Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie38
MSD, your logic is nonsensical. The only architects and engineers that fit into this discussion are those who have publicly voiced an opinion on the matter, otherwise, we have no way of knowing where they stand on the issue. You can't just automatically assume that all of the unspoken architects and engineers agree with the government's version of 9/11. And as far as architects and engineers that have voiced their opinion, the number of those who oppose the official 9/11 report outnumber those who agree with it. So, really, you're the one who lacks proof or substance in your argument.
|
Do you understand what the status quo is? The majority of these professionals - architects and engineers - are practitioners in these fields and would experience a substantial gain by properly challenging the status quo (the 9/11 report), for their academic, professional, and personal gain. Should any one of these thousands of individuals substantiate this claim, they would gain incredible fame, academic standing, and personal success.
Few have challenged the status quo because they have no grounds on which to challenge it. If there was a conspiracy to conceal it, if would undoubtedly be revealed by one of the thousands of professionals in this field who tend to be biased towards their own personal gain. Should any of them disprove the 9/11 Report, they would be elevated to a god-like status among their colleagues, who all have a post-graduate education studying things such as this. If there was a proper challenge to the status quo, there would undoubtedly be wide publication of it, between academic journals and the international free press.
Unfortunately for your argument, none of this has happened. 98%+ of the professionals in this field have agreed with the status quo, even if they did so silently. As the concept of logic goes, they can submit to the status quo, or they can reject the status quo. Logic dictates that these people either subscribe to the status quo, or they dissent.
The mind of the conspiracy theorist is as such: subscribe to a belief, then justify the belief by whatever means necessary. Logic works in reverse - justify a belief, then subscribe to the belief. Via the common sensibility of logic, we know that the majority of experts in this field subscribe to the status quo, rather than being indifferent as you suggest. These individuals have a stake of massive personal gain should they successfully disprove the status quo, but they do not.
The status quo is the 9/11 Report - which despite the twenty-something minor factual inaccuracies - is the belief of the majority. Logic dictates that the center of belief is the status quo, which is passively supported, rather than passively opposed. Understand that logic and the mind of the majority work as such: evidence and explanation justify belief. In the mind of the conspiracy theorist, belief justifies any evidence and explanation willing to support such a claim. Both absolute and relative neutrality are far from your claims, and your justification is alien to either.
For a final point of consideration, take the mass of a 767 and multiply it by the in-flight speed of the same plane. Ask any architect or engineer if they even take such a force, in Newtons, into consideration when designing buildings. This is just a start in justification preceding explanation, rather than explanation preceding justification. These are core components of undergraduate studies, as well as common sense - they are required in a standardized undergraduate education, which each of these professionals received. Being aware of this status-quo-centric education, can you challenge these professionals on this basis, or do you assume that 98%+ of these highly educated individuals are indifferent towards what is arguably the biggest issue in their field of study in decades?