The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Analysis of the structure of and evidence for "Made It Happen On Purpose" hypotheses. (Please see the suggestions for constructive discussion on the top thread.)

The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:23 am

It is frequently asserted that conspiracy theorists should present an alternative theory or hypothesis for some aspect of the events of 9/11, particularly CD theories, up to and including the totality of the 9/11 timeline. Nearly as frequently, this request is coupled with a conditional dismissal of that aspect of concern, up to the totality of the 9/11 events.

No hypothesis => Nothing

Is this fair? Is it even correct?

I've seen this in many places over many years and there are too many specific individual contexts to expect a blanket answer to be appropriate, in my opinion. If there's an attempt to unravel a fallacious belief based on a chain of falsehoods, then such a request can go to the heart of an argument but, when the clause "elsewise, go fish" is included, I think that's a step too far.

There are two points on a spectrum of approaches one can take, which I'd roughly categorize as scientific inquiry and criminal investigation. The terms are somewhat fuzzy and there's a great deal of intersection between the two in practical matters of investigation. However, the primary thrust of each are quite distinct, and the processes follow quite different applications of similar principles.

In practice, I believe this represents a rather obvious but seemingly largely unrecognized psychological schism in how informal debate is conducted on 9/11 subjects. Conspiracy theorists approach the subject as a crime scene, where debunkers act in defense of what they consider to be the most probable and internally consistent narrative. Two ships which don't pass each other in the night because they're in different seas.


I'd like to explore the nuances of this superficially simple topic and welcome others to chime in with their perspective.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

 

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:43 am

For starters, given that this is a 9/11 forum, the paltry number of threads in the MIHOP section says something. Not exactly sure what. I think it would be incorrect to conclude that there's a scarcity of theories in the world at large just because there aren't many here. There's not much interest here, for sure.

Maybe because that's a really tall order? A sensible person should balk at the notion of formulating precise scenarios when access to evidence and information is highly constrained. It is quite possible to formulate a hypothesis in the scientific sense with merely the knowledge in one's head, but it seems quite absurd to expect a detective to solve a case without the ability to actively investigate, including interrogation of witnesses and direct access to physical artifacts.

The reason many crimes go unsolved is there is a paucity of evidence and no means to generate additional info so as to formulate a positive hypothesis. Doesn't mean there was no crime. Again, the objectives are quite different from scientific inquiry. Doesn't mean they're incompetent. If they could, they would.

Even in the scientific case, confirmatory experiment is usually beyond the means of an individual acting alone unless it's low grade computational experiment or fully abstract topics as found in math and the like. Does that mean lay people or even scientists shouldn't have informal discussion or argumentation since these are typically conducted without benefit of institutional power of any sort? I hope not. Hell, delete most of this forum if so.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:58 am

Elsewhere, there seems to be an abundance of theories. Basically all permutations of everything a reasonable mind and a twisted mind can conceive, and all in between. This would seem to be a problem for 9/11 conspiracy theories, plural, because ideally there would be just one theory. On the contrary, it's inevitable that such a situation would arise. The world is filled with all types, and there are really only two sides to choose in this case, official story or no.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby SanderO » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:10 am

Chew on the following. One way around it all is present the masters of the universe with unparalleled power to do anything... They can MIHOP it and LIHOP it at the same time! And of course create all manner of confusion by the great 9/11 technical debate... which has not proofs of theories and hypotheses.

Evidence is non credible because it's all been (mis)handled, including the visual record. It all Truman show... with some Being There tossed in.

"Answer? They Get the Memo


by James Hufferd, Ph.D., Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization

Who sits at the top of the New World Order pyramid and is, thus, in command of the power ultimately behind all of the unrelenting turmoil and disorder that everyone, everywhere is now abundantly aware keeps happening and happening at an ever-accelerating clip, in a most unnatural and un-spontaneous way, since 2001, and by now in virtually every corner of the world? (And wouldn’t “the New World Disorder” be a much more fitting designation for what’s going on?


I had a conversation recently with a colleague about who was behind bringing about all of this awful stuff in a by now obviously coordinated fashion with earmark characteristics shared by various of its different growing number of events and manifestations. He said he thought it wasn’t exactly one overall guru puppet master, or even a few, but most likely a few hundred overlapping members in the topmost élite organizations with at least a for-generally-known public face, obvious examples being the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg . . .


