I've been doing a little thinking lately on interpreting or re-interpreting historical events or current events. I'm sure it's not anything profound, and somebody somewhere has probably put this much better than I'm about to.

It's important to use both analysis and synthesis in understanding an event. You've got to break down what is known about an event, that is, analyze it. However, an approach based solely on analysis is flawed, or at least limited. Without combining new bits of information, there is no net gain of knowledge, only deeper understanding of existing knowledge. In the end, you may end up knowing everything about nothing.

When I say "combining new bits of information", what I really mean is synthesis. The information itself may or may not be new. It could be "new" in that science has only recently discovered a new way to examine something. Or it could be "new" as in "previously known, but not previously connected to The Event." But adding too many new items to a model will end with a non-sensical pile instead of a coherent account.

The best way a human can keep analysis and synthesis in balance is through use of both deduction and induction. Some people would argue that using induction to understand an event, current or past, is not being objective. But humans aren't capable of unalloyed objectivity. One must constantly compare observations to known patterns, and compare known patterns to observations. If one or the other is out of whack, there's a problem. The trick is to decide if the problem is with the information or if the problem is with the law/rule/impossible/"everybody knows that..."

Otherwise, you'll end up with an immutable theory. Any data point that does not conform to that theory is written off as mistaken, while some data points that, when compared to a competing theory or theories, would be ambigous, are instead uncritically incorporated the immutable theory.

In your first post, S, you quoted Doyle:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I would counter with another quote, this one from Col. John Boyd:

"If you want to understand an idea, take it to extremes, or examine its inverse."

(I would highly recommend this essay by Boyd on creativity. I cribbed a few ideas from it for this post.)

In "Silver Blaze", Holmes was focusing on a small group of actors, where the events of 9/11 involve more, many more actors, several orders of magnatude more. To say that we have eliminated the impossible implies that we know what is possible and impossible in the first place. I am not satisfied that this is the case.

Now, as it happens, I've been doing some extensive reading in this very area for a while now. I do not believe that the full story of September 11 has been told. I don't believe that Mike Rivero, Cooperative Research, etc. are correct in their conclusions. But I can also see how they might arrive at such a place.

If you examine or analyze some aspects of 9/11, it becomes clear that there are several things missing from the public accounts. So Rivero et al have formulated or synthesized a new explanation, that the US gov't, or insubordinate factions of same, were the real perpetrators of 9/11. Unfortunately, this inference has become the sole focus of thier efforts towards understanding 9/11, and is now an immutable theory.

Perhaps we can sieze this opportunity try to move beyond Rivero. I'll use your response to Tom as a launching pad, to ask some thought-provoking questions of you. I'm already well-acquainted with what Rivero believes, but I'd like to know what you believe, S.

Anybody in the country with a radio or TV knew where Pres. Bush would be that morning, but you insist that the terrorists would have been in the dark

When was Ahmed Shah Masood assassinated? How was he assassinated? What happened outside Bush's hotel that morning?

But the fatal flaw in your argument resides herein: As events were still unfolding at that critical, unprecedented moment in our nation's history, how was the Secret Service to know that the terrorist attacks of 911 would be restricted to skyjacked suicide jetliners?

Did the US gov't have prior warning of a hijacking plot on 9/11? What precautions did the US gov't take? Who warned the US gov't?

What were the standard operating procedures in the event of a domestic airline hijacking? How did the US gov't deviate from these SOPs on the morning of 9/11. What are the gov't's options once a plane is hijacked (assume no counter-hijacking action by passengers/crew/air marshalls)?

Were the attacks in fact restricted to hijacked suicide jetliners? Did some attacks fail?

Were all attacks physical in nature?