Conspiracists often try to claim that the “official story” contains contradictions, or has “omissions” which- they believe- makes it suspect, and therefore impossible- and then try to insert their own ridiculous assertions to try and replace the void left by removing the scientific and widely accepted theory. As is often the case- they fail to properly check their premises in these cases.
For example, tanabear, in a comment to the “Casualties of War” post believes that the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon is a contradiction to the “official story”. This belief- in itself- rests on several premises which are clearly fallacious:
- That the “official story” is whatever conspiracists disagree with or do not like- whatever contradicts the conspiracists version of the events. In reality, the “official story” is the widely-accepted scientific version of the events. This means that it not only conforms to the available evidence, but that it does not simply rely on whatever some official says, regardless of their title. (strawman fallacy)
- That best guesses- at the time of, or shortly after- the attack are entered into the “official story”. Similar to the point made above- conspiracists believe that whatever someone says at the time is the immovable, solid, and more “pure” record. They do not allow individuals to investigate the available evidence, form a valid conclusion, and then test that theory. In the conspiracists eyes, science is not allowed. (fallacy of anecdotal evidence)
- That scientific inquiry is final- and cannot be changed by the evidence. This is emphasized by tanabear’s last comment: “Is this your final answer?” Conspiracists have a difficult time remembering that science changes to conform to reality- and as such often has to revisit previous conclusions and adjust them, if necessary. (strawman fallacy)
- That any unanswered or unclear explanations are “holes” in the story- when in reality, they are either moot, or just unexplained. An unexplained event is not a contradiction- science does not purport to answer all questions or provide a complete and final answer- science is the method of which we arrive at a more complete and consistent answer. (Reductio ad absurdum)
The examples tanabear gives are examples of the fallacious prerequisites above: person “a” says “x”, while person “b” says “y”- therefore it’s a contradiction. While the two individuals may be contradicting eachother, the “official story” is not being contradicted. In order to have the widely accepted scientific version of the events be contradicted, new evidence would need to be introduced- and evidence and facts are something that conspiracists do not have, and shy away from (”poking holes” is good enough, to them).
To summarize these examples, we have individuals who- very early on in the investigation, and based on very little information- said that the hole in the C-Ring was caused by the nose cone. At first glance, there may be nothing wrong with this assumption. Seeing as we know a plane impacted the Pentagon, the round hole could be caused by the round shape of a nosecone. Since it hardly makes a difference what caused the hole- it really needs no further investigation. It only becomes an interesting tidbit to those who are fascinated by the impact of planes, conspiracy theories, or the impact of conspiracy theories. Conspiracists believe that a nosecone could not have caused the hole in the C-Ring, and therefore the “official story” is wrong (and again, needs to be replaced by something that has no supporting evidence.)
While the conspiracist may be right that the C-Ring hole was probably not caused by the nosecone, they are wrong to try and use this to inject their own theory. While they may claim that they’re “Just Asking Questions” and not actually trying to insert their own theory- the moot point they are trying to make serves no other purpose. It is important to note, whatever caused the hole in the C-Ring was part of a plane, or the result of the impact of the plane. The specifics- therefore- are irrelevant. That is not to say it cannot be questioned, but the purpose of questioning it must be clear. As is the case with tanabear, the purpose of posing this question is because this is supposed to “expose” the “official story” as being “contradictory”- which clearly is not the case.
Moving on- the nose cone probably did not cause the hole in the C-Ring for three very good reasons: 1) The material that makes up a nosecone on a passenger plane is a light metal, and it is unlikely that it would survive the impact all the way to the C-Ring, 2) There are no remains of the nosecone at the C-Ring, and 3) After investigating the debris field, we can see that the contents of the plane were- for lack of a better term- inverted. The front of the plane came to rest closer to the point of impact, whereas the force and trajectory of the rear of the plane was closer to the C-Ring. This is why we find the remains of the hijackers at the point of impact (about 30 feet in) and the remains of the passengers at the rear of the plane actually closer to the C-Ring. With that damage pattern, it’s highly unlikely that the nosecone would be inconsistent with the rest of the debris.
