[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: 9/11 Truth: A Simple Formula 9/11 Truth: A Simple Formula Submitted by Arabesque on Wed, 12/27/2006 - 3:58pm. 9/11 truth 9/11 Truth: A Simple Formula A simple formula to determine what really happened on 9/11 A theory which uses all of the available and credible evidence, and is contradicted by none is the strongest possible model for reaching 9/11 Truth. * All theories depend on different types of relevant evidence * All evidence is weighed by credibility * All of the available evidence is combined to create a logical narrative * Fabricated evidence is removed from the narrative due to lack of credibility * Any credible contradictory evidence must be explained or result in a new theory 9/11 Truth Formula: All relevant/credible evidence – fabricated evidence + no credible contradictory evidence + a coherent and logical narrative = 9/11 Truth Credibility[1] Evidence, theories,[2] and individuals[3] possess credibility. Credibility is achieved through cumulative and varied sources as well as strength of reliability. Evidence (from approximate highest to lowest credibility) Scientific laws—impossible to break[4] Scientific Data, physical evidence * Are valuable assuming the evidence is not fabricated.[5] * Physical evidence can be observed through other types of evidence,[6] but it is more credible when primary sources are examined.[7] Recordings (video, tape, photograph, etc)—usually are difficult to fabricate—impossible/impractical when there are dozens of sources. Eyewitness Testimony[8] is more or less credible based on many factors[9] * Testimony from numerous and corroborating[10] sources (i.e. 20 and more people) have high credibility[11] * Testimony from a few sources * Testimony from one source * Testimony from a known liar has dubious credibility Expert Testimony under Oath * Usually is very high in credibility because failure to tell the truth can result in punishment. Whistleblowers * Must be weighed carefully in relation to observed facts. Whistleblowers can have a very high level of individual credibility because they are risking their job security to reveal the truth.[12] Newspaper reports are more or less credible based on many factors[13] * mainstream sources—reliability * corroborating sources * nearness to time of recorded events (closer = usually more accurate) * must be compared to all of the other known facts Expert Testimony not under Oath * Must be judged carefully in relation to all observed facts. Official reports (NIST report, FEMA report, 9/11 report, government documents) * Must be examined carefully to determine their credibility in relation to known facts. * If contradicted by many facts, official reports are of little use. * Some reports have more credibility than others. * It is easily demonstrable that many 9/11 official reports have a very low level of credibility based on substantial contradictory evidence. Evidence without credibility Fabricated Evidence[14] * Evidence contradicted by evidence of stronger credibility (i.e. scientific laws, physical evidence, etc.) is usually fabricated. * Evidence that no one can freely examine is no evidence at all.[15] Although it might not be fabricated, it might as well be. It may also be interpreted as lack of evidence. Lack of evidence * Usually does not prove or disprove a theory and is neutral.[16] Therefore no conclusions can be made from a lack of evidence.[17] However, this is not always the case. * A lack of evidence that is expected to be present can also be evidence that something did not take place.[18] A lack of evidence must be weighed in combination with the rest of the evidence. Destruction of Evidence * Strongly suggests guilt by the perpetrator of the crime. However, it is usually treated as a lack of evidence—especially when it is unknown who has destroyed the evidence.[19] Theories Possess the highest level of credibility when no contradictory evidence is present. Therefore, the scientific method and the 9/11 truth formula possess the highest level of credibility. Individuals * Individuals are only credible when they are shown to be in agreement with all of the other evidence. * Statements not supported by corroborating evidence are of limited credibility. * Individuals who are frequently contradicted by the known facts are called liars. * Lying is the most devastating blow to the credibility of an individual. 9/11 Truth Foundational Principle: Scientific Method[20] Examine all of the relevant evidence to reach a theory. Contradictory evidence = theory rejected[4; new theory created. Disinformation Definition: deliberately misleading manipulation of facts, information, ideas[4; invalid theory or false conclusion(s).[21] 2+2 does not = 5 Purpose: to confuse, divide, distract and discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Characteristics Emphasis on individuals rather than ideas—character assassination Ad hominem attacks—attacks against personal credibility Claims of “guilt by association” (outrageous conspiracy theories, etc.)—refusal to examine ideas on their own merit. Distraction away from core issues, strongest evidence, and theories. Foundational Principle: Political Method “create our own reality” by ignoring contradictory evidence inconvenient to a theory/conclusion. Example: 9/11 commission report.[22] False logic is used to deceive, distort, and obfuscate the pursuit of 9/11 truth[23] Common Logical fallacies: Appeal to authority:[24] Ideas should always examined on their own merit in relation to the 9/11 truth formula or the scientific method. Ignore individuals—examine ideas in relation to all of the credible evidence. Experts are useless if they are being paid or have motive to lie. Straw-man fallacy Is often used when promoting disinformation The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.[25] Scientific Disinformation—What is not science? What is Junk Science? “There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.”[26] If a theory can not be tested—it is not a scientific theory! It is a speculative theory.