To: John Wyndham (moderator for scimethod911.org)
Dated Friday November 18, 2016 7:09 pm
Dear John, thank you for your reply. I look forward to you getting to my Open Letter and I hope you would be able to publish it.
My following second article submission hones into the Epistemological problem of 9-11 and pertains to how we know what we know. You must surely wrestle with the issue yourself, as every good scientist must. It is the very heart of the matter that has been ignored by the 9-11 Truth “How” detectives and exponents, including the many scientists, and including in your recent paper on the Pentagon hit carried on 911truth.org for which I already wrote you a letter a few days ago on the Scientific Method mentioned in your paper. To add to that earlier letter to augment the point I am attempting to make in this second article submission for your consideration: in your paper you showed photos taken three days after the event as evidence of a plane hit, when much of the initial debris had been removed and the damage site cleared of broken structures by breaking down even more damaged structures. It is not possible to know what was the actual damage by the “projectile hit” and what you have shown from photos three days later after the response teams have had their hand at the crime site. You did not show photos of the moment that the damage occurred, before the debris was removed, before the rescue workers further demolished dangerous and damaged structures for clearing and safety purposes. How can anyone principally conclude what happened from those photos that you showed to, I am sorry to suggest, speciously argue your thesis and reach your predetermined conclusion?
You did not, for instance, show the tiny exit hole in the Pentagon wall, a photo that has been floating around for a long time. You can also see that photograph in the link below to the historian's talk. It is principally that photograph and others like it, that had been indicative, in some “hard evidentiary” if you will, measure beyond the words of Cheney et. al., of the "missile" theory of what hit the Pentagon. You can obviously see the problem. You discarded that photo in the evidence stream you brought forth, which is all photos taken on September 14, 2001 and officially released by the military who want to push the "Surprise" theory of 9/11, of a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon. There are many more reasons to doubt that narrative, but I won't go into it here because the topic at hand is to identify the epistemological problem of 9-11, the greatest crime in modern scientific history. The problem today, and ever since 9-11, for the public at large has been that how do we know anything, as armchair historians and activists and wannabe detectives, based on the available evidence brought to us by officialdom and its instruments --- because, there is no actual evidence of the crime scene left or preserved, except these sanitized images, and in the case of your article, taken days later from the skies. Your article therefore has two principal issues which you have unwittingly ignored: the analysis suffers from Data Availability bias, and Confirmation bias. This is not just a subjective opinion. The evidence is before you. You ignored the photo that goes against your preconception. You used the photos and other tid-bit “narrations” that support your theory. And you ignored the fact that none of this is conclusive data to draw the conclusion that you have drawn.
This has been the problem with all HOW exponents. They each look selectively at the data they want, or is made available to them, and each has a pet theory, or an inclination towards a pet theory, that they affirm from this data. Scientists are usually aware of both these pitfalls, as I am sure you are too. Which is why your conclusions, which appear to me to be more drawn from the motivation of uniting the fragmented "truthers" rather than on the merit of the actual evidence at hand, which is indeed very sparse and inclusive at best. The following article submission hones into the general epistemological problem of 9-11 using Jones "hot" vs Judy Wood "not hot" positions on the WTC destruction, to highlight the principal issues. And, just as reference that I am not alone in worrying about the epistemological problem, it is evidently also the crucial problem for honest historians as well.
Here is a link to an honest historian wrestling with the same problem, Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland). This is the fellow who pieced together the sordid history of NATO's Stay Behind Armies covertly involved in Operation Gladio during the Cold War. He used declassified documents of the countries in the European Union to piece his narrative together, which was outright denied by the Pentagon. And Ganser highlights in his presentation, made on the tenth anniversary of 9-11, what the historians have to work with --- because, as he says, ultimately history is what the historians write. If they have crappy data, or have their own predilections or biases, they generate crap. Which is why most of the history that is in mainstream has very poor signal to noise ratio of the actual reality of events. The narratives that become the truth of history are penned by mostly the victors, and their historians and scholars. This is just self-evident. Others who come much later dig through the officialdom's documents, archeology, anthropology, literature, etc., to explain as best as they can what went on before. Often times, GIGO is the operative principle, garbage in garbage out. We have the bulk of mainstream historians today writing their account of 9-11 history that is being taught to the new generation based on the establishment's "Surprise" premise of 9-11. And we have the counter foils writing their own pet narratives in books after books, from LIHOP to MIHOP, and in the latter set, there are many more modalities, from thermite of Jones, to DEW of Wood, to mini Nukes of Fetzer, to ....
My essay submission illustrates the general problem. I hope you can publish this article. What I have found, unfortunately, is that like most cliques and cults in any domain, the 9-11 Truth clique is also incestuously self-reinforcing. They do not like anyone thinking differently from them. This is the characteristic of respectively both type-1 and type-2 “United we stand” crowd of mainstream people as well as those who were formerly in the mainstream and then “woke up”. The “waking up” unfortunately did not leave their essential mental characteristic behind, of following pied pipers and wanting to stay united with their new much smaller crowd. The typification is sociological, and no need to get into it here except the behavior succinctly outlined. I will end with a quote on the responsibility of intellectuals:
“I too think the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity. For this very reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role that might be assigned to him, nor can he ever be made to fit into any of the histories written by the victors. An intellectual essentially doesn't belong anywhere; he stands out as an irritant wherever he is; he does not fit into any pigeonhole completely.” (Vaclav Havel)
Thank you for your time.
Here is the Link to the submission 9-11 Epistemology:
Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2016/11/zahirs-letter-to-911-truth-john-wyndham.html
First published Saturday, November 19, 2016 1356 (additional reference links inserted into the letter)
Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to 9-11 Truth British Scientist John Wyndham