This initial official account should still be subject to scrutiny. If you are swayed from the position of agnosticism merely because this side of the argument comes first or from official sources, then I suggest you re-evaluate your logic. .
I said nothing about official sources. I actually stated that existing accounts "
will not be reducible to a single source or single provenance."
In the case of an event like 9/11, independent unaffiliated university professors have contributed to the existing account alongside independent journalists.
Getting to the evidence first or through mainstream sources does not magically confer validity.
You're unsurprisingly completely misunderstanding the point. An event happens, it leaves evidence of itself, and is comprehended by being cast into a coherent narrative or explanation. As soon as there is a coherent narrative then any subsequent discussion MUST take this narrative into consideration, and it MUST consider the evidence on which the narrative is based. Period.
The event which the evidence regards still exists as the point in history from which both sides draw their arguments.
No.
The argument is actually about what the event is.
In the case of 9/11 it was crystal clear to many observers exactly what had happened because they were watching it on live TV and could follow the sequence of events very clearly. Planes hit towers, start fires, buildings collapse. Within a fairly short space of time, there was perfectly good evidence that the planes had been hijacked and it did not take long to work out who the hijackers were, using a great many pieces of information.
Every single piece of information which contributed to that initial conclusion, that the twin towers were struck by planes that had been hijacked by terrorists, must be taken into account by anyone trying to advance an alternative explanation.
And every single piece of information which confirms that conclusion as time goes on and more research or investigative work is done, must also be taken into account.
The mere accident that official sources are more mainstream and thus disseminate their information first does not make them more valid.
No. Evidence is evidence, period.
In my opinion, you are assuming the consequent. Both sides are on equal footing from the time of the event, regardless of the media capabilities of one side.
No they're not on an equal footing. Our society and civilisation has determined over many centuries that there are numerous investigative mechanisms which carry weight and authority because they have been found to be
generally reliable over the course of time.
Most of those investigative mechanisms went to work after 9/11, including
- the police
- relevant forensic consultants called in by the police
- the court system (KSM's trial)
- commissions of inquiry organised by representative bodies
- scientists in universities
- scientists working for relevant government agencies
- journalists writing books
- eventually, historians
The fruits of these investigations MUST be considered as and when they become available. That actually means that over time, a conspiracy theory explanation is on less and less of an equal footing.
CTs are arguably only on an equal footing for about 0.5 seconds after the event happens on live TV, before a reporter opens their mouth to start explaining what is going on.
The fact remains that, if we are to remain unbiased, these sources CANNOT be taken at face value and automatically accepted as you claim.
I said nothing about taking sources at face value or automatically accepting them. I simply said that ALL evidence and ALL sources, as well as ALL explanations and narratives, have to be considered when arriving at a fresh explanation.
This places a huge burden on researchers, but that is relatively normal. Not for nothing do scientists, historians etc begin their papers with a literature review.
Unsurprisingly, most conspiracy theorists think they can shirk this burden, and ignore massive swathes of evidence which is already 'in play'.
Evidence for both sides must be considered.
Conspiracy theorists almost never generate any evidence of their own. They are typically selectively parasitic.
There is nothing intrinsically special about one side of the evidence, as you seem to be implying.
But there are not 'two sides to the evidence'. There is simply the evidence, and then there are the explanations of the evidence. Not only must all the evidence be considered, but so too must all previous explanations and narratives.
If I want to say anything meaningful about 9/11 in 2011 then I have 10 years worth of material to read through. Unless I read through a hell of a lot of it, then nothing I might say carries any weight or significance, because the chances are very good that I will have ignored something quite critical.
Again, accessibility does not confer validity. The other side of the argument can very well exist but not be published or even written down. You are essentially assuming that one side is necessarily true and that the other side cannot be.
I'm assuming nothing. I am explaining the facts of life about where the starting line is.
Correct, but as does the other side.
But only if you want to revise the story. If I was writing a formal explanation of 9/11 today in 2011 then I absolutely must consider all the relevant materials produced about the event in the last ten years. Relevance is determined by field. If I am a scientist then I will cite from peer reviewed articles and monographs and from studies produced by qualified scientists. I am
not obliged to consider un-peer reviewed YouTube videos.
If I am reasonably satisfied that previous explanations are valid then I need only refer to them and cite them. And thus can send conspiracy theorist opponents to the library, or Google, and only listen to them if they display comprehension of the sources and do not strawman what the existing explanation is.
If the conspiracy theorist then displays some comprehension of the previous accounts and the sources, then there's a genuine debate. Not before.
Nick, please state concisely why you believe that non-conspiracy explanations are to be accepted on default, without even considering any evidence.
Once again I said nothing about accepting non-conspiracy explanations on default. I simply stated that all evidence and all previous explanations must be taken into consideration.
You will probably object to my challenge and say that evidence IS being considered, but that's not the case.
You still don't get it. If I want to find out about an event then I will go to what are the most reputable and reliable sources I can find. As I said above, society has long determined that certain mechanisms produce sources and accounts that are
generally reliable. I will look for a comprehensive, lengthy book that is obviously coherent and uses as much evidence as possible. I will look for scientific papers. I will look for publications of investigative sources or the deliberations of investigative commissions, because such sources are going to be important starting points as I research the event in question.
As time goes on, more and more such accounts are produced and they are more and more reliable because the inevitable errors that affect every investigation or study are identified, critiqued and weeded out.
You are asking us to make a predetermined conclusion based on something other than the contents of the evidence itself
No I'm not. I was simply pointing out that the playing field is not level. Someone in 2011 who wants to claim that 9/11 happened differently had better be very, very familiar with as much of the source material and as many of the narrative accounts as possible.
It's even worse for Moon Hoaxers, of course. And absolutely terrible for Holocaust deniers.
