ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Whose Burden
The burden of proof is on the no-planer. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 48 84.21%
The burden of proof is on the debunker. You cling to the Official Theory. Support your claims. 3 5.26%
On Planet X, building flies into you! 7 12.28%
Potato. 10 17.54%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 28th January 2020, 01:57 AM   #41
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,339
Fascinating conversation.
It would be so nice if truthers were capable of this level of reflection and nuance as well.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 01:44 PM   #42
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,963
Burden of proof is a teeter-totter. At first, it's perfectly balanced, and each side needs to present evidence to tilt it one way or another. Each piece of evidence is like a new kid climbing on one end or the other.

Sometimes so many kids are on one end, it's essentially impossible to believe that it would ever tilt in the opposite direction - there just aren't enough kids left on the playground to make any difference.

Sometimes, the evidence for one side comes in so fast and hard, it's like the fattest kid in school jumping on one end of an empty teeter-totter. That's 9/11.

My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 02:24 PM   #43
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,915
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Am appalled at the number of no-potatoers in this thread.

There definitely was much more potatoes in the WTC and the Pentagon and even on the planes than thermite.

Truthers have overlooked this so far!

They claim there were nano-thermite chips.
But in fact there were potato chips.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 02:38 PM   #44
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
Erm... Velocity?

A nice example to back up your final point is a bullet.

If i pick up a bullet, and throw it at a person, it is likely that I would annoy them.

If I accelerate it to a velocity of 1,475 ft/s (450 m/s) before it hits them, they suffer a horrendous injury and likely die.

And by the way, trustbutverify, street lights are designed to fail quickly on any lateral impact, this is to protect drivers and riders who collide with them.
Strictly by physics laws it is correct: F=m.a. The force theoretically could even be infinite if a mass is being stopped on an infinitely short distance from ANY speed higher than 0. But if the stopping distance is 0, then the damage will also be 0. It is more a philosophical problem than physics ;-).
Obviously, higher speed helps the cause :-) as it reduces the requirement for the shortness of stopping distance.

Last edited by curious cat; 28th January 2020 at 02:42 PM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 02:55 PM   #45
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,199
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
Strictly by physics laws it is correct: F=m.a. The force theoretically could even be infinite if a mass is being stopped on an infinitely short distance from ANY speed higher than 0. But if the stopping distance is 0, then the damage will also be 0. It is more a philosophical problem than physics ;-).
Obviously, higher speed helps the cause :-) as it reduces the requirement for the shortness of stopping distance.
In your philosophical problem the mass speed would also be 0 the stopping distance is zero. Any speed that could be envisioned prior to stopping would give it a force.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 03:03 PM   #46
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
In your philosophical problem the mass speed would also be 0 the stopping distance is zero. Any speed that could be envisioned prior to stopping would give it a force.
Lets agree things become funny at the moment we introduce "infinity" into the equation :-).
That brings me back on the original subject. This game of burden of proof can be played only between 2 rational parties that freely accept valid arguments from the other side.
That is not the case here. One of the parties is armed with selective vision and hearing and counters any rational arguments (numbers of which are finite) with an infinite number of delusional fantasies. You debunk holograms, they move it matrix, then to aliens - there is no limits. Nobody can beat stupidity because it is infinite. That's all folks :-).

Last edited by curious cat; 28th January 2020 at 03:54 PM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 07:00 PM   #47
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,548
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Burden of proof is a teeter-totter. At first, it's perfectly balanced, and each side needs to present evidence to tilt it one way or another. Each piece of evidence is like a new kid climbing on one end or the other.

Sometimes so many kids are on one end, it's essentially impossible to believe that it would ever tilt in the opposite direction - there just aren't enough kids left on the playground to make any difference.

Sometimes, the evidence for one side comes in so fast and hard, it's like the fattest kid in school jumping on one end of an empty teeter-totter. That's 9/11.

My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot.
Nice try Horatius.

One slight issue - the "teeter-totter" aspect is about Standard of Proof - the weight of evidence either side. Burden of Proof is a much simpler matter. Who is on which end of the balance plank.

