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 27th March 2020, 10:36 AM   #121
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Prove your innocence, folks. It’s just as important as proving your guilt.
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 27th March 2020, 10:43 AM   #122
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, in fact, I'm not. You're committing the fallacy of argument from incredulity, by claiming that it's impossible to sink a ship without killing some of the people on board. I'm pointing out that it is in fact relatively straightforward to do so, therefore you cannot conclude that sinking a ship implies killing people. I don't need to conclude that Northwoods specifically excludes deaths; you're the one making the affirmative claim (that Northwoods is evidence that the US government is prepared to kill its own citizens in false flag attacks), so all I need to do is point out that your evidence doesn't support the claim.
I didn't say that it's impossible to sink a ship without killing some of the people on board, I said that sinking a ship is likely to kill some of the people on board.

Quote:
The refugees needn't be in on the plan, and the people being wounded in fake assassination attempts needn't not be in on it. And, of course,
This is what you said:
Quote:
And, of course, it's perfectly straightforward to sink a boat without killing anyone on board; you simply have the rescue vessel take everyone off, sink the boat, then say, "We picked this boatload of people out of the sea after the Cubans sank their boat."
The refugees involved would be perfectly aware that they were picked up before the boat sank and not afterwards, hence they would need to be in on it lest they contradict the desired story.
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 10:45 AM   #123
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Prove your innocence, folks. It’s just as important as proving your guilt.
Oh right, using judicial social practice as a substitute for logical reasoning, another box on the pseudo-skeptic list.
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 10:47 AM   #124
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Oh right, using judicial social practice as a substitute for logical reasoning, another box on the pseudo-skeptic list.
This is boring. Maybe you should brush up on your own logical reasoning skills before discussing serious stuff.

Last edited by Allen773; 27th March 2020 at 10:49 AM.
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 27th March 2020, 10:52 AM   #125
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...neither I nor anyone else in this thread claimed there was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. ...
And yet you have said explicitly that such a covert government (US? Other?) involvement is as likely as the "Al Qaeda alone" scenario, right?

What do you base these essentially equal probability percentages on? Evidence? Imagination?

You see, there are multiple wide, long, large trails of evidence implicating Al Qaeda.
There is some evidence of Al Qaeda receiving money from Saudi sources, coordinated via embassy and consulates.
What evidence is there that it all links back to some (or the US?) government MAKING 9/11 happen - as in actively conjuring up, planning and executing the framing of AQ? Zero evidence, right?



So what EVIDENCE is your 50:50 assessment of AQ:MIHOP based on?
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 10:54 AM   #126
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And yet you have said explicitly that such a covert government (US? Other?) involvement is as likely as the "Al Qaeda alone" scenario, right?

What do you base these essentially equal probability percentages on? Evidence? Imagination?

You see, there are multiple wide, long, large trails of evidence implicating Al Qaeda.
There is some evidence of Al Qaeda receiving money from Saudi sources, coordinated via embassy and consulates.
What evidence is there that it all links back to some (or the US?) government MAKING 9/11 happen - as in actively conjuring up, planning and executing the framing of AQ? Zero evidence, right?



So what EVIDENCE is your 50:50 assessment of AQ:MIHOP based on?
Something something Northwoods something something Gladio
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 27th March 2020, 10:55 AM   #127
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
This is boring. Maybe you should brush up on your own logical reasoning skills before discussing serious stuff.
My goodness what a charade.
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 10:56 AM   #128
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...just because there would be no known precedent doesn't mean there is no precedent.
But it means there is no EVIDENCE of precedent, and basing probability estimates on precedent that is NOT IN EVIDENCE is equivalent to making up ****. It is all in your head - alone. It is Conspiracy Theorists who think that way - only them. It's called "projection": They think it's what they would do if they were in power. Which is why it is important to make sure Conspiracy Theories and Theorists never gain the upper hand politically.

