THE HIDDEN FLAW IN THE WTC DEMOLITION DEBATE

Copyright: OCT 4 2006 This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without the express permission of the author in writing. This prohibition excludes the reasonable quotation of the article for the purpose of analysis or criticism of the article itself - providing that the article is linked to in association with any such analysis.

It has been scientifically proven that on Sept 11 2001, the collapse of WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 were as a result of planned demolitions, not accidental collapses due to fire and/or impact damage. In response, supporters of the official story have been churning out an ever changing stream of junk science in order to try to prove otherwise.

This article does not specifically address the science of the issue. Go here for an index of links providing specific arguments.

Rather, this article critiques the philosophical foundation of the debate. It demonstrates how, aside from the question of flawed science, the proponents of the accidental collapse theory dishonestly and arrogantly tilt the playing field sharply in their direction before even beginning the debate.

The specific science of the debate has completely obscured this skewed playing field and allowed it to exist unchallenged.

The debate has mostly centred around proponents of the demolition view demonstrating that the accidental collapse theory is a scientific impossibility, and the contrary view arguing that accidental collapses were scientifically possible and even plausible.

First let us examine how the roles of the following concepts shape any debate.

Impossibility vs possibility.

Improbability vs probability.

We have two possible conclusions before us.

1.  The collapses were engineered.

2.  The collapses were not engineered.

In any competition between two conclusions, the outcome is confirmed should one of those conclusions be proven to be impossible. If our examination should tell us that both conclusions are impossible, then it means that we’ve made a fundamental oversight or mistake in our analysis and we need to revisit the question with a fresh view. Should both conclusions prove to be possible, then we must proceed to the question of which is the more probable.

In such a situation, we should abandon claims of “proof “, although it may still be valid to assert a confident conclusion one way or the other if the weight of probability is heavily skewed in one direction. Sometimes the difference between “impossible” and “highly improbable” is so negligible that they can be effectively treated as the same outcome. Then there are an endless number of possible graduations from a situation where one conclusion is clearly favoured due to superior probability, through to an “inconclusive” verdict, where the points are split evenly enough that one feels unable to make a confident choice between the two.

With this in mind, let us revisit the two competing views in relation to the WTC demolition question.

Remember that we are discussing the process of examining the science of the issue. Issues such as politics, motive, means and opportunity only come into play should the scientific question prove inconclusive.

The two competing views.

1.  Demolitions. Is that scientifically possible ? If so, is it scientifically probable ?

2.  Accidental collapses. Is that scientifically possible ? If so, is it scientifically probable?

It is question 1 above which has been removed from the debate, leading to a skewed playing field. Is anyone claiming—on scientific grounds—that it is impossible to demolish buildings ? Have buildings never been demolished before ? Is there no such industry as the demolition industry ? Once buildings are up, they must stay up until they fall down on their own, because there is no known way to demolish them ? Engineering a building demolition is a scientific impossibility ?

Unless such an argument is put forward, (I really would be fascinated to see an argument that demolishing a building is scientifically impossible) then the science of the demolition  has passed the first test. It is scientifically possible and plausible. There is no scientific argument that it cannot have happened. Any argument that it is impossible or improbable is based not on science but on the more circumstantial questions of politics, means, motive  and opportunity.

Thus the accidental collapse theory cannot win the scientific debate. At very best it can draw level, demonstrating that it is just as scientifically possible and just as scientifically plausible as a demolition. The first view - demolition -  is confirmed as scientifically plausible. Can the second view - accidental collapse - claim the same status ?

Let us now depart from reality for a moment, and fantasize that the accidental collapse theorists have decisively won every scientific argument. That they had demonstrated that it was not only possible for the buildings to have collapsed accidentally but also that it was a scientifically probable outcome. Would this win them the debate  and prove that they were accidental collapses ? No. Because it doesn’t negate the fact that a demolition is just as possible and plausible.

All they would have done is match the demolition argument in that regard. We would have two scenarios which are equally plausible from a scientific point of view. The scientific verdict would therefore be inconclusive. We would have two competing outcomes which both pass the science test. Both are possible. Both are probable. It would set up the debate for the second round, moving on to the more circumstantial questions of politics, motive, means and opportunity.

The question then would be whether examination of these circumstantial factors could gain a significant advantage for one side of the debate, or whether we would still have an inconclusive verdict at the end of that examination.

This is where the slight of hand has been invoked over the last five years. The accidental collapse theorists seem to think that simply by (allegedly) showing  accidental collapses to be scientifically possible - even if improbable - that this somehow proves demolitions impossible. They argue their various collapse theories as if  their mere (alleged) possibility confers the status of proof.

