So how can this notion be applied to the 9/11 truth movement? The following is a common example of special pleading (e.g., How can the govt. continue to conceal the conspiracy if literally thousands of people were involved? Special plead: you don’t understand the concept of compartmentalization within the government).Much of what I'm about to say here is going to be in my post after this one, but since Pat focused in on it, I will as well.This argument is special pleading because it avoids having to answer the real problem, namely that even with compartmentalization there still remain thousands of people who have to remain silent. Lets take the people who set up the demolition charges for instance. If they were only given instructions to set charges and nothing else, then I find it a little odd that not a single one of them has come forward with this information. The notion of compartmentalization fails when we realize that if one link in the chain fails, then the entire conspiracy fails.
First off, it can't be the fallacy of special pleading because we have unrefuted peer-reviewed science on our side. Therefore, Mr Rational's typical "debunker" a priori objection, according to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, falls into the category of a priori fallacies because one cannot "base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths on anything other than empirical evidence."
As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers put it:
"It does not matter what problems we face with other details of the attacks, we KNOW, from the key forensic evidence, that the WTC buildings were brought down using explosives."
The idea that government complicity in the attacks would require large numbers of people with full knowledge of the operation is a notion largely debunked by the intelligence technique of compartmentalization, but does this still leave thousands knowing pieces of the puzzle?
In fact, this assertion is itself using the logical fallacy of necessity where "a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises." One part of the premise here is that controlled demolitions require large numbers of people, which leads to the conclusion that controlled demolitions on 9/11 would require the same.
However, as 911review.com points out:
"A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting."
Beyond this, the intricacies of the evidence indicate a plethora of ways in which the number of people intimately involved in all aspects of the plot could have been significantly decreased, but we'll get there in a second.
The next part of Mr Rational's premise relies on the fallacy of assumption where "someone assumes the very thing they are trying to prove." He simply assumes somebody would have talked in such a conspiracy, and since they haven't there was no conspiracy.
However, as professor David Ray Griffin stated:
...How could one know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we, by definition, don’t know about them.Another great example is Operation Gladio set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.Moreover, we do know about some big operations that were kept secret as long as necessary; such as... the war in Indonesia in 1957 which the United States provoked, participated in, and then kept secret until 1995.
Many more examples could be given.
Now that I've put this claim of fallacy from a three time offender in perspective, let's wrap this thing up.
In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command was combined with deliberate confusion via the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks. But no matter how it might have been achieved, one thing is clear, it would have only required the complicity of a few high level officials.
Pat states that:
"No matter how compartmentalized the work was, there would be a hell of a lot of people who would say, 'You know, I wonder if those weird ceiling tiles I installed at the WTC had anything to do with the collapse.'"
He is referring to Jim Hoffman's hypothetical blasting scenario. If this is how the demolition was carried out the ceiling tiles would not look weird at all.
As Hoffman's website 911research.wtc7.net states:
"Explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials."
And these numerous possibilities are beyond the hypothetical. Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole recently published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants, such as were found in samples of WTC dust, can demolish vertically standing steel beams. One possibility hinted at in the video is that nano-thermite was sprayed on or in beams and activated with a micro-detonator. If this were the case, the operation still would not have required large numbers of people as there wouldn't be any need for running miles of det cord through the building. The fact that this could be done unnoticed is evinced by the Citicorp Tower in New York, which underwent a secret structural retrofit that was unknown to the building's tenants and went almost unnoticed by the general public. Furthermore, in 2009 it was reported that drills were successful in planting bombs in ten high-security federal buildings.
Now, why have we not seen any of this small group of operators come forward, well Mr Rational, because that would be irrational!
People rarely do things opposed to their own self interest. Hence, conspirators usually rat on their co-conspirators only to receive lesser sentences. They rarely pop up out of the blue and say, "would you please give me a lethal injection." In fact, with this mass murder, it is likely that many of the operatives have already received one without asking for it! A real investigation into the events of 9/11 is yet to take place. If and when this occurs, the lesser conspirators or accomplices may be granted immunity, or granted favorable plea bargains in return for turning state’s evidence, leading to convictions of numerous others.
With all that being said, it would still be expected that people not directly involved who caught wind of suspicious goings-on would probably talk, and in fact, they have.
"Some people will never believe us no matter how many tests are run. They wouldn't believe in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center even if Mark Loizeaux produced a signed confession."
