Professor Peikoff has made an argument against this sort of analysis. But whether he’s right or not, when it comes to absolutist bivalent, deductive logic ….. I still think that this sort of analysis is very useful.
Imagine three circles A, B and C. B is a subset of A. C is a subset of B. So its 3 concentric circles, B lies within A. C lies within B. Here I would like to put in a plug for Venn diagrams as an excellent form of analysis more generally. If philosophers had of been required to display their ideas as much as possible in Venn diagrams, rather than merely words, this may have saved us a lot of grief.
Now in this story the biggest circle is LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES, then circle B is PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES whereas the smallest circle is TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES.
Now there ought not be too much in the way of controversy at the subset relationship between circles A and B. But at any given time there can rightly be controversy as to the purist subset-superset relationship between circles B and C.
What we are saying here is that if something is not logically-possible it CANNOT be physically possible. And if something is not physically possible, it cannot be technically possible.
You wouldn’t think that this insight would have real implications, being as it seems almost too obvious. But the twentieth century has specialized in physics that is logically impossible.
Is it possible to go back in time? To jump from our time to sometime in the past? Our physicists seem to be at two minds about this. But we see that this is not physically possible, and no matter how the science of physics develops we can anticipate with total confidence, that we will never need to back down to the taxeaters on this point. Because going back into the past in this way is clearly logically impossible. Supposing I decide to set my time machine for 1800 AD Paris? But before I check the diesel tank is full, jump in, put the seat-belt on, check the dials and turn the ignition …….. I verify to myself that the first time around I was not in Paris in 1800.
So I establish with total certitude prior to turning the key that the Paris of 1800 had to do without me the first time around! Well then the second time around I’ll be in Paris in 1800, even though they got by without me being there the first time around. The problem is that the first time and the proposed second time ARE THE SAME TIME. And the idea that I can be there and not be there, at this one time and one place is a contradiction. A contradiction that is always present when we go to contemplate time travel into the past. So time travel into the past is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It therefore cannot be physically possible. And thats the end of the matter, with all due apologies to the taxeaters who waste so much of our money.
Well what about Special Relativity? Well you see special relativity is a theory of velocity-absolutism. Where the speed of light is a sort of absolute velocity. But velocity is a relative concept. Velocity cannot be both relative and absolute at the same time. You cannot pick any velocity, and say that this velocity is absolute, and all these other velocities are relative. Albert is particularly deceptive in this matter as his whole introduction is a meditation on the relative nature of velocity, then the sly bugger slips in this implication that c is a divine and absolute speed.
We see that no amount of handwaving is going to save special relativity from logical impossibility. An example of handwaving, in this context, would be employing the feeble trickery of Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations are merely a way of trying to make like the velocity absolutism can be phased in smoothly. Lorentz transformations don’t get rid of the logical impossibilty of special relativity. They just create the illusion of understanding in the believer.
So what do we do? Luckily there were other theories around that purported to explain these “relativistic effects” we see in the data. Like Lorentz-relativity, or the doctrine of the partially-entrained aether. These may well be wrong theories. But at least they are not logically impossible, so we could at least start with them and not waste time with special relativity, which we already know to be wrong and delusional.
How about the idea that we might be able to go from point A to point B without traversing the distance in between A and B? Well no; this is logically impossible also. Because to go from one place to another, IS to traverse the distance in between. So suppose you are sitting in your apartment in Sydney, and after rubbing your eyes you look up, and it seems that without any time passing, you are in your mates pad in New York?
Well when you start lining up possible explanations, make sure you find ten or more explanations before you start thinking that you may have been sucked into a “wormhole” and you therefore went from A to B without traversing the distance in between. Because there will be many possible explanations, but wormholes can never be one of them.
I’m going to jump-cut this conversation and get to the point. The point is that you have to apply this sort of hierarchy when it comes to analysing 9/11. The official story cannot be technically possible because it is physically impossible. The buildings could not have fallen that way, with that sort of acceleration profile, PHYSICALLY, on the basis of the government story. Therefore the buildings could not technically have come down this way and the government story still be true. So the buildings could not have come down that way IN REALITY and the Arabs-did-it story still be the reality.
Now its hardly worth trying on the question “How could they get the explosions in the building without anyone noticing” because the government story is STILL physically impossible no matter how many stupid questions are asked.
Who said no-one noticed? People noticed the trucks showing up after the cleaners were through. People noticed that the Bush family were connected with the security company, implying the shadow government were setting up the Bush famly for blackmail (Hinckley all over again). People noticed that there was a huge lift upgrade in the months prior to the false flag. And people noticed that the buildings were built by shadow government insiders the Rockefellers.
People noticed a lot of things. Like that Silverstein only took the lease a short time before and only had put up 135 million or so for the 99 year lease. People noticed that Silverstein panicked and came up with a ludicrous story about bringing building 7 down when he must have thought he was entirely busted. So people notice a lot of gear. But failing to investigate will never make the governments story possible in reality. Since the story can never be technically possible, because their story is not PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
Now we’ve just got to stop being morons about this and attempting to invert the natural hierarchy of possibilities. You think that no secret can be kept if more than three people know it? Well so what? You can think that all you like. You can think that until the cows come home. It won’t make any difference. Your proven wrong veiw cannot make the governments story POSSIBLE-IN-REALITY because the governments story is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
So obviously the world doesn’t work like you thought it did. And the Nato countries are not run the way you thought they were run. And you better fucking get the message. Because the shadow government aint gonna fuck up this badly, on camera, ever again.
The reality of 9/11 is the only chance we have to know for sure that the shadow government is real. They dipped their fucking cards, just this one time, and they aint about to do it again.
Therefore UNDERSTANDING 9/11, is the only chance we have, to take these assholes down, confiscate their wealth, and get them the hell off our backs.