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.
Tags 9/11 , 9/11 conspiracy theories , 9/11 truthers , truthers

Reply
Old 30th March 2020, 10:14 AM   #241
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Since it has been nearly 19 years from the event, and not one person has come forward to announce an involvement by any branch of the government in planning/execution of the 9/11 attacks, one could support that with rather high certainty, that the government was not involved with planning/execution of the 9/11 attack. Notice I did not indicate a 100 % certainty.

Disprove that.
One thing that bothers me is the phrase "the government" as if it's some monolith. It's highly fractured, which is one of the reasons that 9/11 actually happened. Info was not shared. Robust firewalls and strong agency tradition prevented sharing.

Just look at the response to Covid-19. It's disjointed. This is not a bug, but a feature. Which is the problem the OP is trying to address. Even if someone in the CIA wanted the USAF to not scramble fighters, it's going to take some co-ordination at very high levels. Also, it would lead to a different inquiry. Why didn't they react? A smaller conspiracy doesn't solve problems. It creates them.
Leftus 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 March 2020, 10:49 AM   #242
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,212
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
One thing that bothers me is the phrase "the government" as if it's some monolith. It's highly fractured, which is one of the reasons that 9/11 actually happened. Info was not shared. Robust firewalls and strong agency tradition prevented sharing.

Just look at the response to Covid-19. It's disjointed. This is not a bug, but a feature. Which is the problem the OP is trying to address. Even if someone in the CIA wanted the USAF to not scramble fighters, it's going to take some co-ordination at very high levels. Also, it would lead to a different inquiry. Why didn't they react? A smaller conspiracy doesn't solve problems. It creates them.
I can accept that, perhaps I should have typed any part of the government.
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 30th March 2020, 11:48 AM   #243
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,521
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And it's a list now? Where would you like me to start? For example before I was about 5 years old I believed in Santa Claus, I obviously got that wrong.
Hold on, using Marcello Truzzi nobody can definitively state that there is no Santa Claus.

Saint Nicholas of Myra was a real person, and in your world view there is no shelf life for institutions doing the same shadowy deeds. Using your logic it is safe to say that Santa Claus is 58% real, 40% a Christian conspiracy of Bishops slipping into every house in the world to deliver toys, and 2% Eggnog (as a control).

To my knowledge there has been no official or serious investigation into the existence of Santa Claus in spite of over 100 years of claims by children to the contrary.

If you say that there is no reason to investigate the existence of Santa Claus then you have joined Truzzi's world of Pseudoskeptics...don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter...
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 March 2020, 12:07 PM   #244
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Hold on, using Marcello Truzzi nobody can definitively state that there is no Santa Claus.
As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

He accepted the argument, surely so can you. Also, your silly retorts in no way make you any less of a pseudo-skeptic, as demonstrated exhaustively in this thread.
__________________
"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 30th March 2020, 12:26 PM   #245
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,647
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

He accepted the argument, surely so can you. Also, your silly retorts in no way make you any less of a pseudo-skeptic, as demonstrated exhaustively in this thread.
oh, my kid was going to tell the other kids there was no Santa... I explained, no Santa, no toys - yes, Santa exists - you lost this one

project much pseudo-skeptic - did dad save money that Christmas - math proves no presents this year - cool


Thus math prevents you from
Explaining your claim. the 50/45/5 opinion based on {}
Explaining the 5%. Is it CD, explosives, remote control aircraft?
Explaining what is the 45% MIHOP.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 30th March 2020 at 01:03 PM. Reason: {}
beachnut 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 March 2020, 01:02 PM   #246
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,919
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...
3. Even if it were impossible to prove a claim, that's still no reason to consider the claim true. "It's impossible to prove this claim therefor I'm believing it" - seriously, think that one through for a second.
...
Why didn't I catch the problem with this one earlier?
You present a strawman argument here.

You see, no one says they believe a global negative because ("therefore") it's practically impossible to prove.
We believe the negative "no government agency MIHOP 9/11" because there exists no prima facie evidence to believe the contrary, no theory thereof, no nothing, but there exists plenty of evidence-based reasons to reject the plausibility of such a vague proposition.

Now if you construe this as us making a claim of having "Truth", absolute certainty: I think you would again be erecting a strawman, for I am sure most of us (I can speak for myself, and feel comfortable including Axxman300, pgimeno, Dave Rogers) believe it is exceedingly unlikely that 9/11 can be characterized as a MIHOP by some US or allied government agency.