There is a 50:50 probability they would mass murder all debunkers and non-CTists.
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 10:57 AM   #129
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
My goodness what a charade.
Describing yourself again?
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 27th March 2020, 10:57 AM   #130
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And yet you have said explicitly that such a covert government (US? Other?) involvement is as likely as the "Al Qaeda alone" scenario, right?

What do you base these essentially equal probability percentages on? Evidence? Imagination?
The principle of maximum entropy.

Quote:
You see, there are multiple wide, long, large trails of evidence implicating Al Qaeda.
There is some evidence of Al Qaeda receiving money from Saudi sources, coordinated via embassy and consulates.
What evidence is there that it all links back to some (or the US?) government MAKING 9/11 happen - as in actively conjuring up, planning and executing the framing of AQ? Zero evidence, right?
And what evidence is there that some government did not make 9/11 happen? Zero evidence, right? We're going in circles here.
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 11:00 AM   #131
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
What evidence is there that I did not make 9/11 happen? Or Oystein, or Dave Rogers, or Axxman, or indeed, you, caveman1917?

Lots of uncertainty here, after all....

Last edited by Allen773; 27th March 2020 at 11:02 AM.
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 27th March 2020, 11:02 AM   #132
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...
1. Of course you can prove a negative, we do this all the time.
...
How?
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 11:05 AM   #133
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
How?
Well Oystein, I can prove that you weren’t involved in making 9/11 happen. I can also prove that you were. The two are equally probable.
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 27th March 2020, 11:12 AM   #134
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The principle of maximum entropy.
Hmmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princi...aximum_entropy

Can you show your work and why you arrived at the rather precise estimate of 50%:45%?
Which numbers were your input, which mathematical operations did you perform based on what model assumptions, and did this approach result in the probabilities you provided? Yes - or rather NO? (Hint: I bolded the correct answer)

If the answer is "No" (and it is!!), you just made up ****. Unless the "principle of maximum entropy" states that in all unproven dychotomies, no matter the distribution of evidence, the result is always "50:50". Which it isn't.

In other word: You just made up ****.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And what evidence is there that some government did not make 9/11 happen? Zero evidence, right? We're going in circles here.
Classical reversal of Burden of Evidence. You are desperate to find at least one person here who falls for this old, worn (and sillily invalid) Truther ploy, right?
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 11:12 AM   #135
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Describing yourself again?
You're embarrassing yourself. But since you seem to be impervious to reason, perhaps employing a fallacy (in particular an appeal to authority) may work. Let's start with your hilarious claim that you "can't prove a negative" as explained here.

Originally Posted by Hales
A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.
Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’ Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
Here's your homework: Derive the law of non-contradiction in the way indicated in this paper, show us the "boring details." After that we'll move on to your other pseudo-logical nonsense.
__________________
"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; 27th March 2020 at 11:57 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 27th March 2020, 11:24 AM   #136
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hmmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princi...aximum_entropy

Can you show your work and why you arrived at the rather precise estimate of 50%:45%?
Which numbers were your input, which mathematical operations did you perform based on what model assumptions, and did this approach result in the probabilities you provided? Yes - or rather NO? (Hint: I bolded the correct answer)

If the answer is "No" (and it is!!)
Bold of you to declare what the answer is to a technical question in a formalism which you hadn't even heard of until 5 minutes ago. Too bad that it's the wrong answer, the maximum entropy distribution over a universe with 2 outcomes under no constraints is, in fact, 50/50.

Quote:
Classical reversal of Burden of Evidence. You are desperate to find at least one person here who falls for this old, worn (and sillily invalid) Truther ploy, right?
Blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is that there is neither evidence for covert involvement nor against covert involvement, giving us 50/50 as the maximum entropy distribution.
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 11:31 AM   #137
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Well Oystein, I can prove that you weren’t involved in making 9/11 happen. I can also prove that you were. The two are equally probable.
You mean you can NOT prove I weren't involved and you can NOT prove I was, right?