Such a view assumes by implication that that the opposing view is impossible. Where does such an assumption come from ?  Demolishing a building is scientifically impossible ?  Clearly, such an assumption can only come from a completely separate analysis—politics, means , motive, opportunity.

And such factors only come into play at all in the event of an inconclusive verdict in relation to the science. What are those factors doing hiding inside what is supposed to be scientific argument ? If  demolishing a building is considered to be a scientific impossibility, then why not state so openly ? If it is not, then this is an admission that the accidental collapse theorists are arguing not to win the science debate, but merely to try to achieve an inconclusive verdict to keep them alive for the next round—the non scientific arguments, where they hope to gain the advantage.

If their real argument against the demolition is based on non scientific issues, then why not state so openly ? Why not admit that demolition passes the scientific part of the argument, and that the question can only be potentially settled through the non scientific aspects ?

So the science arguments are really over whether a demolition is proven, or whether the question is still open. But from listening to the accidental collapse theorists, you could be forgiven for thinking that the situation was reversed. That simply showing an accidental collapse as *possible* renders a demolition *impossible*. This assumes that the verdict in relation to the circumstantial evidence has already been established. And this assumption was itself the basis for the hidden assumption that demolition is a scientifically radical idea. Circular argument.

The accidental collapse theorists are on a hiding to nothing in relation to the science. They have no argument that demolitions were impossible or even implausible. The best they can possibly do on the science is to draw level. All this frantic argument just to try to prove that their position isn’t actually impossible.

Their only potential arguments that demolitions are intrinsically implausible are on the basis of politics, motive , means and opportunity (and its not as if the demolition is bereft of evidence in this area). And the only way that they can even bring those circumstantial arguments into it, is to admit that they can’t do better than break even on the science.

This situation is somewhat uncomfortable for the accidental collapse theorists, so they cleverly they engage in  two dishonest slight of hand  movements to tilt the playing the field.

The first is to assume  that arguments related to politics, means, motive and opportunity make a demolition intrinsically implausible. This is taken as given and never seriously researched or debated as it is inserted by implication as a prelude to any scientific debate. This forces the demolition proponent to either allow this preparatory assumption to pass unchallenged, or else to allow themselves to be distracted from the science debate before it even starts. So, having established this as a default assumption on political grounds, the accidental collapse theorist then surreptitiously shifts this assumption of implausibility from the realm of the circumstantial evidence into the scientific arena. This is done by arguing the scientific *possibility* of an accidental collapse as if that in itself constituted proof that this is what happened. Having created the default assumption of a demolition being intrinsically implausible, they imply that if an accidental collapse is *possible* on scientific grounds, then that settles the argument.

What starts out as an *assumption* - on political grounds - that a demolition is a ridiculous idea, surreptitiously inserts itself into the scientific argument and hides there to create the illusion that the demolition proponents are also proposing something scientifically radical.

This means that on the skewed playing field they have set up, an accidental collapse needs only to be shown as not demonstrably impossible in order to take on the status of the proven outcome, because the opposing argument has been labelled as impossible *before the debate even starts*.

By the means of a slight of hand in the founding assumptions, the entire debate becomes fraudulent. It has always been conducted on the unspoken but powerfully implied assumption that an allegation of demolition presents some fundamental challenge to our scientific paradigm, and that to be debunked one need do nothing other than show that a more “normal” conclusion is not actually impossible.

In fact, there is nothing scientifically radical about it, and the only challenge it might present to some is to their political paradigm. Which is irrelevant to a scientific argument.

The accidental collapse theorists make a *political assumption* (not evil enough, not clever enough, no motive, too many people involved, etc), avoid having to justify this assumption by hiding it within the scientific debate, then use junk science to claim that an accidental collapse is *possible*, and then  fraudulently  claim that since a demolition is *impossible* then the argument is settled.

The actual situation is that even putting aside the fact that the alleged accidental collapses are proven scientific impossibilities - even if that situation were not the case - the overall verdict would then be merely inconclusive on the science.

They avoid scrutiny of the founding assumptions of implausibility, based on politics, motive, means and opportunity, because those assumptions hide inside the scientific debate, masquerading as an argument that demolition is scientifically implausible.

This debate as it has unfolded over the last five years is not only scientifically ludicrous but also a fascinating exercise in philosophical dishonesty.

     GERARD HOLMGREN’S SEPT 11 WRITING AND RESEARCH