This is where your pseudo-scientific misapplication of the maximum entropy principle comes in: I think we actually apply it intuitively more validly than you do. To pretend that the issue is correctly modeled as a dilemma, and to assign equal probability to both sides under the pretense that both sides have equal (zero) evidence are both gross errors of perception of reality.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 March 2020, 02:54 PM   #247
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
LP does not have an axiom of non-contradiction.
And modus ponens is invalid in LP, as even Priest says.
__________________
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 30th March 2020, 04:37 PM   #248
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)
I asked you to show me how they were inconsistent.

All you have shown me is two conclusions that you can derive from this premise, you have not showed me how they are inconsistent.

Being able to derive two conclusions from one premise does not demonstrate inconsistency.

Are you perhaps suggesting that these two conclusions are inconsistent with each other because something cannot be simultaneously true and false?
__________________
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"

Last edited by Robin; 30th March 2020 at 04:39 PM.
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 30th March 2020, 06:15 PM   #249
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.
I see this flawed argument often.

Santa Claus, if he existed, would have visited the houses only that contained children that had been good for an entire year.

Any parent who has tried to get their children to be good for an entire day would be wondering what Santa did for the rest of Christmas Eve.
__________________
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 30th March 2020, 08:10 PM   #250
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,521
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

He accepted the argument, surely so can you. Also, your silly retorts in no way make you any less of a pseudo-skeptic, as demonstrated exhaustively in this thread.
And it never occurred to you that Santa Claus is CIA?

Then his magical powers are consistent with MIHOP.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 31st March 2020, 01:11 AM   #251
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: 30,822
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Sure, you can start with the following post by smartcooky:


It should be an interesting list as almost every claim in it is demonstrably wrong.
The only issue I would take with it is that the last two words should be replaced by "a sensible conclusion, unless and until any contrary evidence arises."

Smartcooky, are you OK with that?

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 31st March 2020, 02:15 AM   #252
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And modus ponens is invalid in LP, as even Priest says.
Good thing then that nobody claimed that. For reference, here is what actually happened:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
There is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction
LP does not have an axiom of non-contradiction.
You've made the claim that there is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, when you were shown wrong you changed the subject to a different claim (that modus ponens is invalid in LP). Did you really think I would fall for that?

So do you retract your claim that there is no paraconsistent logic without an axiom of non-contradiction?
__________________
"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 31st March 2020, 02:20 AM   #253
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I asked you to show me how they were inconsistent.

All you have shown me is two conclusions that you can derive from this premise, you have not showed me how they are inconsistent.

Being able to derive two conclusions from one premise does not demonstrate inconsistency.

Are you perhaps suggesting that these two conclusions are inconsistent with each other because something cannot be simultaneously true and false?
Here is what actually happened:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So you are saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent???

Please be explicit that this is what you are saying.
Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)
You claimed that an argument can't prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent, when you were shown wrong you changed the subject to demanding of me to show the argument is inconsistent.

Do you retract your claim that an argument can not prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent?

Changing the subject when your claims are shown wrong (twice in a row now) doesn't bode too well for your intellectual honesty.
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 31st March 2020 at 02:31 AM.
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 31st March 2020, 02:26 AM   #254
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The only issue I would take with it is that the last two words should be replaced by "a sensible conclusion, unless and until any contrary evidence arises."
That speaks volumes. Let's see if you're being honest here rather than, as I suspect, just having a personalized ulterior motive and being willing to support any random nonsense for it. Here is one of the claims you take no issue with:

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The negative claim carries no burden of proof as its proof is the absence of evidence. This is a technical way of saying that you cannot prove a negative.
Here's a negative claim: "There are no planets around stars in GN-z11."

By smartcooky's argument, which you agree with, absence of evidence of such planets is proof of this claim. Therefor GN-z11 is a very special galaxy that, unlike the Milky Way, has no planets around its stars. Agreed? Would you be willing to publish a paper claiming to have proof that there are no planets around stars in GN-z11 because there is no evidence of them? Want to have a bet how reviewers' comments on such paper would look like?
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 31st March 2020 at 02:34 AM.
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 31st March 2020, 02:39 AM   #255
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You've made the claim that there is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, when you were shown wrong you changed the subject to a different claim (that modus ponens is invalid in LP). Did you really think I would fall for that?

So do you retract your claim that there is no paraconsistent logic without an axiom of non-contradiction?
Here is what I said (without the relevant parts carefully snipped out):
Originally Posted by robin
There is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, by definition a logic that leaves this out would be an inconsistent logic, which as I said, are just toys for logicians.

Paraconsistent logics have this axiom but it is relaxed in some cases.
And this is true of LP.

The axiom of non-contradiction is retained for reasoning about sentences that are not paradoxical. I just re-read The Logic of Paradox where Priest defines it to check this.

