COPYRIGHT: Gerard Holmgren Dec 24 2005.. This article may be freely reproduced providing that it is not for commercial purposes. Please include the author’s name, the date, the web address where you found it and the copyright notice.
[I am putting up this article truncated at this time as a reference for what I am writing about on the Synchromysticism Forum. So while the links are for the most part dead at this time, they may be added later]
The following is adapted
from an essay from 911review.com, a site which expends considerable
energy attacking the evidence that no planes hit any buildings on Sept
11. Some of this evidence in relation to the WTC strikes is here , and in relation to the pentagon strike 1 2 3 4 5
In relation to this extract from the article below
If you have examined
even some of the meticulous work in the above links, then I would like
you to compare it to what purports to be a counterargument.
The essay below purports
to provide analysis, argument or evidence for planes hitting the WTC on
Sept 11. In order to show that it presents no argument whatsoever, I
have conducted an amusing and revealing experiment. By changing just a
few words here and there, I’ve turned it into the exact opposite - an
argument of similar credibility that planes didn’t hit the towers, and
an attack of similar strength on the idea that they did.
When one sees how little
of the text I had to change in order to do this, it makes even more
obvious what can be seen with a little critical analysis anyway - that
the essay presents no facts and no argument or analysis in support of
it’s conclusion. It merely states opinions and tries to present them as
arguments. All one has to do is swap the opinions and it becomes an
“argument” for the exact opposite point of view.
All I’ve
done is change the target of the opinions described as false by the
article. As in “The tower was not hit by flight 11 ” to “The tower was
hit by flight 11 “, and this immediately converts the article to one
presenting the opposite “argument” from before.
This demonstrates that
the author of the original article is unable to distinguish between
stating an opinion and presenting evidence, analysis or argument for
that opinion, because such swapping would make no semblance of any kind
of coherent message if it were applied to real analysis.
The original article is 601 words. In my version:
20 words were deleted (3.3 % )
6 new words were added (1 %)
25 words (4.2 %) were simply swapped for another word, either as single words or in small phrases of identical length.
The longest continuous piece of text changed was 6 words.
In total, 51 words were changed, added or deleted. (8.5 %)
That means that 91.5 %
of the article remains identical – and yet it now creates an “argument”
of similar quality for the exact opposite case. Such a manipulation is
impossible if an article presents real analysis, argument and evidence.
Below is the original essay from
produced word for word, adapted to make the opposite argument.
In the new version, words which I added are in green font.
Text to be deleted from the original is in orange font.
If one ignores the green text , then one has –word for word -911review.com’s original “argument” that the towers were hit by Flights 11 and 175.
If one instead ignores the orange text, one has the opposite “argument”.
BEGIN ARTICLE
The idea that the North and South Towers were not hit
by Flights 11 and 175 has done more to sabotage the cause of exposing
the crimes of 9/11/01 than any other idea. We use the heading of phantom planes to characterize theories that either or both of the apparent tower collisions were either produced by planes other than Flights 11 and 175, or similar planes, planes with missile pods were faked using holograms, explosives, missiles, and so forth.
Despite the lack of any
credible evidence supporting such ideas, vocal proponents have continued
to insist on variants of them. Nearly all of these proponents accept
four key conclusions of researchers focusing on physical evidence of the
attack :
The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition.
Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.
The Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77 flown by a hijacker.
The commandeered jetliners were guided to their targets by remote control.
Partly because several of these conclusions, and especially conclusion 3 4, continue to be contested in the larger community of skeptics of the official 9/11 myth, many researchers who reject the phantom planes
theories have nonetheless promoted the work of such theories'
proponents, based on their support of said conclusions. This strategy
may overlook the potential of the phantom planes meme to discredit work to expose the core facts of the 9/11/01 attack to a larger population.
We break down the phantom planes meme into four assertions for closer inspection.
1.'The object which flew into the North Tower was flight 11, a Boeing 767, if any was not a jetliner
2.The north tower impact involved a different passenger jet missiles and /or explosives.
3.The apparent jetliner which approached the South tower was real simulated.
4. A pod was attached to the South Tower plane.
5.The South Tower impact involved a 767 or similar missiles and/or explosives'
Note that whereas assertions 1 and 2 are compatible, assertion 3 4 is not
compatable with 4 and 5. Nonetheless, some proponents have argued for both assertions 5 3 and 4.
Theories accounting for the fate of Flights 11 and/or 175 are cited by promoters of the phantom planes meme. Two such theories are examined are based on the following propositions.
'The targeted flights landed and were replaced by remote-controlled drones.
'Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11/01'
Both of these theories are possible, and intriguing. However, there is no credible evidence in support of either.
Given the lack of evidence for theories that the towers not were hit by Flights 11 and 175, it is interesting that they continue to be so zealously promoted by people such as Jim Hoffman the Webfairy. If the collisions of those flights with the towers were faked it would prove that the attack was an inside job. But So do dozens of facts about the attack that have evidentiary support. Moreover, we have yet to find a single person from quality outside of 9/11 skeptics' circles who takes the phantom planes theories seriously. This contrasts with numerous such people who came to accept that no planes hit the WTC buildings were demolished when presented with the evidence.
END ARTICLE
Is this the best defence
which can be mounted for the official story in the face of the no plane
work linked above ? That such drivel should be presented as analysis,
argument or evidence is an insult to every thinking person.
The purpose of the word
substitution game above was to show that the article doesn't provide
anything of substance. It simply states an opinion and then uses
scholarly sounding verbosity to try to create the subconscious
impression that some kind of substance was presented.
That such empty
posturing should be presented as “argument” by people intent on finding
anything they can to support the official story of the planes speaks
volumes about the lack of evidence that any big passenger planes hit any
buildings on Sept 11.
No comments:
Post a Comment