Some members correctly putting one party at each end. With quite a few members putting two parties on the same end of the teeter totter. Others oscillating -- having both parties changing ends depending how heavy they think they are. Give that metaphor some thought - I'm sure it is accurate. (It illustrates to the confusion which persists in the thread between "Burden of Proof" and "Standard of Proof".)

And the biggest problem comes because it treats this BoP issue as if there are only two parties. There are at least three in the simplest relevant scenario for this thread. And no way does a three arm teeter totter metaphor apply.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 07:07 PM   #48
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,612
One additional problem with the question in OP is what constitutes proof. If someone presents a potato to prove that a plane could not crash, and says "Just look at this potato! Isn't it obvious?", is the burden of proof met?
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 07:34 PM   #49
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,006
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
One additional problem with the question in OP is what constitutes proof. If someone presents a potato to prove that a plane could not crash, and says "Just look at this potato! Isn't it obvious?", is the burden of proof met?
I think there have to be a couple of more steps:

Conspiracy theorist: "Can you explain this potato????"

"What would you like me to explain about the potato?"

Conspiracy theorist: "Rationalise all you like so-called debunker!"

"No, really, what is it about the potato?"

Conspiracy theorist: "The cognitive dissonance must be painful!!!"

"What is your point about the potato?"

Conspiracy theorist: "Still can't explain the potato. Thought so"
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 07:47 PM   #50
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,548
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
One additional problem with the question in OP is what constitutes proof. If someone presents a potato to prove that a plane could not crash, and says "Just look at this potato! Isn't it obvious?", is the burden of proof met?
Yes. The "Burden of Proof" is met << and therin lies one of the main confusions which are persisting in this thread.

What "...constitutes proof..." is whatever the party making the claim chooses to put forward as their "proof". As I said it in my first recent post:
Quote:
...anyone who makes a claim bears the burden to present the proof they rely on for their claim. Note "proof they rely on"...
In a court trial the prosecution or plaintiff presents their case and adduces the evidence they call in support. That meets their burden of proof. The defence presents their case and evidence - their burden. NIST reported its investigations and presented findings in comprehensive reports - their proof for the statutory audience. Occasionally augmented by responses to FAQs.

Each side bears its own BoP. And the burden is to present the "proof" that the party relies on. And the commonest Truther false claim in my experience is "they have not met their burden of proof because I don't believe them." Sometimes explicit - often implied. (It is part of yankee451's implicit position - I don't know if he has said it explicitly.)

The BoP does NOT require "persuasion of the opponent". Nor does it relate to strength or quality of evidence, BoP refers simple to who has to prove what... specifically what "proof" do they rely on for their claim.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th January 2020 at 07:52 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 01:59 AM   #51
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It is part of yankee451's implicit position - I don't know if he has said it explicitly.
Itchy Boy, on the other hand, has been quite open about this.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 02:18 AM   #52
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,078
These debates require a stipulation to the facts... CT folks will not accept or stipulate to what is accepted as fact and conventional wisdom or science in most cases.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 02:44 AM   #53
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,797
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Burden of proof is a teeter-totter. At first, it's perfectly balanced, and each side needs to present evidence to tilt it one way or another. Each piece of evidence is like a new kid climbing on one end or the other.

Sometimes so many kids are on one end, it's essentially impossible to believe that it would ever tilt in the opposite direction - there just aren't enough kids left on the playground to make any difference.

Sometimes, the evidence for one side comes in so fast and hard, it's like the fattest kid in school jumping on one end of an empty teeter-totter. That's 9/11.

My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot.


Well played, sir.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 03:48 AM   #54
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,021
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
Strictly by physics laws it is correct: F=m.a. The force theoretically could even be infinite if a mass is being stopped on an infinitely short distance from ANY speed higher than 0.
No it isn't, because really F = d(mv) and if v goes instantly from some strictly positive value to 0 then mv isn't differentiable at that point. In other words, force isn't defined in that situation.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 07:56 AM   #55
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post


Well played, sir.