So thanks for giving me an example that confirms what I said.

So, tell me again, why should I retract it???
__________________
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"

Last edited by Robin; 31st March 2020 at 02:42 AM.
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 31st March 2020, 02:42 AM   #256
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Here is what I said (without the relevant parts carefully snipped out):

And this is true of LP.

The axiom of non-contradiction is retained for reasoning about sentences that are not paradoxical. I just re-read The Logic of Paradox where Priest defines it to confirm this.

So thanks for giving me an example that confirms what I said.

So, tell me again, why should I retract it???
That's funny, I vaguely seem to remember someone telling me that just because something is true in a subset of a logic that doesn't mean it is true in the whole logic.

Are you willing to change your claim to "In paraconsistent logics the principle of non-contradiction is retained in special cases but not in general"?
__________________
"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 31st March 2020, 02:54 AM   #257
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: 30,822
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Here's a negative claim: "There are no planets around stars in GN-z11."
Not relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was quite clear about that. But in any case, there is evidence to the contrary, in that planets are commonly observed around stars with a frequency very much greater than one per galaxy, so a reasonable provisional conclusion would be that the claim is false.

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

- Myriad

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 31st March 2020 at 02:56 AM.
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 31st March 2020, 03:06 AM   #258
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Here is what actually happened:
You claimed that an argument can't prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent, when you were shown wrong some irrelevant inference you changed the subject to demanding of me to show the argument is inconsistent.
In this case I misread what you were responding to, I assumed you were responding to:
Originally Posted by robin
Show me any two well formed propositions in propositional calculus that are not consistent with each other and explain why they are inconsistent.
When in fact you were responding to:

Originally Posted by robin
So you are saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent???

Please be explicit that this is what you are saying.
Your answer was
Quote:
Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)
Which doesn't seem to relate in any way to what I said.

I asked you to be explicit that you were saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of th argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent

You still haven't responded to that.
Quote:
Do you retract your claim that an argument can not prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent?
Nope, do you confirm that you think I am wrong in saying this?
__________________
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 31st March 2020, 04:50 AM   #259
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 45,471
Mod WarningIf you want a philosophical discussion on the nature of argument, please take it to a more appropriate thread.

In this thread, please keep to the subject, which is "How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...".

Thank you.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 31st March 2020, 06:18 AM   #260
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
So let's back up a few days to before this went meta am

The claim was:

Quote:
Sure, if you gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there then it's trivial to debunk because it indeed runs into major issues. None of that was specified in this thread though, it's also quite lazy skepticism going after the lowest-hanging fruit.
And for reference the "low hanging fruit" that the OP. was about includes:

Architects and Engineers for Truth
Pilots for Truth
CIT
A certain senior lecturer in International Relations in Lincoln University (who studied at Oxford).

I am pretty new to the 9/11 Truth field. Who are the individuals or groups, for example, who are prosecuting the theory that the CIA or some other agency had convinced the Jihadis to undertake this operation?
__________________
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 31st March 2020, 07:08 AM   #261
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,919
*deleted after spotting mod box*
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 31st March 2020 at 07:15 AM.
Oystein 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 31st March 2020, 07:12 AM   #262
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,919
*deleted after spotting mod box*
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 31st March 2020 at 07:14 AM.
Oystein 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 31st March 2020, 07:42 AM   #263
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,212
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
For the past 6 days this thread has been nothing but a philosophical argument about the nature of argument, from.approximately post #60, so only the first 20% of it or so was on topic. I am interested in why you are only calling this out now.
Which only leads to the extension of discussion, one of the many tricks that CTs "produce" to continue the debate, not to find a conclusion but in hopes of winning out by attrition.
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 31st March 2020, 08:49 AM   #264
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,647
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
... doesn't bode too well for your intellectual honesty.
Back to the topic...

Quote:
caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.
What is everything else?

You claim it is 45% the government made it happen, is that based on {}?

Explain your claim of 50/45/5? It would be interesting.

Explain the 5%. What is it?

Explain what is the 45% MIHOP.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 31st March 2020, 02:31 PM   #265
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Back to the topic...



What is everything else?



You claim it is 45% the government made it happen, is that based on {}?



Explain your claim of 50/45/5? It would be interesting.



Explain the 5%. What is it?



Explain what is the 45% MIHOP.
Hold on, you are not back on topic, you are still doing the philosophical discussion of the nature of argument.
__________________
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 31st March 2020, 02:38 PM   #266
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
One thing that bothers me is the phrase "the government" as if it's some monolith. It's highly fractured, which is one of the reasons that 9/11 actually happened. Info was not shared. Robust firewalls and strong agency tradition prevented sharing.