Now a claim that I was (or wasn't) involved is quite specific - far more specific than what Caveman claims: That some (unspecified) agency within some (unspecified government) was involved actively at some (unspecified) level by doing something (unspecified) that can be characterized as MIHOP.

It is difficult enough to probe I was not involved, especially today: There is such scant evidence of what I did and didn't do prior to 9/11: There probably exists some evidence that I was in NYC at the end of the 1990s (photos should be somewhere, I probably still have my old passport with the entry stamp from La Guardia), so there is initial evidence that I could have been on a spying mission back then. Some US services probably still have some records stored somewhere about my trip. But otherwise? My email accounts and computers of the time no longer exist, the data is probably irretrievably deleted. Evidence of my employment is severly limited, as more than 20 years have passed, and anyway me receiving wages and what not could have been a front, right? So there is plenty of room for me to have helped organize 9/11 - and evidence to be evasive.

By the principle of maximum entropy, I just learned, this means there is an almost 50% chance I did 9/11.

And also a 50% that you did 9/11

And also a 50% that Caveman did 9/11!!!

But wait, wait ... the Wiki article on Principle of maximum entropy states that, if no testable information exists, Entropy maximization
Quote:
... respects the universal "constraint" that the sum of the probabilities is one. Under this constraint, the maximum entropy discrete probability distribution is the uniform distribution,
pi = 1/n for all i i element of {1, ..., n}
There were what - 6 billion or so people alive in 2001? Then each had a probability of having masterminded 9/11 of 1/6,000,000,000.

Unless there was evidence that Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammend were behind it...




But I digress:
Proving that I, specifically, did NOT do it is difficult enough - more difficult than proving I did it IF I did it.

But proving that no one out of hundreds of thousands of individuals anywhere in a position to be involved with covert government operations was involved is the kind of global negative that USUALLY cannot be proven, and demanding evidence to prove that kind of a negative is disingenuous.
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 11:36 AM   #138
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Hi Caveman,

how would you go about proving this negative?
Quote:
Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.
Or in general: How do you go about proving a global negative claim such as "No government agency was involved in Making 9/11 Happen on Purpose"?

Is it practically possible to prove such a negative?
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 11:41 AM   #139
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Bold of you to declare what the answer is to a technical question in a formalism which you hadn't even heard of until 5 minutes ago. Too bad that it's the wrong answer, the maximum entropy distribution over a universe with 2 outcomes under no constraints is, in fact, 50/50.
Explain your reasons to believe there are only 2 possible outcomes.
Explain your reasons to believe there are no constraints. Do you assume the weight of evidence is equal on both sides of the (alleged) 2 possible outcomes?

I think both assumptions are very obviously wrong.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is that there is neither evidence for covert involvement nor against covert involvement, giving us 50/50 as the maximum entropy distribution.
You misapply the principle.

There is of course also the possibility that aliens did 9/11, that it didn't happen and is just a weird dream we all share, and that four planes genuinely got off course accidentally that day. So that's five possible outcomes, and all have the same 20% probability, according to your method.

Of course that is totally silly. Please explain WHY that is silly!
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 12:12 PM   #140
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And I gave an example of one such theory claiming that 9/11 was an "inside job" and showed that it required no such large scale cooperation/coordination, thereby refuting the claim in the OP.
Beg your pardon, but have you seen any goalposts around these parts? I swore they were right here a post ago.


So do you now admit that your example conversation was disingenuous since you now acknowledge the existence of " anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "
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 27th March 2020, 12:22 PM   #141
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
But proving that no one out of hundreds of thousands of individuals anywhere in a position to be involved with covert government operations was involved is the kind of global negative that USUALLY cannot be proven, and demanding evidence to prove that kind of a negative is disingenuous.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hi Caveman,

how would you go about proving this negative?


Or in general: How do you go about proving a global negative claim such as "No government agency was involved in Making 9/11 Happen on Purpose"?

