View Single Post
Old 26th May 2006, 06:31 AM   #337
Ardent Formulist
aggle-rithm's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
As a continuation to my previous post, let's examine the issue from another viewpoint. Let's look at the hypothesis that the airliners crashing into the building started a chain of events that caused them to collapse.

The most obvious evidence that this is true is that the buildings were observed collapsing only once in their almost 30-year history, and airplanes crashed into them only once in the same period. The crashes occured first, the buildings collapsed second. This in itself is not sufficient proof. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. However in this case, since both A and B were unique, it is extremely likely that A caused B. We need corroborating evidence, though.

The hypothesis states that the crash sites resulted in structural weakness in the buildings, and the weight of the buildings ABOVE the crash site caused the collapses. Here's where the corroborating evidence comes in: If this were true, then we would expect the building with the MOST weight above the weakened area to collapse first.

(This may seem to be similar reasoning to the "salamander" test described in my last post -- the main difference is that THIS test is designed to CORROBORATE very compelling already-existing evidence.)

And guess what...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Of course, you could always say that explosives were set off in this way to MAKE it consistent with the "official version", but that raises several unanswered questions. Why, at this point in the investigation, is it necessary to posit explosives? How could the "evildoers" behind the conspiracy foresee the need for this corroborating evidence, and yet leave so many of what CT's call "inconsistencies"?

I'm not saying, of course, that these two pieces of evidence were sufficient to explain the collapse. However, as more and more corroborating evidence is added, it becomes less and less likely that the hypothesis is wrong. Such corroborating evidence is plentiful in the official reports that CT's find so questionable.

All the CT's have is purported "inconsistencies", which are not consistent with each other, are not sufficient to disprove the rock solid "official" hypothesis, and are ultimately not helpful in determining exactly what happened.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Last edited by aggle-rithm; 26th May 2006 at 06:37 AM.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top