Just look at the response to Covid-19. It's disjointed. This is not a bug, but a feature. Which is the problem the OP is trying to address. Even if someone in the CIA wanted the USAF to not scramble fighters, it's going to take some co-ordination at very high levels. Also, it would lead to a different inquiry. Why didn't they react? A smaller conspiracy doesn't solve problems. It creates them.
Exactly.
Allen773 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 31st March 2020, 03:24 PM   #267
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Again, does the OP "gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there" in order to get a trivial refutation?

I can cite a peer-reviewed paper by a senior academic in a top 20 British university who claims that 85% of "truth researchers" would agree on just the kinds of propositions that the OP focuses on.

Again, who are the individuals and groups who are claiming that 9/11 was caused by some government agency or group infiltrating the Islamic extremist network and convincing some of them to carry out the hijack.

I am genuinely interested in reading these claims in the claimants' own words.
__________________
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 31st March 2020, 03:43 PM   #268
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,521
The CIA was a stunted place in 2001.

The Aldridge Aims scandal had left deep scars in all of the directorates. Worse, the FBI had been charged with the mole hunt instead of their own internal affairs, and this lead to the open hostility between the two agencies which became the important backdrop to the intelligence failures of 911.

Nobody was initiating black ops which entailed any risk. Officers were under orders not to co-opt sources who didn't have a squeaky clean criminal or human rights record. The Clinton Administration's NSC had moved the CIA and NSA's focus to industrial espionage. Airbus complained that Boeing had access to their emails detailing strategy back in the late 1990's, and now they think they have enough proof to go to court:

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...ts-allege.html

Sure, some companies make money off of war, but more companies benefit from their government turning their massive surveillance machine toward economic skulduggery.

The CIA that could pull off a 911 attack and hide it exists only in Gerard Butler and Liam Neeson movies.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 31st March 2020, 03:45 PM   #269
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The CIA was a stunted place in 2001.

The Aldridge Aims scandal had left deep scars in all of the directorates. Worse, the FBI had been charged with the mole hunt instead of their own internal affairs, and this lead to the open hostility between the two agencies which became the important backdrop to the intelligence failures of 911.
Whereas the FBI, of course, was dealing with such fun stuff like Ruby Ridge, Waco — and Robert Hanssen, who was eventually caught. In early 2001.

The entire US national security structure (and hell, much of the federal government as a whole ) had been set up to explicitly counter the USSR. After 1991, practically every department and agency’s very mission was in limbo.

Meanwhile, everybody in the post-Cold War era was screwing up and having major PR crises, from the scandal-prone Clinton administration to the US military itself in humanitarian/peacekeeping operations gone awry. This was the era after the End of History, where globalization and free trade capitalism would solve all problems and Democrats and Republicans could compromise on ending the Era of Big Government and Peace Dividends even as politics became an increasingly partisan bloodsport between Gingrich Republicans and Clinton Democrats.

The general public — and many in government — were more worried about drug dealers, school shooters (Columbine), and illegal immigrants from Mexico than they were about suicide bombing Islamist terrorists, which most people assumed was a problem for Israel, not America. (Obviously, we’re still worried about illegal immigrants — look at who the President is now — and the rest of the aforementioned, but since 9/11 we’ve added Radical Islamic Terrorism to the list of things to be scared about).

To the extent terrorism was a problem, or seen as a problem within the US, it was the Unabomber and Oklahoma City and Eric Rudolph. A lot of people assumed that the 1993 WTC bombing was a one-off, rather than the beginning of sustained operations that led to 9/11. And besides, the FBI got all or most of the guys who did that, right?

Bottom line: Americans were more worried about Y2K and more interested in the lurid details of Bill Clinton’s sex life than they were about the threat posed by al-Qaeda. And the US government declared victory after the fall of the USSR, and deliberately cut budgets across the board. The free market won, Communism lost, and the New World Order was upon us, and liberal democracy would eventually spread everywhere organically and naturally, because why wouldn’t everyone in the world want to emulate the US? That was the general attitude from 1991-9/11/2001.

Last edited by Allen773; 31st March 2020 at 04:08 PM.
Allen773 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 31st March 2020, 06:52 PM   #270
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
It is hard to believe that there were many in the US government who longed for a pretext to become involved in a long, expensive, futile engagement with Afghanistan - a country with no resources or strategic importance - which could not lead to anything except a humiliating surrender to the Taliban many years down the track.
__________________
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 1st April 2020, 01:33 AM   #271
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It is hard to believe that there were many in the US government who longed for a pretext to become involved in a long, expensive, futile engagement with Afghanistan
You misspelled profitable, which also incidentally answers your question why people in the US government - or at least their corporate backers in the military industry - may want to become involved in such engagements.
__________________
"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 1st April 2020, 02:46 AM   #272
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,212
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You misspelled profitable, which also incidentally answers your question why people in the US government - or at least their corporate backers in the military industry - may want to become involved in such engagements.
I see what you did and there was no misspelled word.
Additionally you used a word that is not very strong in the CTs language so we will pass on the last bit of the sentence. No conclusive proof or anyone stated that he/she/any government agency were involved in any plot concerning the 9/11 attack.