Dave


Well, I'm glad somebody got it!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 10:10 AM   #56
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,724
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Well, I'm glad somebody got it!
It's one of my all time favorite Stundies.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 11:13 AM   #57
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,281
At this point, burden of proof is essentially irrelevant.

In science, you have a hypothesis which is investigated, developing evidence. If that evidence supports the hypothesis well, it becomes a theory. This is pretty much the case with the official story at this point.

Any competing hypothesis must not just put forth one or two bits of evidence. It had to adequately explain all the evidence so far collected, as well as whatever new elements it adds.

That’s the failure point here. One anomaly, I.e. “the damage doesn’t look right”, doesn’t overturn every kind of evidence out there. A new explanation also needs to cover (for a few examples) where the planes went, what happened to the passengers, hoe it was kept hidden, what the motivations were, etc. And not just with vague “the gubmint covered it up”, but with actual evidence of every step.

There’s also some misunderstanding of probability, in one of two ways. First, probabilities are multiplicative, not additive. If there are, say, three events that have to be true in version A, and each event has a 1/3 probability, the final probability of that chain is not 1, it’s 1/27.

The other issue is mid-stating probabilities, usually due to misunderstanding the facts and science around them. Like assigning a zero percent chance to the planes causing the damage seen. Yet at the same time it’s selective, such as assigning a higher-than-infinitesimal probability of a multi-thousand person conspiracy maintaining secrecy. Heck, the government couldn’t keep a BJ known by two people secret for very long!
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 05:16 PM   #58
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,726
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
... Yes there is "A" Burden of Proof on each party. It is NOT the same burden of proof for every party...

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
... the "teeter-totter" aspect is about Standard of Proof - the weight of evidence either side. Burden of Proof is a much simpler matter. Who is on which end of the balance plank.

Some members correctly putting one party at each end. With quite a few members putting two parties on the same end of the teeter totter. Others oscillating -- having both parties changing ends depending how heavy they think they are. Give that metaphor some thought - I'm sure it is accurate. (It illustrates to the confusion which persists in the thread between "Burden of Proof" and "Standard of Proof".)

Sure, they're separate burdens, for separate claims.

These claims, be it God claims, or UFO claims, or Bigfoot, or in this case the plane thing, they don't arise in a vacuum. They arise out of the necessity to explain specific things (and, occasionally, things in general). In as much as you -- generic 'you' -- back any explanation, no matter how outre or how reasonable, the onus is on you to explain your reasons.

I'm afraid the seesaw analogy, as originally raised, conflated BoP with the quality of that proof -- as you yourself rightly pointed out -- but this is actually an apt metaphor to view this issue from. Again as you yourself say.

Clearly you disagree with my POV, yet I'm not sure how your reasoning leads you to a different conclusion than mine, given the commonalities in (some of) how we think about this. Let me break down my thoughts on this some:


The basic issue here is the events of 9/11, that is what we need to explain. If we say "Planes", and the plane-skeptic simply questions our narrative without themselves forwarding any alternative theory -- that is, they stay at the centre of the seesaw -- then they carry no burden of proof at all, it is we who do.

If on the other hand our No-Planer friend does forward alternative theories, then the onus is on them to back up those claims with evidence.

Either case, in a No-Planer discussion, in as much as the Plane thing is central, we who believe the Plane theory necessarily carry burden of proof. There's no getting away from that!

What might muddy this very straightforward issue is the overwhelmingly superior quality of evidence on 'our' side. But that affects the BoP question not a jot. If you and I stood side by side and watched with our own eyes a plane crash into a building, even then BoP in the claim that a plane brought down the building would still be on us (albeit that claim is clearly fully satisfied).

When a No-Planer denies the plane theory -- and, presumably, props up one or more alternative CT (which is to say, they now occupy the other end of the seesaw) -- then, in that ensuing discussion, the BoP clearly vests with both (to back up their respective theories/positions, to bring to bear such weight as they can summon to their own end of the seesaw).

In other words, to answer the OP's question: Both!

*

ETA: TLDR: The No-Planer-Debunker is basically doing two things: (a) supporting the plane theory, and (b) shooting down alternative theories the No-Planer has (presumably) brought up.

