Is the inference that journalists were speaking candidly when alluding to controlled demolition on 9/11 a false premise?

If we understand “candidly” to mean “honestly and truthfully”, then we need ask whether the figures of speech (the similes) used were accurate and helped others to visualize what things looked like.  I wasn’t there so I can’t serve as an authority but it does seem reasonable to me that the collapse was “like”, “as if”, and “reminiscent of” controlled implosions.  If the collapse in fact made those cited think of a controlled implosion, then the speakers were in fact describing honestly and truthfully about what they saw, and framing it in terms others could be expected to understand.  They spoke candidly about what came to their minds.

it’s important to recognize that truthfully saying “A reminds me of B.” Is a totally different from saying “It’s true that A is B.”

The title of the post seems like poisoning the well .

it’s important to recognize that truthfully saying “A reminds me of B.” Is a totally different from saying “It’s true that A is B.”

 

It's also always important to consider ALL the evidence and when an opposing hypothesis is presented to consider whether it fits better than the other.

Brian Williams says, "Can you confirm it was No. 7 that just went in ?"

As "to go in" is a term used in relation to implosions he is in fact implying he believes the building came down by controlled demolition. It seems a rather strange term for him to be using in this situation. no?

Just to add, Arlo, accepting the "speaking candidly" hypothesis means accepting what I believe to be the false premise that journalists would even dream of referring candidly to controlled demolition.

We all have an instinctive understanding of what to say where power is exerted and mainstream journalists speaking late in the afternoon after the terrorist narrative has already been promulgated would know instinctively not to refer to something that might in any way contradict the "terrorist" narrative. They know what side their bread is buttered on as we all do, even those of us who wish to speak against the narrative.

As 9/11 scholar, Graeme MacQueen says, "There is no room in the official story for controlled demolition." By 5pm in the afternoon, especially, journalists would get that.

Graeme has studied journalists' allusions to controlled demolition on the day but he infers they were speaking candidly.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-36-reporters-brought-us-twin-towers-explosive-demolition-911/5718119

However, if you disagree that it is a false premise to think that journalists might candidly refer to controlled demolition on the afternoon of 9/11, I'm all ears.

Referring to something is hugely different from claiming that "the something" is fact.  

I think it's probably honest and truthful (i.e., candid) that those making the reports thought that the implosion "looked like", "looked the same as if" and/or "reminded them" of something else.  It's very much like a reporter who describes some sort of loud disaster as "sounding like a bomb went off" or as "sounding like an explosion".  It's probably an apt description of the event – one that helps the audience get a sound (or in the case of September 2001, a visual) picture of what was happening.  The audience probably came closer to understanding what was happening that it would have with a simple, but totally correct, "The building just fell down." statement.

In the case of my "loud disaster", saying it sounded like a bomb or an explosion falls far short of claiming that the disaster was the result of a bomb or an explosion.  Similarly, reporters describing a building collapse as being similar to a controlled impassion is hugely different from those reporters claiming that it WAS a controlled implosion.  

If we're looking for logic and trying to avoid logical fallacies, we need to clearly distinguish between implications and facts.  Logic can follow from facts; it's difficult for that to happen from implication or alternate interpretations of the actual words used.

[To Arlo]

Arlo, the superior analyst always addresses challenges to their claims. You haven't done that. Seriously, that's all you really need to do to keep on track. Address any challenge to your beliefs or claims that come your way - or better yet - in addition, go out of your way to check for any challenges. It's so straightforward but the vast majority of people don't do that, they are attached to their beliefs and steamroll along blithely ignoring all the challenges to their beliefs and claims while certainly not doing any due diligence on their beliefs and claims in the first place.

I've pointed out that Brian Williams' use of the demolition industry term, "to go in" ("Can you confirm it was No. 7 that just went in?"), that applies specifically to implosions because of how the buildings fall in on themselves, isn't an "as if" allusion to controlled demolition, rather CD as cause is implied, and nor does it easily fit the hypothesis "speaking candidly" - why would Brian use an industry term? - and I've also put forward that it is a false premise to think that journalists would go anywhere near "controlled demolition" voluntarily when it so very obviously doesn't align with the terrorist narrative. You've simply ignored these challenges, blithely ignored and steamrolled on.

[EDIT: I see you mean that because they weren't actually stating controlled demolition - except in the case of Brian Williams whose words implied by definition CD - that it was OK for them to allude to it. I'm afraid it's still weak. The thing is controlled demolition has a signature ... which is nothing like destruction by fire ... and then there's Brian Williams' words which are highly anomalous to "speaking candidly". The point is "scripted" simply fits far better than "speaking candidly" for a number of reasons.]

What you should be doing is puzzling. You should be puzzling over the evidence and how it doesn't fit "speaking candidly" very well and also puzzling over how it might better fit the "scripted" hypothesis rather than grabbing at explanations that do not fit the evidence very well.

Listen to theoretical physics luminary, Richard Feynman, talk about what's wrong with science in a 1974 Caltech commencement speech in the two snippets linked below - he says what's wrong is that scientists don't do due diligence, they don't ensure they've checked everything that might be wrong with their experiments. Scientists are also humans and subject to the same weaknesses. People, in general, regardless of their profession or stated aim of truth-telling or whatever do not respond in the correct manner to challenges to their beliefs nor do as much due diligence as they can on them.
Richard Feynman - Snippet 1
Richard Feynman - Snippet 2
I also recommend simply watching the entire 20-minute video by NZ medical doctor, Sam Bailey, who has been vilified for her views on the covid situation ... and way beyond.

I will put my own answer to my question in a different post. If you can come up with an argument that shows my claim that the evidence favours the "scripted" hypothesis over the "speaking candidly" hypothesis doesn't stand up I'll be all ears

My question doesn't relate to politics so much as power generally and how those in power weaponise who we are against us. They understand how we break into different profiles in the way we think and they target us accordingly with their propaganda. They understand how propaganda works in ways that seem counterintuitive except when you understand how power works. Power doesn't behave in the same way as normal people and, in fact, it couldn't behave like normal people to work. Power doesn't necessarily have to hide its crimes although it might sometimes, it can push them right in our faces and have us accept them - what could testify to power better than the ability to do that.

My question relates to logical fallacies so whatever else, Dr Richard, that makes it valid I think.