You loose again.
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 1st April 2020, 03:02 AM   #273
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
My Dad was an international arms dealer. I could never work out why we weren't rich. I mean we weren't poor none, but just an ordinary house in the suburbs and a Holden Kingswood. Not even a swimming pool.

I guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to start wars and suchlike.

Come to think of it, the company made a loss while the Vietnam war was still going and became profitable afterwards.
__________________
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 1st April 2020, 04:21 AM   #274
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
My Dad was an international arms dealer. I could never work out why we weren't rich. I mean we weren't poor none, but just an ordinary house in the suburbs and a Holden Kingswood. Not even a swimming pool.

I guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to start wars and suchlike.

Come to think of it, the company made a loss while the Vietnam war was still going and became profitable afterwards.


Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."
__________________
"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 1st April 2020, 04:36 AM   #275
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: 3,349
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post


Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."
I assume, Captain Logic, that you have based those examples on research, rather than assumptions. For this, you must of course know which company Robin's father worked for, and what his role in it was. This would be the only way to ensure that 'selling bananas at a market stall' was a valid comparison point.
Perhaps you'd like to share your working here? You can omit the actual names if you want. Just the general picture will be fine. Thanks.
__________________
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 1st April 2020, 05:30 AM   #276
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: 30,822
This is what happens when you allow people making vague claims to reverse the burden of proof. It matters not one jot, for the purpose of discussion of the events of 9/11, whether the war in Afghanistan benefited particular people or institutions when the preponderance of evidence suggests no connection between those people and institutions and the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks. There is as much evidence to connect the US government to the planning of 9/11 as there is the Belgian government, and until that changes there is nothing more than a claim offered without evidence.

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 1st April 2020, 05:32 AM   #277
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,212
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post


Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."
You are not very adept at the history of revolutions when it comes to natural resources in this case oil. One of the first actions that new governments take when a revolution changes the governments is to invalidate all contracts/agreements concerning oil sales (namely nationalizing the whole industry). Now if you don't know what that means, then I'll explain the new government takes control of 100% of all the ownership/sales of oil, not whatever the previous % was. In most if not all cases the oil company has <50%. So the ownership goes from say 49% to 0% for the oil companies. How is that protecting the profits of oil companies? You really should do your homework before spouting such nonsense.
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 1st April 2020, 06:19 AM   #278
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I assume, Captain Logic, that you have based those examples on research, rather than assumptions. For this, you must of course know which company Robin's father worked for, and what his role in it was. This would be the only way to ensure that 'selling bananas at a market stall' was a valid comparison point.
Perhaps you'd like to share your working here? You can omit the actual names if you want. Just the general picture will be fine. Thanks.
Given that major arms manufacturers have yearly profits in the millions and even billions of dollars it is obvious that Robin's dad wasn't a major arms manufacturer if he couldn't even afford a swimming pool for his house.
__________________
"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 1st April 2020, 06:48 AM   #279
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post


Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."
Was in fact quite a significant figure in the design provision of war ships to governments around the world at the time, even after their parent company was nationalised.

The point is, wars are not necessarily good for providers of military hardware.

I notice that Boeing didn't have any kind of stellar performance in the years following 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why don't you go ahead and name the companies you have in mind that made huge profits during that time and we will see if it is plausible that they could have thought that murdering thousands of Americans was a good business plan to get those profits.

I eagerly await your list.
__________________
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 1st April 2020, 06:56 AM   #280
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,018
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Given that major arms manufacturers have yearly profits in the millions and even billions of dollars it is obvious that Robin's dad wasn't a major arms manufacturer if he couldn't even afford a swimming pool for his house.
It was the admiralty research division of one of the biggest ship builders in the world at the time.

He was managing director of the Australian branch which had been making a loss for the years preceding the time he took over.

He took the branch to profitability and made back all the losses of the previous years, so I am pretty confident in his assessment of the market.

In order to achieve the cost cuttings he made all of the staff redundant except for himself and engaged contractors when needed. When you have just sacked all of your friends on the basis of keeping the branch afloat, you don't award yourself a massive salary increase.
__________________
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
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 04:06 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.