magically inventoried the entire contents of the TT we would either find something that met the definition of X or we would not. This makes no assumption about why it was in the TT or who placed it in the TT; only that it is either there, or it is not.
So, we have a case that TT == [X|!X]
Now, we are not interested in TT == !X as this is an absence of something. We can not, with 100% certainty, prove the absence of something in a debate like this; so we will, instead, focus upon the positive claim of TT == X and see what logical structure must be built.
So, after magically inventorying the entire contents of the TT we have found X. There are two valid questions that can be asked next. The first of which is, "Is X there legitimately?"
If A represents X that is there legitimately, and B represents X not there legitimately then X==[A|B|AB]
The parallel valid question we can ask is, "Did X contribute to the collapse of the TT?" Now, this is a great question for engineers, physicists, etc (armchair or professional) to debate. It is not of interest to me for this post.
What is of interest is where X==B||X==AB. I'm not going to try to come up with scenarios where X==A; if they exist great, but what the debates always revolve around is B (illegitimate explosives in the Towers).
Okay, let's say that we've looked at all possibilities and the X we found in our inventorying can not be legitimately explained. This means an inside job, right? Not necessarily. We have smaller steps that need to be addressed before we can make such a claim.
So, we've uncovered illegitimate explosives in the towers on 9/11. We must now determine which of the follow is true:
(1) There was no evidence for the investigators to find
(2) There was evidence for the investigators to find, but they failed to do so
(3) There was evidence for the investigators to find, and they covered it up
Now, if (1) or (2) is true, then we have uncovered new evidence of which NIST, the 9/11 Commission, etc were not aware. If it is (2) that is true, then heads should roll for failing to do their jobs properly. If (3) is true, and this would be proven by some evidence equivalent to the Watergate tapes, then we have an inside job, right? Not necessarily. The why of the cover-up needs to be brought to light.
Parallel to this, we must ask questions such as:
* Were the explosives planted in coordination, or at least with the knowledge of those planning the airplane hijackings?
* Were the explosives planted with the intent of bringing down the towers? By themselves, or in conjunction with the planes?
* Were the explosives planted with, or without, inside help (building security, maintenance, etc)?
So, by now you're probably thinking, "Arkan, what's the short of all this?" Well, it breaks down like this:
* Proving there were explosives is one point of fact (regardless of who, how, or why)
* Proving a cover-up is a second, discrete point of fact (regardless of who, how, or why the explosives were planted)
* Proving how the explosives were planted is a third, discrete point of fact (it does not prove cover-up by itself)
* Proving an inside job is a fourth, discrete point of fact (possibly regardless of how, and does not prove cover-up)
What's the point of this? Focusing the debate
If someone says they have proof of explosives, and therefore 9/11 was an inside job, then they are making leaps of logic and have confirmation bias. The same holds true for proving no cover-up implying no possible inside job. Though each discrete point of fact may lend strength to other claims, they must each be evaluated and stand on their own.
By breaking the discussion down to this granular level we have simple questions that can be answered. We can see if someone is jumping the gun and leaping over intermediate questions that need to be dealt with first. We can see if someone is attempting to conflate to discrete claims to strengthen their case or confuse the discussion. It makes it manageable