Monday, October 09, 2006

 

A Logical Fallacy of 9/11 Argumentation

Just as with the latest debunking article in the CounterPunch newsletter, debunkers apparently believe that by demonstrating that the WTC towers collapsed without help from demolition charges, they have won the whole 9/11 debate. This is a logical fallacy.

I make no claims to knowing what really made the towers collapse. I’m not a physicist or structural engineer, and honestly don’t understand the intricacies of the argument. But understanding it isn’t necessary to see the real purpose behind the debunkers’ efforts.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the debunkers are right, and the towers crumbled due to the impact of the jets and the heat of their fuel burning. What does this prove? It proves only one thing: that the towers did not collapse due to controlled demolition. That’s all. It does not disprove complicity in 9/11 by US elites. This is the sophomoric fallacy peddled by Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Popular Mechanics, and the rest of the debunkers and left gatekeepers who concentrate public discourse on 9/11 into the narrow area of the physical evidence.

How can people of supposedly high intellectual caliber make such simple mistakes in reasoning? The answer is that they aren’t — it is planned this way. Their physical-evidence argument is calculated to gut the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on this one weak area, and they believe it will work because the TV generation is weak on logic.

Once again, let’s say for the sake of argument that they debunkers are right about the towers, and even about WTC7, which they don’t talk about much. Many in the 9/11 truth movement would experience great consternation at this because they believe the supposed demolition of the towers, along with the photographs of the Pentagon, are our best evidence.

In reality, this is no great loss. First of all, as noted above, the assumption that the WTC buildings collapsed due to causes cited by NIST and debunkers does not at all disprove US complicity in 9/11. Second, due to the almost complete lack of physical evidence, this is actually our weak area. We shouldn’t be concentrating our efforts here in the first place.

Our best evidence is the huge body of excellent circumstantial evidence which points at US elites. Debunkers know this, which is why they shy away from discussing the war games, the money trail, oil and drug connections, gross contradictions in the official story, Middle Eastern connections, and the relationship between jihadists and the CIA.

So, don’t be fooled by this logical fallacy. When debunkers claim they have proved how the towers fell, sidestep this trap by challenging them with what they don’t want to talk about: the circumstantial evidence. This whole problem has arisen because the 9/11 truth movement concentrates 90% or more of its attention on the physical evidence, and debunkers are taking advantage of that.

I’ve been away from the blog for a while because I’ve been busy, well, growing rice. Now that the harvest is in, I hope to be back in the saddle.



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?