[27] If a scientific theory contradicts basic laws of physics, it is junk science![28] 9/11 Truth in summary * Narrative from combined evidence * Evidence weighed[4; Credibility * (Scientific laws, Scientific data, Physical evidence, Eyewitness Testimony, Expert testimony under oath, Whistleblowers, Newspaper reports, Expert Testimony not under oath, official reports) * No contradictory evidence * Evidence[4; Without Credibility removed from narrative (fabricated evidence) * Neutral Evidence (lack of evidence, destruction of evidence) mostly has a minimal impact on the narrative. [1] What is credibility and why is it important? Credibility is vital for judging the value and importance of evidence. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=credibility 1. Capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement. 2. Worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness. George Bush’s definition of Credibility: “One thing is for certain, though, about me, and the world has learned this: When I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.” http://www.slate.com/id/2098810 In other words “it’s true because I say it’s true.” This is not logical. Governments often abuse their position of power when they imply that they have the highest level of credibility. Unfortunately, this leads to a lack of questioning by their citizens. [2] Theories that do not ignore contradictory evidence possess the strongest credibility (i.e. the Scientific Method and 9/11 truth formula). [3] In the pursuit of 9/11 truth—ideas should be considered on their own merit without reference to the individuals promoting them. This is because government paid professionals can be paid to lie. There is substantial evidence of this. Therefore, individuals are not primary to the 9/11 truth formula—except when observing substantial eyewitness testimony. We can’t rely on the credibility of a single individual to determine what happened on 9/11—we must examine theories according to the scientific method, or the 9/11 truth formula. [4] Examples: Conservation of Momentum, Melting Point of Steel, Free fall speed [5] Examples: NIST steel testing results, Thermite evidence (visual and physical), pulverized concrete, dust samples. [6] Examples: eyewitness testimony, recordings, etc. [7] For example: examining the original molten steel samples instead of photographs of the molten steel samples from Ground Zero. [8] World Trade Center Testimony: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192 Pentagon Testimony http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html [9] The first type is of very high credibility. If 300 people claim to see the same event and describe the same details to that event, we can assume with great certainty what happened. The only other explanation is that everyone was paid to make the given claims—very implausible and unlikely. [10] To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corroborating [11] For example if 1 person witnesses something it is admissible in court. If 5 people witness the same thing, the combined evidence that confirms observations is strengthened. If 300 people witness the same thing and describe the same details repeatedly, this is very strong evidence possessing a high level of credibility—especially, when combined with other observable facts. [12] Examples: Kevin Ryan, FBI agents, Government officials (i.e. Curt Weldon) [13] “The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.” Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ watch the movie here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250 [14] Invented evidence to assume guilt of another individual or party [15] However, it must be remembered that a lack of evidence does not mean that a theory is disproved. Contradictory evidence—not a lack of evidence disproves a theory. Examples: NIST computer model simulations of World Trade Center Collapse, Pentagon Videos, no videos of hijackers flying on planes. [16] Examples: missing black boxes from airplanes, pentagon videos. [17] For example in a murder, if there is no evidence it can not be assumed who the murderer is. We must first find evidence. [18] Expected but not present evidence: the lack of hijacker names on autopsy reports, the lack of hijacker names on flight manifests, no steel framed building collapses from fire, not a single piece of paper was discovered that detailed the 9/11 plot by the hijackers etc. FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002, said: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot." - The evidence against Bin Laden, promised by Secretary of State Colin Powell on September 23, 2001, has yet to be made available to the public. See: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html [19] Examples: Destruction of WTC Steel, Destruction of FAA 9/11 tapes. [20] http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html “The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as the belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.” [21] Not everyone intends to promote disinformation and may be unaware of all of the evidence—therefore reaching conclusions without contemplating contradictory evidence. 9/11 is a vast and detailed subject that can be overwhelming to any single individual when cataloguing all of the evidence. Therefore, care must be made to research in detail before coming to any predetermined conclusions about any aspect about 9/11. [22] http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm [23] Obfuscate: To make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obfuscate [24] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true. “This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.” [25] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html The Straw Man fallacy method of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. [26] http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html [27] Speculation is used in the scientific method—but if speculation can not be proved or disproved it is not a scientific theory. [28] Some basic laws important for 9/11 truth: The Three Laws of Motion http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html Conservation of Momentum http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/momentum/u4l2b.html
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
The "official" story fails on all counts.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||