This is not a contradiction of the “official story”- it’s the process of scientific inquiry. When other individuals claim that it was some sort of an energy blast or the landing gear, we examine their evidence to see which conclusion is more sound- if it has to be one or the other. In the case of landing gear or energy blast, it doesn’t really need to be one or the other, since both possibilities are not in contradiction of one another. It could have been an energy blast which was quickly followed by debris like the landing gear. It could have also been landing gear quickly followed by an energy blast. As to which came first- it’s irrelevant and entirely uninteresting. We see evidence for both: the landing gear came to rest at the point of the C-Ring, and there are certainly repeatable and verifiable experiments which show a blast wave could have caused the damage to the C-Ring.
What caused the damage to the C-Ring? What difference does it make? The evidence clearly suggests that it was the landing gear- or a blast wave- or a combination of the both. Until evidence to the contrary is presented, there is no “contradiction” to the “official story”. Furthermore, if new evidence is introduced, that evidence would then become part of the scientific record, and therefore the “official story”. Since there is absolutely no evidence of a missile, and in fact a mountain of evidence that it was- in fact- AA 77, any claims that it was anything else need to be met with some extreme skepticism, and a high demand for verifiable evidence. There would need to be a clear explanation for the existence of the FDR, flight path damage, DNA and remains, witnesses, plane parts, etc. This is not “poking holes” in the conspiracists fantasy- this is pointing out that when they claim to be “Just Asking Questions” or “seeking the truth”, their motive is often far more sinister: to deny the evidence and reject reality.
Is that my final answer? No, I reserve the right to change my position- and in fact often do- based on the available evidence. That’s what science is.
6 Comments
You wrote, “In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.”
I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the governments’ claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true. As well, there are very few attempts by the true blue believers to resolve the issue. Why not?
If someone changes their position on what caused the hole in the C-Ring then this should be based on evidence. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement do not always believe that the claims made by those defending the governments story are doing this. We believe that you are trying to stifle debate and inquiry into 9/11. In other words, you start with the conclusion and work backwards to find evidence to support it.
Let me give an example. Popular Mechanics writes,
“Claim:Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building’s exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C…”
“Fact: The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet’s landing gear, not by the fuselage.”
They aren’t stating that they think the hole is made by the landing gear, they are stating it as a fact. Is it? Most people will read that and think that the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement are without foundation. Then those who support the official story will have achieved their goal of telling people “move along nothing to see here.”
In the book released by Popular Mechanics they actually have a copy of the Pentagon Building Performace Report. They state that the landing gear was found 300ft into the structure. Regarding the hole in the C-Ring they state,
“There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2.The wall failure was approximately 310
ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building.”
They do not say that the landing gear caused this hole. So why does Popular Mechanics attribute this claim to them? Plus if the landing gear was found at 300ft, then how could if have caused the a hole that was 310ft away?
If this was a “fact” in 2005 according to the debunkers then why did it change in the History Channel’s Documentary? Many of the people they interviewed were from Popular Mechanics? Now the story is that the plane became “almost like an
artillery shell or tank round.”
You write, “No, I reserve the right to change my position- and in fact often do- based on the available evidence.”
As do I. Lets take another case that was in the news a couple of years ago, the Duke lacrosse rape case. A stripper made a claim that she was raped by three members of the Duke Lacrosse team. Many people believed it. However, evidence later came out that the claim was without foundation. People changed their minds based on the evidence. Mainly the evidence that they could not connect the DNA from any of the players to her.
Okay, so what new piece of evidence switched the explanation from the landing gear to the plane transforming into a “tank round.”? Even better, start with the first claim, then go one by one and explain the evidence that led from one explanation to other. Why was one explanation discarded and another excepted. If you can’t do this the you have no right to say that your belief is based on evidence, it is based on special pleading.
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that the governments explanations are put out to end questioning. Then members of the 9/11 Truth Movement check out the claim and find it to be without merit. Then the debunkers make up a new claim.
You write, “It is important to note, whatever caused the hole in the C-Ring was part of a plane, or the result of the impact of the plane.”
How do you know this? Regardless of the debate over what hit the Pentagon, how do you know that what impacted the E-ring made the hole in the C-Ring? What if they were two separate events? Could the hole have been created by a rapid wall breaching kit(RWBK)? How do you know that there were not secondary explosions after the impact?
“I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.” Don Perkal.
“We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke. Gilah Goldsmith
“A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene.” Christine Peterson
The hole is similar to one that would be created by a RWBK.
You write, “the “official story” is the widely-accepted scientific version of the events.”
Widely-accepted or True?
