|
Aswad -> RE: Why Is The Equivalent Of A 9/11 Every Six Weeks Something That Americans Can ‘Live’ With? (7/24/2012 12:32:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fellow
I hope you do not disagree there is overwhelming evidence for the government involvement in 9/11.
Love to see it. Feel free to present your case. I'm always happy to examine an uncommon point of view.
So far, I would not describe it as "overwhelming" by any standard I would want someone eligible for jury duty to be able to hold.
quote:
The investigation into this case has not been even started. Yet, FBI has already firmly declared they are not looking for associates, the killer acted alone.
It is quite early to start commenting on anything they have said.
If you have ever been in such a situation, you will know that the information flow takes time to sort out, and that a lot of people will be making statements under pressure with little to go on and without consulting with all the relevant parties. As a point in case, using the Utøya shooting as an example, it took months to even figure out who made the comment about there being a second shooter, something that had never been heard- or said- by actual crews on the ground. Up to that point, parts of the police were pursuing that entirely fictious lead. Similarly, at the same time as the press conference stated about a dozen dead, I heard from ground crews that there were more than sixty corpses. It appears a decision was made not to revise the official number until the next morning, at which point it was set at 84 dead. The final turned out to be 68 dead on the scene, 1 dead in the hospital, 55 critically wounded and at least another fifty injured.
The truth doesn't change, but our knowledge of the truth evolves, especially early on in the process.
And it is not a given that all people involved have the same view of the truth at any given time, among other things precisely because information may not be effectively conveyed up and down the hierarchy of an organization. Sometimes, it isn't even reliable at the source, which needn't be their fault. For instance, with the death toll mentioned above, it had to do with that being a lage, heavily forested island, with police not trained in how to count so many dead in such a large area and the island residing in a wireless null zone so they were encumbered on that point.
No doubt, people in the FBI will be investigating the possibility of a second shooter, regardless of what the main theory is.
quote:
From the eyewitness testimony:
It may turn out to be an interesting and useful observation, if and only if, there is evidence to suggest it is relevant.
You need to build conclusions from a strong foundation. Someone leaving the theater with impeccable timing is a thing to note, not a starting point for a theory, let alone a conclusion. If the evidence you turn up provides a preponderance of evidence in favor of a missing party to the shooting, you can start to examine whether there is evidence to support the idea that this man had some role in it. Such a preponderance of evidence is not currently available, and we would not expect adequate evidence to be present at this early stage if there indeed were someone else involved.
Investigation involves organizing a large number of scattered pieces to a puzzle and forming a theory that doesn't involve being creative about how to fill in the blanks. Then one proceeds to examine whether the evidence supports the theory, and whether there are minor details (like someone leaving the theater ahead of time) that fit the predictions made by the theory. If so, further information is uncovered by directed investigation along the lines of that theory. Sometimes, you will have several theories that might pan out or not. As the evidence mounts, you eliminate theories that become unsupportable. Eventually, you are left with concluding on the theory for which the evidence is strongest.
What you do not do, is to pick out individual puzzle pieces and try to imagine what you could do with them.
That is an interesting diversion, but not a means of investigation, and certainly not something to base a justice system on.
quote:
There is no need to rush into conclusions like: "That's an absurd post."
It has at times been suggested that I am exceedingly patient with divergent views, and I do consider it important to keep an open mind, even to what appears to be unthinkable. But in this case, I am going to stand by the assertion with a brief elaboration: until and unless you substantiate your post, I shall consider it patently absurd. I have heard people make a stronger case for rape as a means of taxing sexual capital¹ than the case you have so far made for your position, which should illustrate just what I mean when I say it is patently absurd.
Provide me with evidence.
I have changed my opinions in the past when faced with evidence to support what I thought to be an absurd position.
quote:
I would say staged events are rather common these days. Please to not attach labels to me, I do not know what really happened.
I am not qualified to attach a label to you.
quote:
However, the evidence that does not fit into official (desired) explanation can not simply be dismissed.
I don't care one bit about "official" explanations. I care about things that are in evidence, or at the very least make sense on some level. So far, you have yet to introduce either, and I am not encouraged by our exchange. Now, I can entertain most notions, far fetched or not, without accepting them. If you wish, I can debate your ideas, but if you want me to accept them, you will have to do better than entertain me. You'll have to convince me, or at the very least show me.
Your opinions are your own, of course, but if you want them to be mine as well, I'm going to need "a bit more" to go on.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
¹ It did make for an interesting point of view in regard to the validity of property tax, at least.
|
|
|
|