Is it practically possible to prove such a negative?
I'll just refer you to the third point I made in earlier post on this subject:

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.
I believe that the technical term for what you're doing is "whining." If you can't back up your claim then don't make it, it's that simple, and no amount of whining gets you out of the burden of proof for your claims.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Explain your reasons to believe there are only 2 possible outcomes.
Explain your reasons to believe there are no constraints. Do you assume the weight of evidence is equal on both sides of the (alleged) 2 possible outcomes?

I think both assumptions are very obviously wrong.
Wait, you mean that, like, the maximum entropy distribution depends on the choice of sample space? No, it can't be true! *Gasp* We should tell the world!

Quote:
You misapply the principle.

There is of course also the possibility that aliens did 9/11, that it didn't happen and is just a weird dream we all share, and that four planes genuinely got off course accidentally that day. So that's five possible outcomes, and all have the same 20% probability, according to your method.

Of course that is totally silly. Please explain WHY that is silly!
Fascinating how you immediately jump to pretending to be some sort of knowledgeable teacher on a subject you never even heard of until just earlier today.

Here's your homework as well:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Derive the law of non-contradiction in the way indicated in this paper, show us the "boring details."
We shall continue this discussion after your successful completion of it.
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 12:26 PM   #142
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Beg your pardon, but have you seen any goalposts around these parts? I swore they were right here a post ago.


So do you now admit that your example conversation was disingenuous since you now acknowledge the existence of " anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "
Giving an example of an hypothesis with a specific property is not the same as claiming the hypothesis to be true. As for your persistent claims of disingenuity, I think you might want to look up the - much referenced in this thread - concept of "projection".
__________________
"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 27th March 2020, 12:27 PM   #143
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not at all, it's possible to shoot people in the head in exactly the right way so that it doesn't actually kill them but merely wounds them. I would comment that your inability to understand how things can be done without killing people says more about your own imagination than the proclivities of any government. Like I said, your argument can be used regarding any statement short of literally using the term "kill".
It's "possible" that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, but there's no evidence to support that premise.

Thanks for proving, yet again, that CTists base their worldview on fiction, not fact.

Individuals that have survived headshots fall into three categories:

1. Incidents where the person intended to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head and botched it, or didn't use enough gun.

2. Incidents where a criminal actor shoots their victim in the head under the two circumstances above.

3. Incidents involving military or law enforcement gunfights where an individual is wearing a projectile resistant helmet, or under the same two circumstances noted above.

In the Marvel Comic Universe, headshots deliberately intended not to kill may be on the table, but that's the only universe that notion has any applicability.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 27th March 2020, 12:36 PM   #144
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'll just refer you to the third point I made in earlier post on this subject:



I believe that the technical term for what you're doing is "whining." If you can't back up your claim then don't make it, it's that simple, and no amount of whining gets you out of the burden of proof for your claims.



Wait, you mean that, like, the maximum entropy distribution depends on the choice of sample space? No, it can't be true! *Gasp* We should tell the world!



Fascinating how you immediately jump to pretending to be some sort of knowledgeable teacher on a subject you never even heard of until just earlier today.

Here's your homework as well:


We shall continue this discussion after your successful completion of it.
Thanks for not answering a single question I asked.
__________________
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 27th March 2020, 12:42 PM   #145
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
In general, the dilemma "A or NOT A" almost never has equal likelihoods for both options. The Principle of maximum entropy does not speak to that at all.

It is trivially simple to come up with any number of examples of this.

"Either dragons lived in the medieval age, or they didn't" - there is not a 50:50 chance that they did

"Either I am the most intelligent person on ISF, or I am not" - there is not a 50:50 a priori chance that I am

"Either Iran is working on a nuclear bomb, or they aren't" - there is not a 50:50 a priori chance that they are..

"Either some country is working on newly acquiring a nuclear bomb, or none are" - there is not a 50:50 a priori chance that no country out there is working on a nuclear bomb.