I told him I thought all of those were prominently involved, close to the top of the pyramid, but shard that the Bilderberg group, with fluid membership based on annual invitation to its conclave, was, according to sparse reports from inside it, expressly instructed to discuss, but not to hotly debate or contest any measures brought forth in its meetings if they hoped to ever get invited back. The implication being that initiatives would come down already decided from entities or bodies above.


And since there appears to be a remarkable cohesion and consistency (should I say carefully-measured relentlessness?) in the apparent agenda being foisted, albeit piecemeal, on the world, I told him I suspected that the overall direction, at least, and probably the directives themselves, were being send down from the summit for lower-echelon organs and uber-powerful operatives, to get carried out wherever and whenever and however might be indicated. And I suggested that the overall bold decisiveness and consistency of what’s kept happening, through by now numerous decades of policy and command, most certainly overlapping various and sundry U.S. presidencies, would indicate that there was, in fact, a world-scale “unitary executive” of some sort involved (to borrow possibly in-the-know prominent élite member Richard Cheney’s not coincidentally most apt term), quite securely occupying the very top, prime source position.


And that admittedly hypothetical “unitary executive” (or politburo), I conjectured, must consist of a tight group of select intimate individuals, few enough in number to relax around an ordinary conference table – a sort of board of trustees, with, presumably, one clear, likely hereditary leader. I say “likely hereditary” because the staged, multi-sectoral policy of its global program seems so coherent and consistent over multiple decades (though not always highly-successful or well-calibrated result-wise), with no evidence I know of of disruptive internal kerfuffles or reversals at the top of the order.


Surely, there must be a Nazi-Zionist caste and plot to all of this? you object. Well, the main shared attribute of the top of the pyramid is commonly known to be money. And who has and wields more than the lion’s share of the world’s wealth? The leading central bankers, who tend to be, by origin, N___-Z______s. My nomination for the likely identity of the chairman (unitary executive) of the world? The most apt and commanding member currently of the old-line Rothschild clan. (They are real people, after all, and true super-titans via endless re-compounding interest and acumen early on, so it’s logical, though not definite. It’s hard to guess who else would be so uncontested in such a position).


A more vexing question may be, how do they pull it off – their more-than-substantial global-scale control? Loans and interest rates, firm ensconce-ment as the longtime virtually lone source of fluid mega-capital to all of the now bankrupt sell-out governments (the “strongest” of which, note, plop resounding for Israel). And they wield similar control increasingly, through subsidiaries, of firms and individuals at all levels. Legions of compliant competitors for prime seats on the lifeboats of the obviously badly-misguided Titanic that is the world socioeconomic structure are given to know at all times which way the current is running and that they best not try to buck it, even in the slightest. And the way it runs they learn, above all, from the reliably compliant western media’s completely-servile reportage.


By comparison, very feeble and disorganized are the forces and individuals who would dare try to stem the prevailing tide on grounds of truth and public good, opposing the all-permeating, overpowering juggernaut.


One telling example to illustrate:

This year’s U.S. presidential contest seems extremely perverse and strange. My read is that “the powers-that-be” determined that Hillary Clinton, their ultimate “insider” member, her own value chamber emptied and refilled with their objectives, means, and scenarios – and, for good measure, totally owned by them in easy exchange for corruptly provided wealth, élite identity, and loud vocal, many-sided élite backing, is their designee (not candidate, designee). And for obvious reasons: she would, in fact, be them in the U.S. presidency. If (when) they want a war, speed-dial one up! If they want to subdue you and me through imposition of marshal law, due to the intransigence of some of us who resist their reasonable persuasion? Done! Legal “justification” will be found, or some rigamarole thrown together. Scuttle all progressive programs and bothersome pending legislation? They’re gone! All hands on deck = all seize-able funds to go toward warmongering, war buildup, war funding and materiel, planning, deployment, and testing new weapons, buying mercenaries and allies, planting more bases, systematically disappearing gigantic caches of money, more things like that! Did I mention stepped-up policing? All accomplished as favors owed.


Trump? He’s the consummate self-promoting blow-hard showman and contrarian, conveniently with a following already. He was flattered with all the unlimited and unrestricted free airtime he could conceivably fill on all the networks, month after month after month, to obliterate into obscurity by comparison all the other (dull) candidates, inevitably galling in the process all the still sane among us with his buffoonery and depravity. Why? Because he was the only conceivable opposing nominee even the daily-more-loathed arch-criminal HRC would likely look better than to people in most states, and so could be elected over.