“I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the governments’ claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true. As well, there are very few attempts by the true blue believers to resolve the issue. Why not?”
Really? Because what you said was: “What about contradictions within the official story. I’ll provide a specific example. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?”
So which is it? Are you saying there are contradictions in the official story, or not? If you’re not- then your statements are irrelevant to the issue.
Regardless, I’ve addressed your statement that “official story believers” disagree and/or are not resolving what you see as an issue. This is only partially true- the thing you are ignoring is that the vast majority of scientists, investigators, and researchers believe that the hole in the C-Ring was caused by the impact of a plane. The specifics of what piece of the plane caused the hole are moot, and do not change the conclusion whatsoever.
The hole is not at all similar to a “rapid wall breaching kit”- as a “rapid wall breaching kit” does not have a Flight Data Recorder, passengers, wings, plane shape, etc.
All you are doing is trying to imply that there is disagreement, when there is none. The two individuals you mention as smelling “cordite” have no knowledge of what that smell would be- one being a lawyer and the other a reporter.
Furthermore, there are no “new claims” being made here- except by those members of the so-called “Truth Movement”. When the claims are debunked, the conspiracists move the goalposts- as you have done here.
The fact of the matter is, you have no evidence to contradict the widely-accepted, scientific version of the events. Any minute details which confuse you are irrelevant and do not change the facts.
you write, “So which is it? Are you saying there are contradictions in the official story, or not? If you’re not- then your statements are irrelevant to the issue.”
I was stating that people who believe the official story sometimes have more than one explanation for an occurrence. I didn’t say that the hole in the C-ring necessarily contradicts the official version, merely those who agree with the official story have contradictory explanations. You wrote in a previous post, “It’s no surprise when conspiracists can’t agree on basic facts, let alone an entire theory.” So I was also making the point that those who defend the governments claim also don’t always agree on the facts.
There is a certain degree of infighting within the Truth Movement because the goal is to better understand the events of that day. The 9/11 Truth Movement seeks the truth, we are not claiming we know it yet. A social, political or scientific movement that has no infighting is a cult. This would be an accurate description of the defenders of the official story.
You wrote, “The hole is not at all similar to a “rapid wall breaching kit”- as a “rapid wall breaching kit” does not have a Flight Data Recorder, passengers, wings, plane shape, etc.”
Maybe you didn’t understand the point I was made in my previous post. Let’s assume that a Boeing 757 hit the E-ring of the Pentagon, that does not mean that the hole in the C-ring was created by this impact. There could have been two separate events. These two events are not mutually exclusive in any way. Nevertheless, your sentence, “The hole is not at all similar to a “rapid wall breaching kit”…does not have a Flight Data Recorder, passengers, wings, plane shape, etc.” A hole is not comprised of passengers, wings, FDR etc. This sentence is nonsense in the true meaning of the word nonsense.
You write, “Furthermore, there are no “new claims” being made here- except by those members of the so-called “Truth Movement”.
What new claims? I mentioned that the landing gear was the common explanation given for this hole, now the latest is that the plane transformed into a “tank round.” This is a new claim. It seems that the believers in the official story are the ones changing their story.
You write, “This is only partially true- the thing you are ignoring is that the vast majority of scientists, investigators, and researchers believe that the hole in the C-Ring was caused by the impact of a plane.”
How do you know this? The official report, “The ASCE’s Pentagon Building Performance Report”, gives no explanation for the hole. It merely reports that it was there. It is incumbent on the government to prove what happened. This has not happened yet.
Like I said, if you’re trying to criticize the argument by going after the individuals instead of the argument itself- then clearly the error is yours. You have not provided any examples of contradictions within the widely-accepted scientific version of the events. Until you do that, I don’t see how your unfounded criticism of individuals is relevant.
You not only attempt ad hominem, but think that somehow separating the effects of the impact from the impact itself and then calling it “unusual” is sufficient. It is irrational and entirely contradictory to claim that the hole in the wall has some other cause. If nothing else, Occam’s razor should tell you that.
There is only one reason to try and rip the cause from the effect- and that is to avoid the evidence- to deny the facts. You claim that a hole in the wall has no passengers, no FDR, no wings, etc. What you are desperately trying to ignore is that the plane did- and the subsequent impact extinguished the lives of those individuals. Pretending like a hole in the wall has some other cause requires a much greater amount of evidence than you are willing to provide.