The 'Planer' (i.e., the No-Plane-Debunker) cannot escape his BoP. The No-Planer, in theory might (escape BoP, by merely questioning the plane theory, and not forwarding any alternative theories); but in practice, in as much as they inevitably bring up CTs, they cannot escape BoP either.

The Planer (or No-Plane-Debunker) always carries this BoP. The No-Planer also does that, in practice if not necessarily in theory. So, like I said: Both.

*

ETA again:

OK, on rereading the OP, to make sure I'm not misreading the original question:

If the question is, who carries the burden of validating/debunking some specific cross-eyed theory or 'evidence' some No-Planer has brought forward, well then obviously the answer is, it's the No-Planer dude himself.

But surely that's not what we're being polled on? I mean, that hardly needs asking at all, does it?


(I thought we're being asked this in general terms, like, you know, who carries the burden of proving the earth's not flat, we or the flat-earther? Thus, in general terms: Who carries BoP in showing the plane narrative holds, the Planer/Debunker or the No-Planer?)

Anyhoo, OP can set us straight on this. If this is what they mean, then ozeco41's criticism, quoted above, that these are separate claims with separate burdens, all that, is perfectly valid. If that is indeed the question we're answering here, well then I change my vote from 'Both' to 'BoP vests with No-Planer, not the Debunker'.

Last edited by Chanakya; 29th January 2020 at 05:28 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 06:49 PM   #59
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,548
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Sure, they're separate burdens, for separate claims.
CORRECT. That makes two of us who explicitly agree that key point... a couple of others seem to be heading that way implicitly. So we are still in the minority.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
These claims, be it God claims, or UFO claims, or Bigfoot, or in this case the plane thing, they don't arise in a vacuum. They arise out of the necessity to explain specific things (and, occasionally, things in general). In as much as you -- generic 'you' -- back any explanation, no matter how outre or how reasonable, the onus is on you to explain your reasons.[INSERT: >>'FOR YOUR OWN CLAIM' to make it explicitly clear]
CORRECT - AGAIN. My emphasis of the key point and suggested addition to make the meaning explicit.
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I'm afraid the seesaw analogy, as originally raised, conflated BoP with the quality of that proof -- as you yourself rightly pointed out -- but this is actually an apt metaphor to view this issue from. Again as you yourself say.
The metaphor is a good one - as I said previously "Nice try Horatius". It has two significant shortcomings:
1) It erroneously references "Burden of Proof" when it should be "Standard of Proof" thereby reinforcing one of the misunderstandings which persist in this thread.
2) It is only a "two party" metaphor when the legitimate metaphor for this 9/11 topic is AT LEAST three parties. Limiting it to two - ignoring the "official version" and force fitting the debate into a "truthers v debunkers" scenario is both a tactical and logical error. And yet another prime source of the confusion in the thread.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Clearly you disagree with my POV, yet I'm not sure how your reasoning leads you to a different conclusion than mine, given the commonalities in (some of) how we think about this. Let me break down my thoughts on this some:
We agree most of the basic principles. Our styles of explaining are different. Your application of the principles - in the next paragraph - leads you to a couple of conclusions which I disagree. However they are strictly off topic for debate of BoP which is the thread topic. That said I will comment on a couple of issues where we may disagree and addressing at this stage ONLY your next sentence. Let's take a rain check on the remainder:

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
The basic issue here is the events of 9/11, that is what we need to explain1. If we say "Planes"2, and the plane-skeptic simply questions our narrative3 without themselves forwarding any alternative theory4 -- that is, they stay at the centre of the seesaw5 -- then they carry no burden of proof at all6, it is we who do7.
1) Too global and it presumes we have a burden to "explain" - why did we take that tactical path? (And set that consideration aside until I explain the next couiple of points which should make it clearer where I am coming from.) (OK - outlining reasons in brief. The truther is claiming 'no-planes' equivalent to saying 'the official narrative is wrong when it says "planes"'. Why should we take on the job or proving 'planes'? Make the truther prove his claim of 'no-planes'.)