"Either caveman beats up little children regularly, or he doesn't" - well prove to me you don't. Until such time I shall claim there's a 50:50 chance you do.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 27th March 2020 at 12:44 PM.
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 27th March 2020, 01:20 PM   #146
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Statistics is "clear concise thought" on uncertain events. If your thoughts do not take the form of probability distributions over the set of possible hypotheses then you're doing thinking wrong.
So you are telling the readers that 9/11 didn't happen as current consensus tells. You still did not state what you think happened on 9/11 in a concise sentence or paragraph barring your statistical barrages.
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 27th March 2020, 01:48 PM   #147
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Giving an example of an hypothesis with a specific property is not the same as claiming the hypothesis to be true. As for your persistent claims of disingenuity, I think you might want to look up the - much referenced in this thread - concept of "projection".
So I provide exactly the evidence you claim doesn't exist and rather than accept it, you move the goalposts and deflect? And this is your evidence that you aren't being intentionally disingenuous?
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 27th March 2020, 06:23 PM   #148
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And that is your opinion, which is strongly contradicted by the historical knowledge available to us. Indeed, I have by now already pointed out two examples of covert operations that only came to light decades after the fact - the CryptoAG operation which had dozens of people involved and Operation Gladio which had hundreds of people involved. So the notion that any covert operation would almost immediately be leaked has no basis in fact. Basically your argument boils down to claiming that covert operations are generally impossible because "muh leaks" therefor the notion that covert involvement in this particular instance is "absurd, laughable, and offensive." If covert operations are impossible then one wonders why the CIA even still exists.
The OP of this thread was a response to this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=341275

Quote:
This was the OP for that thread:

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:
  1. Rehearse the handful of perspectives of flight 175 that will be broadcast live.
  2. The fireball will erupt from the south face of the South Tower.
  3. The rehearsed perspectives were from the north face of the North Tower (opposite the fireball).
  4. By design these rehearsed “live” perspectives will fail to capture the crash of the alleged plane.
  5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots.
  6. On the big day: from the same rehearsed perspectives, capture video footage of the fireball that erupted from the south face of the South Tower.
  7. Live television is never live; there is always a broadcast delay to prevent unwanted content from airing. Utilizing the broadcast delay of how ever many seconds were necessary,
  8. overlay the CGI animations onto the live videos of the fireball.
  9. Flatten the video layers of the CGI planes and the live fireball.
  10. Release the merged video layers as “live.”


How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
  1. Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.
  2. Rehearse each of their perspectives and create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match.
  3. The first fireball erupts from the north face of the North Tower.
  4. 18 minutes until the next fireball.
  5. All the live network broadcasts are capturing videos of the hole in the north face of the North Tower.
  6. Dozens of “amateur” cameras are capturing videos of the south face of the South Tower.
  7. The second fireball erupts, this time from the south face of the South Tower.
  8. The Networks broadcast live videos showing what looks like a plane crashing into the towers; the world is horrified.
  9. Each of the “amateur” photographers edits their respective video, removing what really cut the hole in the South Tower and adding a plane.
  10. The propaganda organs release these videos periodically over the following days, weeks, months and years.
And a continuation of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=59

This is the hill you've chosen to die upon.

Worse, you don't defend your side of the argument in a way that display's insight into the intelligence world and the CIA. You drag out a 67 year-old operation in Iran which involved over a hundred people based on the link you provided. Then you, like every CTist since 2001, wave Operation Northwind around as if it proves your case even though the operation was just a proposal by the Joint Chiefs, not the CIA, and was one of a dozen proposals shot down by JFK and RFK for being too risky.

If you knew 911 better you could defend your case by pointing out that in the case of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Al Qaeda was never named publicly by the FBI, DoJ, or NYC. But today all of the actors are linked to Al Qaeda in some way. If I was the guy arguing LIHOP I'd be asking why Ramzi Yousef's Al Qaeda training not emphasized in his trial in 1995? Why was there no aggressive investigation of his cell, which included his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I would also be asking what was in the documents former Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives which were DIRECTLY RELATED TO DECISIONS MADE BY HIM AND PRESIDENT CLINTON on actions related to Al Qaeda.

