Monday, January 6, 2014

Best take down of the no-planers... Ever!

(Humorous excerpt from an earlier version of this paper):
... With the backgrounds to all three scenarios suitably explained, we can now get to work on choosing which of them is the most suitable. Immediately, we see an application for occams razor, which is the principle that commands: 'We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true, and sufficient to explain their appearances.' What this means, in effect, is that when we are confronted with a multitude of theorys that account equally well for the relevant facts, you can discard any and all hypothesis' which contain unnecessary extra elements. One example of this would be a cosmologist, ruling out the involvement of a deity in the birth of the universe. This was indeed the spirit in which it was used by its namesake (William of Occam) to demonstrate why a belief in god requires pure faith. However, the law of parsimony contains an overlooked caveat in that, it can only discriminate between those theorys which predict a similar result for all conceivable experiments. [22] Obviously, the implications of the no plane hypothesis diverge from both electronic hijacking and drone swap. Its essential premise, that there were no commercial plane crashes on the day of 9/11, puts a much larger emphasis on crisis actors and tv fakery, rather than on the military precision and logistical complexity required for the other two. If we were to use this as a pre-text to isolate NPT from its peers, it then becomes a simple matter of abstraction to rule it out of the equation entirely.
For instance, one of the key attributes that must be possessed by a scientific theory is a methodology through which phenomenon can be scrutinised, quantified, and assembled into a coherent framework. Startlingly, we see that the 'no plane theory' lacks this feature altogether. The bloviating that occurs with regard to self healing buildings and nose out impacts are only surface phenomenon that distract from NPTs foundation. By all accounts, this stance is founded on an extreme form of pyrrhonism, whose reductionist ways were best summed up by William James' adage: 'In order to disprove the assertion that all crows are black, one white crow is sufficient.' What this essentially says is that, because of the problem of induction [23], truth seekers are perpetually at risk of having their entire framework of knowledge upended by the discovery of an unknown unknown. Likewise, the very fact that an observer cannot prove (to an arbitrary degree) the authenticity of the videos and photographs taken at the WTC complex or Pentagon is, by itself, considered sufficient grounds for NPT to dismiss any and all data collected during the September 11th attacks. This is an anti-foundationalist approach which denys the objective standards of rational enquiry, putting it at odds with competing hypothesis' by its absence of predictive power. A humorous example of this is demonstrated in the spoof film, Spare Parts - The Truh About 9/11.
This mocumentary brilliantly satires the host of allegations about tv fakery, by claiming that not only were there no plane impacts into the twin towers, there were no September 11th attacks at all. This outrageous charge is 'proven' by showing a home video recording of German tourists visiting Manhattan, who pan over the iconic twin towers in the backdrop of New Yorks skyline. The time stamp indicates a recording time of December 14, 2001, more than three months after the events of 9/11. Through this framing narrative, the narrator posits that the WTCs were never destroyed at all, making the subtle joke that no plane advocates had not gone far enough in their claims. If the sole premise of NPT is accepted -that all documentation regarding the September 11th attacks are subject to tampering- then how would anyone be able to prove spare parts wrong? They are unfalsifiable by their very definition! That is because, if massive world events with thousands of fake victims can be simulated with impunity, then who is to say that reality itself (as projected through any number of multi-media devices) isn't being faked on a regular basis by the powers that be? [24] A solipsistic worldview such as this leaves the practitioner with a pathetic inability to verify information; hence, it can be discarded from further consideration...
[22] Argument # 3: The Occam’s Razor rule
[23] The Problem of Induction
[24] Brain in a Vat