2)
I wouldn't say 'Planes' as I have explained generically several times. (And maybe not clearly enough) I would say something to the effect of 'The extant hypothesis says "planes" - you are claiming "no-planes" - it is your BoP to prove "no-planes" '. AKA confront the truther up front with the reality of BoP And I may continue to respond to the truthers claims but framing my responses as "the extant hypothesis says...." - which avoids or defers me accepting burden of proof for what the 'official version' has already published proof.

3) You are a step ahead of yourself. How can he question OUR narrative unless you have already made the tactical error of assuming BoP for the 'official version'? I avoid falling for the tactical rap and I would be very explicit in identifying that he challenges the extant hypothesis. Never given a truther or troll an inch of undeserved advantage UNLESS you do it with deliberate tactical intent. The 'official version' and supporting professional papers have done most of the hard work of proof. Why take more onto yourself than is strictly necessary? UNLESS - as I have said - it is a deliberate tactical choice.

4) Reserve that aspect for later discussion.

5) You have already introduced the 'official version' subsumed in 'our narrative'. So a 'two way' see saw analogy fails. As I think we have agreed.

6) Not so. It depends how 'soft' you play. The fact that they are debating 'no-plane' already attracts BoP to them for that claim even if they make no additional claims.

7) Only if we have made a tactical error - or deliberate choice. The discussion of this moot scenario is about a truther claim which at the very least is that the 'official narrative' is WRONG to claim planes were used. And it is likely that the truther has made the claim explicit i.e. made an affirmative claim of 'no-planes'.

'We' - actually the singular 'you' involved - have nothing to defend UNLESS you have made a counter claim. One trivial exception. A truther claims 'no-planes'. You take the minimalist opening position and respond 'The extant hypothesis AKA "official narrative" says there were planes - you truther claim no-planes. your claim. You prove it.' At that stage all you have to prove is that the 'official narrative' says no planes. Which should be given even with the slowest thinking truther. And a trivial task if it is the response...but why debate with someone of that level of dishonesty?

So - have fun Chankya. I have no doubt we agree the basics. I've suggested some differences on application of those basic principles.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th January 2020 at 06:54 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2020, 04:26 AM   #60
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,915
What we are discussing here is the events of 9/11, to which there are two sides:

a) Extant observations that both the planer, the no-planer, and the plane-agnostic have equal access to and all sides acknowledge exist
b) Explanations of how these observations come about

b) is commonly called "theories".

In the case of, say, the Pentagon, a) includes
  1. >100 witness statements from very shortly after the event to years later
  2. Photographs of debris and damage
  3. Two security cam image sequences showing a large fireball and smoke, and in a frame right before that blurry greyish-bluish blobs popping up and disappearing
  4. Radar data released by government agencies
  5. ATC recordings released by official agencies
  6. Documentation of the fires and damage in the Pentagon
  7. Materials entered as evidence into various court cases and subsequently published
  8. Reports with claims that all victims have been identified by DNA from human remains retrieved inside the Pentagon damage area; remains which subsequently have been released to their families and been buried.
  9. Information about flight AA77, the alleged hijackers, military SOPs, etc. etc.
The opposing sides of the debate do not really differ by the evidence entered into the debate, but rather by their weighing and interpretimg that evidence. I.e. reasoning. "Reasoning" is what turns "evidence" into "proof" (allowing for invalid reasoning and invalid conclusions).

What the common "planer" does is look at the full extent of the extant evidence, and argue that almost all of it is consistent with AA77 having been hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. And that is how their Burden of Proof has been met: They actually do have a theory that attempts to explain the extant evidence, and fails little of it (so discard some witness testimony that goes against the others, for example, and point out that witness testimony is generally considered to be prone to error)

What the common "no-planer" does is generally NOT to advance a theory that explains the extant evidence! They discard most of the evidence, by either ignoring it altogether, or declaring it to be faked (but without showing evidence for fakery), to reject the "plane" theory, but fail to substitute the "plane" theory with another one that actually explains the remaining evidence. So not only have they not met their Burden of Proof, they have not even met their "Burden of Theory".
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.