But, reliably self-defeating though Donald Trump may indeed be, there still remains that faint hope among HRC’s gaggle of still certifiably-sane detractors that she might yet come off as even worse than Trump. If you can call that sort of forlorn pining “hope”. For, what would Trumpian domination of the U.S. government possibly look, sound, smell like? One thing we can know for sure: the NWO would not stand by idly for four or, O Lord, eight years.


So, what are Hillary’s more-recent and current crimes to which I refer? Well, they’re not crimes against the NWO code of conduct, that’s for sure, but against us. A top current one, in reality possibly the most serious, is election fraud. Apparent voting-machine hacking and tampering to reverse the tally in about a dozen key states in order to steal the Democratic nomination. Commendable (because it worked) in the eyes of the NWO – which disdains democracy in any form. A second, how about murder for hire? Multiple murder for hire? The mainstream media never once dares mention the lawsuit competently mounted, with convincing, hard evidence, against Clinton and the DNC for the felony of election fraud. When Trump parrots some of the progressive Democrats raising and supporting the lawsuit, including other serious election infringements as well as voting machine tampering, largely revealed objectively, among multiple other things, by recent Wikileaks dumps of not-previously-disclosed emails, no less than the President is trotted out to roundly and jeeringly ridicule Trump’s very reasonable deduction that the November election might likewise be “rigged” as some sort of new wild, baseless “conspiracy theory” (completely overlooking stark, election-reversing examples in point from 2000, 2004, and 2016).


So, then, what about the five recent murders (or phenomenally timely, unlikely “suicides”) of fit individuals about to testify against HRC or connected closely with the Clinton Foundation, the DNC, and/or the Clinton campaign? Are those dire new allegations of “just too handy and suspicious” deaths to-be-routine really so frivolous, I wondered, that neither would the FBI take note, the media report a word of their suspicious circumstances, or responsible parties ever even bother to get involved? That is, until today. Today, obviously wondering similarly, Julian Assange, the renowned founder of Wikileaks, and purveyor of all the leaked Clinton and DMC “deleted” emails, has also offered a reward of $20,000 to anyone who can materially solve the latest of the murders, that of 27-year-old DMC programming operative, Seth Rich, who was reportedly to testify later in the week in which he was shot in the back in a “botched robbery” at 4 a.m. in DC.


And so, the question now arises as more than a hypothetical: would the public still support an indicted murder-arranger or willing accomplice over the brash and crude Mr. Trump? (Or alternatively, for some, can obviously-hacked voting machines stop a rebelling and revolting U.S. public?)

JH: 8/10/16"
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:42 pm

Well that certainly is an overarching theory of everything. Lacking a lot of detail, naturally, but going right to the top to purportedly explain why things are the way they are. But not specifically how 9/11 went the way it did, from the CT perspective. When people are asking for coherent 9/11 theories, this is probably not what they have in mind. It also wasn't what I had in mind but, now that I've seen it, I like it. It's a good start.

There's an affirmative hypothesis. Now debunk it.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:12 pm

I have no idea how I'd go about refuting an untestable hypothesis (actually theory). The usual approach is to dismiss it as such, declaring it an ill-formed hypothesis. Except it IS testable, just not by you or I. The testability is context dependent. Deeply so.

If I were Barack Obama, for example, I'd know whether or not the scenario as described in total is true or not by way of firsthand experience. Or if I were high up in the Rothschild family, I'd know whether this was right on the mark, partially true, or completely wacked.

It would seem this provides an avenue for testing - just ask them. Does anyone see a problem with that? For the slow among us, I'll spell it out - they're just going to say no if it's false, and also say no if it's true.

The crux of this is, a theory need not be testable to be true, it only needs to be testable to prove its measure of truth in an objective way to those not already privy to its truth or falsity. I'd say the reason why there's an expectation to form an affirmative hypothesis is the conditioning from the scientific method where it is expected that competing hypotheses (if only Hyp and NullHyp) would be stacked against the available evidence to sort out which better explains the data. Of course, parsimony is used to decide between two hypotheses which equally explain observables, should one utilize more parameters/dimensions/etc. Bayesians have even settled on a method to weight additional degrees of freedom to allow more complex theories to compete where they provide a MUCH better explanation at the cost of significant additional complexity.

One might try to dismiss the theory above on the basis of parsimony, in the nature of dismissals of 9/11 CT where it is heard "That's too complex" and "that involves too many people" and "a secret like that could never be kept". Except Occam's Razor rarely applies to the sociopolitical arena; anyone who tries to distinguish political theories on the basis of relative simplicity of the theories is a rube of the highest order and may wish to stick to subjects which fit nicely in a test tube.