You want to argue LIHOP or MIHOP this is the way to go. You'll either go to work or stay at the kiddie table.
__________________
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 28th March 2020, 04:36 AM   #149
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Even if there was no known precedent then your conclusion still wouldn't follow because, again, just because there would be no known precedent doesn't mean there is no precedent.
Right, but without the basis for asserting that there's a precedent, all you have left is your personal bias. A pure rational person would at this point acknowledge this bias and drop it, but I guess that a pure rational person is about as fantastic as a government that doesn't lie, so I can't really blame you for not doing it.
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 March 2020, 05:06 AM   #150
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
First of all, yes you can prove a negative. For example we can prove that there is no highest prime number and that there is no smallest real number.

But this:
Originally Posted by Steven D Hales
Furthermore, you can prove [the law of non-contradiction]. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details).
is complete nonsense.

You can't prove the law of non-contradiction (more properly the non-contradiction tautology) because any proof would depend upon non-contradiction being sound.

So a proof of the law of non-contradiction would be assuming its conclusion.
__________________
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; 28th March 2020 at 05:10 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 28th March 2020, 05:07 AM   #151
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
2. Your claim that the statement "there was no covert involvement" can not be disproven contradicts your claim that its negation ("there was covert involvement") can theoretically be proven. After all, any proof that there was covert involvement would necessarily also constitute disproof that there was no covert involvement.
Little lesson of logic:

If P(x) is a proposition on x (here, x is an individual from the group of people that could potentially be performing covert operations in 9/11, and P(x) is "x is involved in covert operations"), then the assertion "there were covert operations in 9/11" can be formally expressed as:

"exists x so that P(x) is true"

or in formal symbols:

∃xP(x)

Its negation is:

"for all x, P(x) is false".

or in formal symbols:

∀x¬P(x)

This means that you need to check whether each and every member of the set meets the criteria. This is regarded as impossible in many practical situations. There are some situations in which you can. For example, to disprove your claim that O.N. included the killing of own people, I went through each and every point in the plans, and refuted it for each of them. I could just as well have asked you for an example of one claim that did, but my experience in forums shows that this method doesn't go very far. There were just 9 of them and the text was of a relatively manageable size, so I could do that. But for something as fuzzy as the set of candidates for covert involvement in 9/11, there's no way to even determine who's part of the set, let alone go one by one showing that they weren't involved.

So I'd say that Allen's claim of not being able to prove a negative, was correct when applied to this case.
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 March 2020, 06:10 AM   #152
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
First of all, yes you can prove a negative. For example we can prove that there is no highest prime number and that there is no smallest real number.

But this:

is complete nonsense.

You can't prove the law of non-contradiction (more properly the non-contradiction tautology) because any proof would depend upon non-contradiction being sound.

So a proof of the law of non-contradiction would be assuming its conclusion.
See theorem 3.24 of Russel's Principia Mathematica. It can also be proven from several other axiomatic systems.
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 06:15 AM   #153
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Little lesson of logic
I don't require these "little lessons of logic." Allen claimed that both

P can be proven

and

~P can not be disproven

are true. This is an obvious contradiction, any proof for P is necessarily a disproof of ~P.
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 06:23 AM   #154
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
See theorem 3.24 of Russel's Principia Mathematica. It can also be proven from several other axiomatic systems.
Again, any proof of anything requires the law of contradiction - modus ponens depends on it.

So what rules of inference are going to be used to prove the "law" of non-contradiction.?
__________________
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 March 2020, 07:16 AM   #155
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
And having a quick look at PM, which I haven't even glanced at for years, I see that the proof is to show that the contradiction axiom follows from the excluded middle axiom and (I think) De Morgans theorem (or some version of it).

But right from the start, none of his steps would work if "p implies q" does not rule out that "p implies not q".
__________________
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 March 2020, 07:19 AM   #156
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Again, any proof of anything requires the law of contradiction - modus ponens depends on it.
Modus ponens doesn't depend on it. Systems of logic exist in which the law of non-contradiction is false yet modus ponens still is true.

