Inconsistensies

[Arouet]

You guys know that I'm not really into conspiracy theories - I read the threads but they don't tend to interest me enough to want to spend too much time on them. That said, there's a common critique that I hear over and over that always makes me ask myself the same question. The critique is that so-called inconsistencies in the "official story" lead to the conclusion that there is either a cover-up or that the government itself was in on it.

Now, let's take this away from any particular conspiracy theory and just talk in general. If we bring it down to basics, what we're usually dealing with is basic forensic analysis. We're trying to piece together events after the fact based on the evidence uncovered. Putting aside any specific case, isn't this an inexact science at the best of times? Isn't there a pretty good likelihood of at least some inconsistencies even when the parties are all in good faith? And wouldn't we expect, the more complex the scenario, the more inconsistencies and unanswered questions to arise naturally?

Again, for this part of the discussion, let's not get distracted by specific cases, I'm just trying to establish the basic principle here.

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

In the specific case of 9/11, these were Hollywood-style inconsistencies -- i.e. require the kind of suspension of disbelief that a typically bad scientifically streamlined Hollywood movie for the masses requires. Kind of like how Star Wars spaceships still make engine noises in the vacuum of space.

The fact that 99.9% of the 'evidence' was cleared up and disposed of post haste does not help in forensic enquiry.

There is a social dimension to research that cannot be overlooked -- ref postmodern theories of epistemology -- start with Foucault and Derrida...

If the authorities want to catch someone, they throw genuine forensics at it. (Except for Misha's post about shoddy FBI laboratory work.) If they want to cover something up, they attempt to obliterate and obfuscate the evidence. This can be anything from throw-down guns used to frame people police shoot in alleys to the 9/11 inside job. It's like a 3 year old lying about something 'wrong' they just did, only in adult form -- you cannot always 'prove' the 3 year old just did something, but you are pretty sure. Often it is easier to prove intent or extract a confession from the perpetrator than it is to 'prove' a case by pure forensics alone -- DNA and fingerprint matching perhaps being an exception.

And let's have a list of govt cover-ups harming a lot of people that 'no-one cares about'???? Would we include fluoridation of the water in that list? CSG mining permits? Three Mile Island? I think the 9/11 case as a casui belli for several wars of invasion and occupation with thousands of lives lost as a result, the passing of several new repressive domestic acts to turn the US into a kind of gulag and the attempted perpetration of a giant hoax on the American people with complete loss of faith in govt as a benign authority is a pretty major one.

[Arouet]

Sydney, I specifically requested that we NOT look at specific cases for the time being. I'd like to just examine the principle here.

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

is it possible to correct the typo in the subject line? It's very distracting.

[Arouet]

You can PM Ninja if you want.

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]