No, dismissing the theory JSO posted on the basis of "simplicity" is in fact dismissing on the basis of incredulity. A person does not believe that such a grandiose world domination scheme could ever come to existence or last so long because... I don't believe it.

Sorry, that's all you've got!
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:18 pm

Smells like proving/disproving the existence of God.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:43 pm

So why are people asking for a positive hypothesis?

1) the request usually doesn't concern a domain so broad and ill-defined. It may be as specific as girder walk-off. So the example above, extreme as it is and as useful as it is to demonstrate a point, is not representative of the type of hypothesis sought.
2) The official story is a positive hypothesis. The scientifically inclined want to see a competing hypothesis to do their R2 mumbo jumbo and compare them.
3) A hypothesis provides a structured format and detail which ALLOWS it to be assailed, and get out of the area of simple disbelief, incredulity and he-said she-said.

Any more I missed?

On #1, it makes sense superficially, but the viability diminishes with increasing scrutiny. A simple FEA is one thing, a complex FEA is another, an FEA of unprecedented complexity is something else entirely. It's not immediately obvious that trust in tools is justifiably open-ended. We are not yet gods.

All of this is predicated on the unspoken assumption that it is possible (regardless of how difficult) to arrive at an uncontested objective result with the methods at hand. I do not believe that. At least not based on the manner in which it is typically done: one setup and configuration, one set of assumptions, one run of the simulation, done. By contrast, exploratory experimentation where the entire nearby solution space is examined goes much closer to achieving the confidence I'd desire and, for simple systems, may do the trick.

But such an approach is rarely taken. I've read hundreds of papers on engineering mechanics involving simulations since all this began, and less than a handful took such an approach, and these were the absolute simplest of systems. Perversely, these are the types of systems which have the least need for confirmatory exploration. The ones we really need hundreds of varied runs are the ones that run concurrently on dozens of machines and take two months to complete. Clearly impractical, so it doesn't happen. ONE will have to do.

#2 is a case of wishful thinking. A comprehensive theory with timelines will not be amenable to distillation down to a single scalar metric for comparison. Maybe a girder walk-off is, with a binary yes/no, but I doubt even that.

#3, I think that's it. It puts the CTer on more even footing for criticism in the same manner as the OS. You pick a plank and try to demolish it. Okay, good enough for CTers, should be good enough for OSers. Problem is, it simultaneously elevates CTers to the desired level but only gives debunkers the opportunity to do the same low brow **** they've accused the truthers of, UNLESS the intent is to compare the two theories for conformance to real world knowns.

Those who are asking for a theory: is it your intent to merely assail points of the theory as CTers have done with the OS (and you've criticized), or do you intend to compare the theories?
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:55 pm

In my opinion, the answer to the last question is of no real consequence. Tell me how you'd compare the theories, and we'll see who's right. How does one test hidden variables? How does one put past historical political actions by potentially unseen parties under the microscope?

Think I'm being too ivory tower? All right, then, allow me to go concrete. There IS a positive hypothesis for CD of the towers, and it is universally ignored.

Dr G's Ammonium Perchlorate theory

Only oz has taken a stab at it, and only after being pointed to it. oz is one of the people who asks for an affirmative hypothesis. Next, I'd like to dissect oz's response in thread.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby DGM » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:18 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:So why are people asking for a positive hypothesis?



I tend to only ask individuals that are making positive claims. Claims like "collapse by fire is impossible" and "anyone that can't figure out that the collapse was a CD is a............".

These are claims that can only be supported by presenting your own affirmative argument. You can't discuss them because there are no details to discuss. This is especially true when the person believes (and expects everyone else to) if they prove something wrong it means they right.

We all know who uses this as a go to technique and given his level of detail and accuracy he expects from any "official" report , you would think he could offer his critics the same level.
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:37 pm



I'll reproduce oz's quotes from that thread here and address them.

[quote="oz"]...from my first viewing I took it that the proposal was "tongue in cheek" of similar but not quite as trivial a level as one of mine.

I think that's they way you were supposed to take it, but knowing Greening, there could be more to it. Pretty sure there is.

[quote="oz"]The one of mine being my suggestion that explosives had to be placed in the impact and fire zone of each twin tower whilst the fire was burning. The reasoning being simple:
It was not known exactly where the aircraft would strike; or
Where they would strike; or
Which structural elements would be cut by the strike.

....before the event.

While this is not leveled at the AP theory directly, the implication is the same criteria apply.