Therefore, it is not incumbent on the “government” to explain this hole- just like it is not required to explain every bent beam or collapsed ceiling panel. If you believe that the hole cannot be explained by a suicidal plane crash, then the burden of proof is upon you.
This- of course- is all irrelevant, because your original attack was to claim that the “official story” contained contradictions… a position you have since abandoned.
At this point, any fantasy you want to play out about some mystery surrounding the hole is irrelevant and non-sequitur.
totovader writes, ” if you’re trying to criticize the argument by going after the individuals instead of the argument itself- then clearly the error is yours.”
I don’t remember critizing individuals. I was pointing out that believers in the official story sometimes have contradictory explanations for the same event. These contradictory explanations have yet to be resolved. In fact, none of the government defenders are even attempting it.
totovader writes, “There is only one reason to try and rip the cause from the effect- and that is to avoid the evidence- to deny the facts.”
For me to rip the cause from the effect, I would have to know the stated cause. The Pentagon Building Performance Report listed no such cause for the hole in the C-ring.
totovader writes, “What you are desperately trying to ignore is that the plane did- and the subsequent impact extinguished the lives of those individuals.”
Where did I say that the plane impact did not extinguish the lives of individuals? I stated there could have been two events. Therefore, I believe the plane did kill many people.
totovader, “Therefore, it is not incumbent on the “government” to explain this hole.”
Why not? To say that the government does not have to prove its claims is saying quite a bit. Let’s take another example. During the run-up to the Iraq War, many top Bush Administration officials were making the claim that Saddam was producing and stockpiling WMD. Many people believed these claims. Many people in the know(Scott Ritter, Anthony Zinni etc) were skeptical. Where did the burden of proof lie? Did the burden lie with the Bush Administration officials to prove its claims, or for Scott Ritter to prove that Iraq did not have WMD? After all, the fact that Saddam was producing WMD was the widely accepted version of events. By your standards, that seems to enough.
Nevertheless, enough said on this topic, time to move on…
You wrote on my blog, “Your peers tried to pick up where you left off on the JREF forum. When asked “Where is Mark factually wrong”, they came up pretty much empty handed, despite a 31 page discussion.”
I decided to descend deep into the divers of the Dunciad today and read some of the postings there, not all of them of course. Much of the discussion seemed irrelevant and pointless, such as how far away was William Rodriguez when the North Tower collapsed.
So let me offer a possibility. This is also related to the Pentagon. On Mark Roberts’ website he attempts to provide evidence that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. This is fine. However, I noticed a “mistake” or “contradiction” pretty quickly. On his Pentagon page 2 he has this image. You can view it here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWingHole.jpg/PentWingHole-full.jpg
This shows the “hole” or “damage” created by the right wing. If the wing hit where the rectangle is shown, then this contradicts the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). According to the PBPR, at the moment of impact the plane was tilted to the left roughly 8 degrees. Therefore, the right wing was tilted up. The PBPR report states, “The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second floor slab to above the second-floor slab.” So the wing could not have hit and damaged the area that Mark Roberts marks with the rectangle. Somewhere between column 17 and 18 the wing should have impacted the the second floor slab and gone up from there. Mark Roberts has the impact all beneath the 2nd floor slab.
So for Mark Roberts to be accurate, he should show the rectangle at a slight tilt upwards. If he does, will he refer to this as the “hole” and no longer refer to the damage on the first floor as a “hole”?
So does Mark Roberts not know what is in the PBPR or is he being duplicitous? The area on the first floor appears to be more damaged so maybe this is why he decided to call it a “hole.” If the rectangle is tilted upwards, a “hole” becomes less obvious. If he is not being duplicitous, then your statement that his research is exhaustive does not stand up to scrutiny.
Of course, I don’t know if Mark Roberts is wrong, because I don’t presume to know everything that happened that day. However, we can say that his claim contradicts the information in the PBPR.
As I have previously pointed out- you are not describing any contradictions within the “official story”, you are merely pointing out nuances between individuals who may possibly disagree on irrelevant details of the events.
Since your original statement was that there are contradictions within the “official story” and you have failed to provide a single example of that- I am not going to address your red herring, here- and instead refer you to the JREF forum thread which I have already provided for you in your blog. Your personal vendetta against Mark Roberts is not the topic of discussion, here.
Post a Comment