Quote:
So what rules of inference are going to be used to prove the "law" of non-contradiction.?
Russel & Whitehead derive it from standard propositional calculus. Like I said, it's theorem 3.24 in the Principia Mathematica, pick up a copy and just follow the derivation there.
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 07:32 AM   #157
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And having a quick look at PM, which I haven't even glanced at for years, I see that the proof is to show that the contradiction axiom follows from the excluded middle axiom and (I think) De Morgans theorem (or some version of it).
The excluded middle isn't taken as an axiom either, it's another theorem somewhere in part 2 (2.something). But yes, it follows from the excluded middle and De Morgan's laws.

Quote:
But right from the start, none of his steps would work if "p implies q" does not rule out that "p implies not q".
Why?

P->Q
P
therefor Q

is valid inference irrespective of whether the law of non-contradiction holds or not.
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 08:29 AM   #158
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
...
This means that you need to check whether each and every member of the set meets the criteria. This is regarded as impossible in many practical situations. There are some situations in which you can. ...

...was of a relatively manageable size, so I could do that. But for something as fuzzy as the set of candidates for covert involvement in 9/11, there's no way to even determine who's part of the set, let alone go one by one showing that they weren't involved.

So I'd say that Allen's claim of not being able to prove a negative, was correct when applied to this case.
It is interesting and educational that caveman pretends to not have read your post, just as he pretended, but actually avoided, to answer my questions the other day that went in the same direction:

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hi Caveman,

how would you go about proving this negative?
Quote:
Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.
Or in general: How do you go about proving a global negative claim such as "No government agency was involved in Making 9/11 Happen on Purpose"?

Is it practically possible to prove such a negative?
which caveman quoted, but failed to answer:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by Oystein
But proving that no one out of hundreds of thousands of individuals anywhere in a position to be involved with covert government operations was involved is the kind of global negative that USUALLY cannot be proven, and demanding evidence to prove that kind of a negative is disingenuous.
Originally Posted by Oystein
Hi Caveman,

how would you go about proving this negative?


Or in general: How do you go about proving a global negative claim such as "No government agency was involved in Making 9/11 Happen on Purpose"?

Is it practically possible to prove such a negative?
I'll just refer you to the third point I made in earlier post on this subject:
Originally Posted by caveman1917
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.
I believe that the technical term for what you're doing is "whining." If you can't back up your claim then don't make it, it's that simple, and no amount of whining gets you out of the burden of proof for your claims.
...
Very instructive to see caveman twice dodge questions going after the practical possibility of proving negatives. Almost as if he knew any honest answer would blow his boat out of the water
__________________
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 28th March 2020, 09:58 AM   #159
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,033
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It is interesting and educational that caveman pretends to not have read your post, just as he pretended, but actually avoided, to answer my questions the other day that went in the same direction:


which caveman quoted, but failed to answer:



Very instructive to see caveman twice dodge questions going after the practical possibility of proving negatives. Almost as if he knew any honest answer would blow his boat out of the water
You were provided with an answer. Believing a claim because you couldn't possibly prove it is the dumbest ******* thing I've ever heard. Are you lot having a contest of making the stupidest argument possible or what?
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 10:19 AM   #160
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You were provided with an answer. Believing a claim because you couldn't possibly prove it is the dumbest ******* thing I've ever heard. Are you lot having a contest of making the stupidest argument possible or what?
It has been pointed out to you already that your answer did NOT address the question. It was more like Q: "Where is Waldo?" A: "He has a dog."
So thanks for dodging yet again.

Also, it has been pointed out to you that making up fuzzy **** "50% chance someone, I won't go into detail, MIHOP" and then demanding evidence for the negation is disingenuous.

Show us evidence that none of your extended family MIHOP - until such time it would be irrational of you to believe 9/11 was NOT made to happen by your family. Right? In fact, it has a 50% likelihood - right?
__________________
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
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 07:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.