Answer: the argument is pure incredulity and nothing more. In the mid 80's I worked on Tomahawk missiles. Could hit a 1m bullseye at 800 miles. If "they" know where they planted their own charges (or in this case, AP) they know where to hit. Yes, this invokes remote control of the planes. I see no proof that this could not happen, and it is frankly quite easy to imagine. Not if you insist on box stock autopilot, but that's an entirely different fallacious argument. Next.

[quote="oz"]So once the plane struck the scene was available for placing of the minimum of charges to initiate the collapse.

Irrelevant, from the result above. Also has nada to do with the AP theory since it's preplanted.

[quote="oz"]One problem with the logistic arrangements being that it called for a further two teams of fire suited suicide volunteers over and above the 19 already accounted for.

Ditto.

[quote="oz"]Now Dr G's "plan" suffers from most of the deficiencies of the thermXte based plans:
Which members do you cut so that the assistance rendered remains invisible behind the consequences of aircraft impact and consequent unfought fires?

Honestly, oz, it looks like you didn't read the theory you're critiquing. The AP is integrated with the fireproofing and merely raises the temperature and heat energy content of the existing fires. No appreciable additional smoke, no visibly augmented fire. Invisible by definition. Not necessarily undetectable in total, but definitely not by the gross observation you suggest. Next.

How do you get it there without being caught? (The timings differ between thermXte, high explosives and perchlorate but the principle issue is the same.)

Again, read the theory before criticizing. Dr. G:

[quote="Dr. G"]The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).


and

[quote="Dr. G"]Given the fact that upgrading of the passive fire protection of WTC 1 & 2 was an on-going project throughout the late 1990s, a deadly pyrotechnic coating could have been applied almost anywhere and at any time during this period. Building 7 could also have been "pre-conditioned" with accelerant coatings during the OEM diesel generator upgrades of 1999.


This addresses your concern. Your only objection is once again incredulity. Not believing it could be done that way. But proving it couldn't be done that way? Good luck. I'm all ears.

[quote="oz"]How do you place the material only in the area where it is needed i.e. the impact and fire zone. (You either need to know in advance where the plane will strike and what damage it will do OR you place the material/devices everywhere and let them self disappear after the event....leading to another minor problem or three.)
Also answered in the first point. So far, all of this text has only restated the same point in slightly different ways.

[quote="oz"]etc etc through all the well identified problems.
What "well identifed problems"? So far, there have been NO identified problems. This comes off as "It's ******** because, as we all well know, it's ********."
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Top

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:41 pm

<continued>

So if Dr G's suggestion was not tongue in cheek it does little more than is done by the thermXte variants.

Incorrect. It eliminates the possibility of visible or otherwise detectable hotspots in situ, and leaves virtually no trace of any kind - chemical, thermal, mechanical - for post-event forensic investigation.

oz wrote:i.e. suggests a material but fails to address the 95% (say) of the challenge - which encompasses how to get it there, what it does and how it remains undiscovered whilst performing a precise job of demolition assistance which remains hidden behind the aircraft impact and fire damage scenario.

Again, already addressed without me saying a word.

Now, the closing remark.
oz wrote:Given that anyone clever enough with the engineering to predict where it could be used would also be clever enough to work out that it wouldn't be needed.

Pure supposition. I happen to agree with (part of) it, but does it really mean this theory can be disregarded? Of course not. Part of this assertion is predicated on "clever enough with the engineering to predict where it could be used" which is rendered moot since the alleged perps get to set the target in this scenario. That alone renders the assertion false in its explicit form, but I'd like to tackle it on the basis of its intent.

Let me replace the refuted premise with another. I agree that someone clever enough to know that thermal assistance isn't needed MIGHT skip the thermal assistance. I'm clever enough to know that thermal assistance wasn't needed. So, would I skip it if I were a perp and had the AP mechanism available to me as an option? No, I would not. I'd want extra assurance if my intent was to bring the towers down.

I'm on record saying two things. In a hundred trials of attempting to reproduce the conditions of the towers/impact as closely as possible (i.e. using guided aircraft to ensure matched conditions within reason), I have negligible confidence that all one hundred will collapse to completion. Most, yes; all, no. And, this is a corollary to the second statement, which is: I'd not bet my life that complete collapse could be achieved without assistance.

Since this is one of those sociopolitical items I've mentioned, as opposed to something that fits nicely into a test tube, I don't even have a need to address this point because it's merely a speculative opinion about psychology. One counterexample (me) is sufficient to render it false. The AP theory admits the possibility that the planners were not smart enough to know (or, if you prefer, stupid enough to believe) that impact+fire results in total collapse 100% of the time. Maybe they weren't.

Point being, you don't know, and the contention is not amenable to rigorous analysis of any sort. We all have our opinions, but I thought the idea of demanding a hypothesis was to introduce some rigor. No? Because I don't see it here in the one case where the demand was satisfied.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:04 pm

DGM wrote:
OneWhiteEye wrote:So why are people asking for a positive hypothesis?



I tend to only ask individuals that are making positive claims. Claims like "collapse by fire is impossible" and "anyone that can't figure out that the collapse was a CD is a............".

This is a good reason! It's true your latest request was what spurred this thread, though I had it in mind for years, but I already discerned that your request fell into a specific niche which doesn't apply to the general case of demands for a theory. I didn't elucidate your precise reasons, rather tried to make a catch-all exception:

"If there's an attempt to unravel a fallacious belief based on a chain of falsehoods, then such a request can go to the heart of an argument..."

and that's what I see you trying to do. "Collapse by fire is impossible" is an assertion which could only be arrived at through a rather extensive chain of reasoning, all of it affirmative (even in the case of reductio ad absurdum). So, if someone asserts such a thing, they ought to have a well defined argument which leads to that conclusion. They don't, so rather than running afoul of the things I describe above, you are cleverly homing in on the Achilles' Heel.

There is, however, more to my quote after the ellipses.

"...but, when the clause "elsewise, go fish" is included, I think that's a step too far."

I didn't think you were doing that and your clarification makes it clear that's not your intent. Neither do I believe oz is doing it. But a whole lot of people are, and they really believe that, if there's no alternative hypothesis, the opponent has nothing. And that's obviously false. It is for these sorts this thread's critical dissent is intended. On the larger picture, your clarification is appreciated here to demonstrate the contexts in which such an appeal is justified.

This is especially true when the person believes (and expects everyone else to) if they prove something wrong it means they're right.

Believe me, I'm way more put off by this sort of muddled thinking than the issue which this thread concerns. It's just that it's a hopeless case. Well, maybe what you're doing is the ONLY way to address it, but kind of futile anyway.

We all know who uses this as a go to technique and given his level of detail and accuracy he expects from any "official" report , you would think he could offer his critics the same level.

The problem, I think, is someone like Tony moves fluidly and evasively between the two domains we're discussing. One, like mine, where the demand is not legitimate due to the context. The other, like yours, where the conclusion from all of the individual contexts is fallaciously amalgamated into "See, I'm right."
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:19 pm

I reproduce the comments from oz not to attack him, because I like him and wouldn't do that. I also respect his process reasoning a great deal and think he's head and shoulders above most people engaging in this argumentation. He was also not asked explicitly to refute the theory, he was merely commenting on it.

Be that as it may, there is nothing even resembling a refutation there. It falls flat on casual examination. Today, I was motivated to destroy it (oz may disagree with my points) as a simple academic exercise. The point being, SO MANY people ask for theories, but no one but oz has even acknowledged this one, let alone critiqued it. I've thrown that link out a number of times when theories are being demanded, only oz has ever stepped to the plate. Others ignore it and act like nothing was ever posted.

I know why they ignore it. It's impossible to refute from their desk, behind their keyboard, operating in the present day. oz tried somewhat, but I claim failed (and miserably, I might add) in that objective. No one else has had the balls, best as I can tell.

For those clamoring "No hypothesis -> you have nothing", here it is. Been there for years. At least hundreds if not thousands have seen it. Why the silence, then?

Here's a naked assertion: the reason it's ignored is because those clamoring for a theory certainly don't want one that leaves them flummoxed, looking like a *******; they want a theory that's easily shot down.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The Necessity of Alternate Hypotheses from CTers

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:24 pm

The flipside of the above is - CTers ALSO ignore it. Why? A little harder to explain, considering it beats the living crap out of anything they've come up with.

Wait... maybe that's it. It renders all of the precious theories out there moot and foolish, if you have the acumen to appreciate it at the high level in which it's placed. It requires an individual to give up the notion that explosives are required all the way down, or even required at all. It acknowledges that once the top starts moving, it's all over. It runs counter to all that intuitionistic nonsense from people who've never taken a physics or engineering class in their life, yet feel emboldened to wax mightily on the subject for a decade and a half.

Yeah, I get it now.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Next



Return to MIHOP Hypotheses

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred