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 28th March 2020, 11:34 AM   #161
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,849
short on fact, long on woo

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.
lol, gee, the fact 19 idiots fooled by UBL did it?

What are 19 failed UBL followers? Evidence!

9/11 truth, no clue what evidence is - the failed 9/11 truth still born movement, based on ignorance, failed research, paranoia, and gullible, continues to find cult like followers.
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 11:34 AM   #162
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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.
That's yet anther disingenuous lie as anyone can easily verify. You understand that this thread is public record and can be checked by anyone, right? Here is what actually happened and what I demanded evidence for:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
None of those incidents was initiated by a cabal.
Prove it.
Apologize for lying.
__________________
"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, 12:08 PM   #163
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Apologize for lying.
Apologize for not studying history.
__________________
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, 12:10 PM   #164
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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.
No, that's not how things were framed. Logic lesson part 2:

Let P(x) = "x is participating in a covert operation". Then:

a) ∃xP(x) is an existential (∃) statement. Asserting this means you can show a proof, otherwise the statement is as empty as "invisible pink unicorns exist".
b) The negation is ¬∃xP(x) ≡ ∀x¬P(x). This is an universal (∀) statement. This can be both true and unprovable at the same time.

Take for example Goldbach's conjecture. This is an universal (∀) statement: for all natural numbers greater than 5 there's a decomposition of each into the sum of three primes. The opposite is an existential (∃) statement: A number greater than 5 exists such that it's not the sum of three primes.

Now, whoever asserts that Goldbach's conjecture is false can just show a counterexample and settle the question. But the assertion that it's true may be unprovable. I learned that here: https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...ldbach.476633/ (unfortunately the reference link in matforum.org that explained the above is now dead). As indicated there, a delicious corollary is that if Goldbach's conjecture is unprovable, then it's true.

Allen went a bit far saying that you can't prove a negative, but I understood it as "you can't always prove a negation of an existential statement" and it was unreasonable of you to ask for a proof of such a statement because it's clearly impossible in this case to prove it.

Now, we can say with a very high degree of confidence that Goldbach's conjecture is probably true. The probability that Goldbach's conjecture is false is not 50%. There are heuristic arguments supporting it, and several conjectures which were supported by heuristic arguments turned out to be true and are now theorems, like the four colour map theorem or Fermat's last theorem.

Likewise, we can say with a very high degree of confidence that there were no covert operations in 9/11, and there are heuristic arguments supporting it. I gave you one, that there's no precedent in history for such a mass killing of own people.

Last edited by pgimeno; 28th March 2020 at 12:24 PM.
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, 12:32 PM   #165
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,849
burden of proof is not a 9/11 truth skill

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I anticipated it because every pseudo-skeptic refuses to abide by the basic rule that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I did not make any claim that the CIA manipulated 19 jihadists to pull of 9/11. You, on the other hand, did claim that the CIA did not do this. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's that simple.

You offer no proof, for 50/45/5? thus others have to prove your claim wrong? Don't worry, "burden of proof" is already a term 9/11 can't grasp, and never will.

You made no claims of the CIA (it was a fuzzy who knows MIHOP BS claim based on woo?), only BS percents to support essentially a nothing claim.
Quote:
Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.
For some reason it reminds me of Balsamo math in a don't show your work way, unlike Balsamo who was dumb enough to show his work. Doubt if there is anything resembling facts to support the 50/45/5 claim.

It is simple, you have no evidence for the percents claim you are not making, and the burden of proof for your non-claims is on others? Math in action.

I prefer physics, Got Physics to go with the non-claims of 50/45/5?

No evidence for MIHOP?
What about the 5 percent? Nope - can you define the 5 percent? No? Why not?
__________________
"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 28th March 2020, 02:19 PM   #166
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,010
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
That's yet anther disingenuous lie as anyone can easily verify. You understand that this thread is public record and can be checked by anyone, right? Here is what actually happened and what I demanded evidence for:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
None of those incidents was initiated by a cabal.
Prove it.
Apologize for lying.
Oh -really?

Indeed, anyone can check the context. Here is some more:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Ok, I’ll bite. I’m willing to examine evidence of covert US government involvement in 9/11; even the smallest amount will do. Let’s see it. Provide something circumstantial or even merely suspicious pertaining to possible covert US government involvement in 9/11, and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you and anyone else.
You're the one who claimed that there is no covert involvement by the US government (or at least claimed the notion is absurd). The burden of proof is on the claimant, not upon others to disprove your claims. If you have evidence for the lack of covert involvement by the US then you should present it, otherwise it is just that, an unsupported claim - aka an opinion. And remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
and

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you understand that you can't prove your claim, then why make it? Does making claims while being unable to prove them sound more like CTism or skepticism to you? Perhaps the following will help:

CTist: "There was covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Pseudo-skeptic: "There was no covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Skeptic: "We don't know whether there was covert US government involvement in 9/11"



Except that only happened in your imagination, as neither I nor anyone else in this thread claimed there was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

You are Person A. Here's what Person B has to provide evidence for: Absolutely nothing.
and

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The principle of maximum entropy.



And what evidence is there that some government did not make 9/11 happen? Zero evidence, right? We're going in circles here.
and

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.
Seems to me like you claimed 50:50 that 9/11 was a MIHOP by some unspecified agency, and demanded that your opponents provide evidence for the negative "no such unspecified agency involved in MIHOP of 9/11".

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 28th March 2020, 02:37 PM   #167
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I anticipated it because every pseudo-skeptic refuses to abide by the basic rule that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I did not make any claim that the CIA manipulated 19 jihadists to pull of 9/11. You, on the other hand, did claim that the CIA did not do this. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's that simple.

That is a load of horse-cock - its not how burden of proof works. What you are trying to do is use one of the classic methods that CTs use to shift the burden of proof - The Argument from Ignorance, A.K.A. appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence")

The established, observed facts are the null. The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim; the claim that something happened against the null. 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.

Person X claims the the CIA was behind 9/11, it is their burden to prove, and they will require evidence to support their claim.

Person Y claims that the CIA was NOT behind 9/11, that is the null, the absence of evidence supports their claim.

Until Person X comes up with evidence of CIA involvement, Person Y's claim, the null, stands as established fact.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th March 2020 at 02:40 PM.
smartcooky 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, 02:54 PM   #168
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post





Why?



P->Q

P

therefor Q



is valid inference irrespective of whether the law of non-contradiction holds or not.
But the above argument does not rule out that ~Q is also true unless the axiom of contradiction is assumed.

Because you can have:

P->Q
P->~Q
P
Therefore Q & ~Q

The above is valid if non-contradiction is not an axiom of the system..

You can't derive anything in an axiomatic system where the contradiction axiom is not included because any conclusion cannot rule out that the negation is also true.

Paraconsistent logics where it is ignored in some cases can be useful in some cases, but can't actually prove anything in a consistent logic.

Inconsistent logics are just toys for logicians.
__________________
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, 03:31 PM   #169
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 666

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Betraying my country and soiling my good name.... 100 Mill US
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Some would betray their country for less.
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
One hundred MILL equals ten cents US


Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Fonebone, this is a serious question. If you had been a part of a plot to kill about 3,000 of your own countrymen
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
and start unlawful wars in Asia and the Middle East, how much money would have persuaded you, personally, to remain silent about it for at least the next two decades?
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Dave
An American citizen that participated in a plot to "kill about 3,000 of his own countrymen

and start unlawful wars in Asia and the Middle-East" would be ever petrified with fear and terror of discovery.

The thought of prison or firing squad would supply ample incentive for eternal silence.


Additional persuasion to protect their sorry tuckus would arise when they come to realize the upper echelon

of the plot perpetrators might sleep better at night knowing loose-ends
were neutralized.


An extra ten cents (0.10 U.S.) wouldn't translate to very much extra motivation to
remain silent IMO.



__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by Fonebone; 28th March 2020 at 03:39 PM. Reason: clarify
Fonebone 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, 03:44 PM   #170
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,849
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
An American citizen that participated in a plot to "kill about 3,000 of his own countrymen
and start unlawful wars in Asia and the Middle-East" would be ever petrified with fear and terror of discovery.
The thought of prison or firing squad would supply ample incentive for eternal silence.

Additional persuasion to protect their sorry tuckus would arise when they come to realize the upper echelon
of the plot perpetrators might sleep better at night knowing loose-ends were neutralized.

An extra ten cents (0.10 U.S.) wouldn't translate to very much extra motivation to remain silent IMO.
Projection.
__________________
"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; 28th March 2020 at 03:46 PM.
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 28th March 2020, 05:48 PM   #171
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,950
Being Person Y in this case let me 'splane myself.

It's not that I can't prove the CIA had nothing to do with the attacks of 911 because there is nothing to prove.

I can prove the CIA bungled the intelligence on Al Qaeda's movements because this has been documented by the 911 Commission, the CIA-IG, and almost a dozen books written by the men and women who worked at CIA and FBI.

I can prove the FBI bungled their end of the Al Qaeda intelligence for the same reasons.

The time-line involved runs from 1991 through 2001. Ten years and two different White House NSC's. After Iraq invades Kuwait Al Qaeda offers its services to the Saudi government to lead the resistance to drive the Iraqi's out and are told thanks but no thanks. The WTC was bombed on February 26, 1993 by men trained by Al Qaeda. On October 3, 1993, 19 US Soldiers were killed and two MH-60's were shot down in Mogadishu, Somalia by local militia trained by Al Qaeda who had been laid up in neighboring Sudan. On August 7, 1998 the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were hit with Al Qaeda truck bombs. Finally, on October 12, 2000 the USS Cole was hit with a suicide bomb attack by Al Qaeda in Yemen.

Ten years. The CIA and the US Government and the Clinton and Bush Administrations had ten years to deal with Al Qaeda. Terrorism was always a back-burner issue for the US prior to 9/11/2001. The CIA spun up Alec Station to solely focus on Osama bin Laden in 1996, but the problem was that it quickly became insulated not only from the FBI but it's own CTC branches. Again, I know this because there are three great books on this particular subject and the 911 Commission reviewed their work. Alec Station was a stove-pipe within a forest of stove-pipes. At the same time the NYC FBI Office had it's own bin Laden desk which was separate from it's own Counter Terror Desk. Both groups were run by ego maniacs who didn't well with others and because they were special groups they escaped management over site until it was too late.

How I know the CIA didn't run the Al Qaeda 911 plot was because they lacked that capability in 2001. They also lacked the guts. I know this because CIA officer Robert Baer detailed the CIA's Middle East operations of the late 1990's. The Middle East was not a central focus for the Clinton Administration and the CIA was dangerously under-manned in the region.

I also know the CIA didn't run the plot because the FBI has been more than happy rat-out the CIA any chance they get (see the Detainee Program). There is a rumor that the CIA had hoped to turn one of the 911 hijackers, or had already turned him, and this is why they didn't tell the FBI he was in the country until mid-August, 2001. The folks behind this rumor are FBI agents.

The final reason I know the CIA had nothing to do with running the 911 attacks is Al Qaeda hates the US and specifically the CIA. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA reached out to bin Laden with offers of training and weapons and he told them to get lost.

I could point out that Wikileaks was gifted a treasure trove of US secrets. Not one of them indicated CIA involvement in running the 911 attacks.

That's how I know.
__________________
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, 06:08 PM   #172
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Being Person Y in this case let me 'splane myself.

It's not that I can't prove the CIA had nothing to do with the attacks of 911 because there is nothing to prove.

I can prove the CIA bungled the intelligence on Al Qaeda's movements because this has been documented by the 911 Commission, the CIA-IG, and almost a dozen books written by the men and women who worked at CIA and FBI.

I can prove the FBI bungled their end of the Al Qaeda intelligence for the same reasons.

The time-line involved runs from 1991 through 2001. Ten years and two different White House NSC's. After Iraq invades Kuwait Al Qaeda offers its services to the Saudi government to lead the resistance to drive the Iraqi's out and are told thanks but no thanks. The WTC was bombed on February 26, 1993 by men trained by Al Qaeda. On October 3, 1993, 19 US Soldiers were killed and two MH-60's were shot down in Mogadishu, Somalia by local militia trained by Al Qaeda who had been laid up in neighboring Sudan. On August 7, 1998 the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were hit with Al Qaeda truck bombs. Finally, on October 12, 2000 the USS Cole was hit with a suicide bomb attack by Al Qaeda in Yemen.

Ten years. The CIA and the US Government and the Clinton and Bush Administrations had ten years to deal with Al Qaeda. Terrorism was always a back-burner issue for the US prior to 9/11/2001. The CIA spun up Alec Station to solely focus on Osama bin Laden in 1996, but the problem was that it quickly became insulated not only from the FBI but it's own CTC branches. Again, I know this because there are three great books on this particular subject and the 911 Commission reviewed their work. Alec Station was a stove-pipe within a forest of stove-pipes. At the same time the NYC FBI Office had it's own bin Laden desk which was separate from it's own Counter Terror Desk. Both groups were run by ego maniacs who didn't well with others and because they were special groups they escaped management over site until it was too late.

How I know the CIA didn't run the Al Qaeda 911 plot was because they lacked that capability in 2001. They also lacked the guts. I know this because CIA officer Robert Baer detailed the CIA's Middle East operations of the late 1990's. The Middle East was not a central focus for the Clinton Administration and the CIA was dangerously under-manned in the region.

I also know the CIA didn't run the plot because the FBI has been more than happy rat-out the CIA any chance they get (see the Detainee Program). There is a rumor that the CIA had hoped to turn one of the 911 hijackers, or had already turned him, and this is why they didn't tell the FBI he was in the country until mid-August, 2001. The folks behind this rumor are FBI agents.

The final reason I know the CIA had nothing to do with running the 911 attacks is Al Qaeda hates the US and specifically the CIA. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA reached out to bin Laden with offers of training and weapons and he told them to get lost.

I could point out that Wikileaks was gifted a treasure trove of US secrets. Not one of them indicated CIA involvement in running the 911 attacks.

That's how I know.
I agree.

All that is required to debunk any claim based on an argument from ignorance is to show there is an absence of evidence - if there is no evidence to support the claim against the null, then that alone, prima faci, debunks the claim. What you have done here is to go way beyond the minimum necessary to debunk any claim the the CIA were behind the 9/11 attacks - effectively showing that not only is there no evidence, but that it highly unlikely that there can be any evidence!

Essentially you are ramming the point home with a piledriver!


ETA: I think the late Christopher Hitchens said it best....."That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th March 2020 at 06:23 PM.
smartcooky 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 PM   #173
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
An American citizen that participated in a plot to "kill about 3,000 of his own countrymen

and start unlawful wars in Asia and the Middle-East" would be ever petrified with fear and terror of discovery.

The thought of prison or firing squad would supply ample incentive for eternal silence.


Additional persuasion to protect their sorry tuckus would arise when they come to realize the upper echelon

of the plot perpetrators might sleep better at night knowing loose-ends
were neutralized.


An extra ten cents (0.10 U.S.) wouldn't translate to very much extra motivation to
remain silent IMO.




Golly, if it was only so simple.

"They" forgot to frame Iraq for 911. There was no Iraqi passport found, no fuzzy photographs of the hijackers meeting with Iraqi secret police, and no "captured" Iraqi government documents proving Saddam was behind 911?

"They" went to all the trouble to run a false flag operation using hijacked jumbo jets and secret demolition charges but then don't hunt down and kill bin Laden, and forget to plant WMD's in Iraq for our forces to "find" and parade in front of TV cameras to make the "illegal" war legal?

Okay...
__________________
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 29th March 2020, 01:45 AM   #174
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
No, that's not how things were framed.
Yes it was:
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
The negative — that there was NO covert US government involvement in 9/11 — is not possible to prove or disprove, because you can’t prove a negative.
Quote:
Logic lesson part 2:
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
__________________
"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 zooterkin; 30th March 2020 at 12:13 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 01:58 AM   #175
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Oh -really?
Yes, really:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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.
This is the actual sequence of events:
On 25/3 7:15 Axxman made the first claim in this thread as to what happened regarding 9/11:
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
None of those incidents was initiated by a cabal.
On 25/3 8:18 I demanded evidence for his claim:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Prove it.
On 26/3 4:47 I posted (in another thread) the skeptical position on matters for which there is no evidence either way, namely 50/50% chance either way:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As my contribution on this thread was requested in another thread, here goes.

Let E be the set of relevant empirical observations. Then by the principle of multiple explanations what I think happened is a probability distribution over the set H, where H is the set of hypotheses consistent with E, weighed by complexity and my own gratuitously chosen prior probabilities. In particular the probability mass is concentrated about equally among the "standard" hypothesis and the hypothesis of a minimal MIHOP (ie MIHOP by getting some jihadi's to crash planes into buildings), but of course including every hypothesis consistent with E, such as a small probability that there is no such thing as 9/11 because I'm dreaming right now and I'll wake up again soon in the "real" world.
You got caught lying yet again. Own up to it and apologize. Or keep digging, your choice.
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 02:11 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 29th March 2020, 02:02 AM   #176
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That is a load of horse-cock - its not how burden of proof works. What you are trying to do is use one of the classic methods that CTs use to shift the burden of proof - The Argument from Ignorance, A.K.A. appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence")
Projection much?

Quote:
The established, observed facts are the null. The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim; the claim that something happened against the null. 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.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 02:07 AM   #177
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
But the above argument does not rule out that ~Q is also true unless the axiom of contradiction is assumed.
And?

Quote:
Because you can have:

P->Q
P->~Q
P
Therefore Q & ~Q

The above is valid if non-contradiction is not an axiom of the system..
And?

Quote:
You can't derive anything in an axiomatic system where the contradiction axiom is not included because any conclusion cannot rule out that the negation is also true.
That's not how logical derivations work. The derivation:

P->Q
P
Therefor Q

derives Q from the given premises, irrespective of whether ~Q may also be derived in a paraconsistent system.

Quote:
Paraconsistent logics where it is ignored in some cases can be useful in some cases, but can't actually prove anything in a consistent logic.

Inconsistent logics are just toys for logicians.
Paraconsistent logics prove tons of theorems that are also in consistent logics.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 04:06 AM   #178
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
That's not how logical derivations work.
It is exactly how logical derivations work. If the conjunction of an argument with the negation of its conclusion is consistent then the argument has not proved the conclusion.

Without the axiom of contradiction every set of well-formed propositions is consistent and so nothing can be proved.
Quote:
The derivation:

P->Q
P
Therefor Q

derives Q from the given premises, irrespective of whether ~Q may also be derived in a paraconsistent system.
So what, we are not talking about paraconsistent logic.

In propositional calculus you cannot claim to have proved that a conclusion is true in a given axiomatic system if you can't rule out that it is not false in the same system.

The axiom of contradiction is right at the base of logic
__________________
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; 29th March 2020 at 05:26 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 29th March 2020, 05:40 AM   #179
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,010
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Yes, really:


This is the actual sequence of events:
On 25/3 7:15 Axxman made the first claim in this thread as to what happened regarding 9/11:

On 25/3 8:18 I demanded evidence for his claim:

On 26/3 4:47 I posted (in another thread) the skeptical position on matters for which there is no evidence either way, namely 50/50% chance either way:


You got caught lying yet again. Own up to it and apologize. Or keep digging, your choice.
Thanks for providing the time stamp that on 26/3 you claimed a 50% that some unspecified agency MIHOP 9/11.

Because a day after that ("then") you demanded of others top prove the negative:
On 27th March 2020, 07:57 PM
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.
Yes, we are going in circles - because that's what Truthers have been doing for 18 years and counting. You did not break the cycle. You demanded evidence for "no MIHOP" after you had claimed MIHOP (a whopping likelihood thereof).

Disingenuous, as I said.

What is more disingenuous is that you claim there is "zero evidence" when of course there is boatloads of evidence of what the CIA and others have been doing and none of it points to MIHOP. Which is a fact that of course you must have known for many years.
__________________
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 29th March 2020, 06:00 AM   #180
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You got caught lying yet again. Own up to it and apologize. Or keep digging, your choice.
I see you chose the latter. Don't expect any further responses from me.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 06:51 AM   #181
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
No, that's not how things were framed.
Yes it was:
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
The negative — that there was NO covert US government involvement in 9/11 — is not possible to prove or disprove, because you can’t prove a negative.
My bad, you're right. It's possible to disprove it, but not to prove it. Allen made that mistake.

Which is grasping at straws, because you asked him to prove it, which is not possible, not to disprove it.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You realize I'm not even bothering to waste my time reading your so-called "logic lessons" right?
Here's a quote relevant to the thread that you've missed by not reading it:
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Now, we can say with a very high degree of confidence that Goldbach's conjecture is probably true. The probability that Goldbach's conjecture is false is not 50%. There are heuristic arguments supporting it, and several conjectures which were supported by heuristic arguments turned out to be true and are now theorems, like the four colour map theorem or Fermat's last theorem.

Likewise, we can say with a very high degree of confidence that there were no covert operations in 9/11, and there are heuristic arguments supporting it. I gave you one, that there's no precedent in history for such a mass killing of own people.

Last edited by pgimeno; 29th March 2020 at 06:57 AM.
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 29th March 2020, 07:25 AM   #182
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It is exactly how logical derivations work. If the conjunction of an argument with the negation of its conclusion is consistent then the argument has not proved the conclusion.
No it isn't, an argument proves a conclusion if the conclusion follows from the premises by a sequence of valid rules of inference.

Quote:
Without the axiom of contradiction every set of well-formed propositions is consistent and so nothing everything can be proved.
ftfy (your claim is still false though, but I can only assume you miswrote there)

Here's your homework: Choose any of the common systems of logic without the law of non-contradiction and show that there exists at least one wff which is not a theorem of said system.

Quote:
So what, we are not talking about paraconsistent logic.
You're making claims (false claims at that) about systems of logic without the law of non-contradiction but you're not talking about paraconsistent logics (ie systems of logic without the law of non-contradiction)?

Quote:
In propositional calculus you cannot claim to have proved that a conclusion is true in a given axiomatic system if you can't rule out that it is not false in the same system.

The axiom of contradiction is right at the base of logic
Yes, if you assume a law of non-contradiction then you have...a law of non-contradiction. Who'd have thunk?

Look, you've made a series of easily-refuted technical claims about the law of non-contradiction, to wit:

1. That it can not be proven (within propositional calculus).

It can, as anyone picking up a copy of the Principia Mathematica can verify for themselves.

2. That modus ponens depends on it.

It doesn't, as every paraconsistent logic has modus ponens as a valid rule of inference yet many of them do not have a law of non-contradiction.

3. That you can't derive anything in an axiomatic system where the law of non-contradiction is not included.

You can, such axiomatic systems are called paraconsistent logics, they are an entire subfield of logic allowing one to derive tons of things.

4. That paraconsistent logics can't prove anything in consistent logics.

They can, they don't prove everything in consistent logics (they are weaker) but they do prove many things in consistent logics.

5. That without the law of non-contradiction every set of wff is consistent.

The class of paraconsistent logics is defined as the class of logics where contradictions aren't explosive (ie where a contradiction doesn't entail every wff).

Given this track record so far, what makes you think that the next batch of claims you're going to throw out will fare any better?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 07:54 AM   #183
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
My bad, you're right.
Thank you for admitting a mistake.

Quote:
It's possible to disprove it, but not to prove it. Allen made that mistake.
More than once at that, I've just highlighted one instance of it.

Quote:
Which is grasping at straws, because you asked him to prove it, which is not possible, not to disprove it.
It's not grasping at straws, it was but one of the points I made in response, namely this one:
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.
As for your point that it is practically difficult to prove (which is quite another thing than logically impossible to prove, as Allen claimed), you may note that I already addressed that in my next point in that post, namely this one:
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.
Quote:
Here's a quote relevant to the thread that you've missed by not reading it:
Likewise, we can say with a very high degree of confidence that there were no covert operations in 9/11, and there are heuristic arguments supporting it. I gave you one, that there's no precedent in history for such a mass killing of own people.
To which I replied that just because there is no known precedent in history doesn't mean there is no precedent in history. Your argument especially fails because if there were such a precedent in history then it can be assumed to be unknown (ie documentation destroyed etc).

This assumption is supported by there being at least one known precedent in history where terrorist attacks resulting in large loss of life were used as false flag operations and the documentation having been destroyed, namely Operation Ajax where a cleaned-up version was made public and the full story only having become known indirectly through documents from the British Foreign Office. If American intelligence services already go to such lengths to destroy knowledge of false flag terrorist attacks on other people, one can easily imagine the extents they'd go to for doing the same for false flag terrorist attacks on their own people.

But even if we accept your argument, what you are doing is meeting the burden of proof, which is quite something else from denying to have the burden of proof in the first place, which is what Allen et al have been doing.
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 07:58 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 29th March 2020, 08:17 AM   #184
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Generally, Oystein, Allen, Axxman, and smartcooky might do well to look up Wikipedia's article on pseudo-skepticism and in particular Truzzi's characteristics of the distinction between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 08:44 AM   #185
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,849
pseudo-skeptics, the evidence for 50/45/5?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Generally, Oystein, Allen, Axxman, and smartcooky might do well to look up Wikipedia's article on pseudo-skepticism and in particular Truzzi's characteristics of the distinction between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.
You can't figure out 19 terrorists did 9/11? You might want to look up how to do reality based research without using failed logic as tool to make up BS about your fellow posters.

Being skeptical of your claims is pseudo-skepticism because you are always right? The special logic of 9/11 truth.
Quote:
Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.
Got some commentary to go with your 45% MIHOP? Who made it happen on purpose, and how to get 19 humans to kill themselves if who are non-believers? Your MIHOP is broken and you got nothing to say about it. No fleshing it out, no idea who did it.


What is the 5 percent? Did you take time to explain the 5%? NO, you seem to be unable to produce any support or explanation for what the 5 percent is? All you can do is call people pseudo-skeptics. That is your evidence for the fantasy you support with weak attacks calling people pseudo-skeptics.



Your post is projection, and you don't know it.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

Quote:
Denying, when only doubt has been established
Quote:
Double standards in the application of criticism
Quote:
The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
Quote:
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Quote:
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Quote:
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Quote:
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Quote:
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
You make up a claim out of thin air (because you offer no support), 50/45/5.
You then make up why people are wrong, implying they are what you are, a pseudo-skeptic.
You post imply you have not investigated 9/11, you have the magical 5% left over you can't explain, you are a pseudo-skeptic.
You present insufficient evidence and no proof to support your 50/45/5 claim, and thus you are textbook pseudo-skeptic.
You do make up unsubstantiated counter-claims, actually off topic counter claims implying others are what you are, a pseudo-skeptic. Good job.
You seem to think there is unconvincing evidence for part of 9/11, and thus you made up 50/45/5 without understanding that part of 9/11 you can't comprehend, like in the 5 percent you can't explain - omg, you are textbook pseudo-skeptic.

Thus, you project a lot, and you don't know it.
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 08:52 AM.
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 29th March 2020, 09:08 AM   #186
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...
As per Truzzi, pseudo-skepticism:

Quote:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
Several people here claimed that NO covert operation was involved.

Quote:
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
The same people claimed that only the positive claim, that there WAS a covert operation, has a burden of proof but the negative claim, that there was NO covert operation, does not carry a burden of proof.

Quote:
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
Not applicable.

Quote:
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
None of the people making the negative claim presented any evidence or proof of their claim.

Quote:
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
All of those people claimed that their negative claim requires no burden of proof.

Quote:
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Making the negative claim without substantiating it.

Quote:
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Not applicable (counter-claims have been based on nothing whatsoever, not even plausibility)

Quote:
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
smartcooky even literally made this particular claim.

Then, as per Truzzi, true skepticism:

Quote:
1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
I expressed maximum doubt, per about 50/50% chance either way.

Quote:
2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
My position of agnosticism ("50/50% chance as per maximum entropy" is an expression of agnosticism) does not have a burden of proof.

Quote:
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
I refused to consider either the positive or the negative claim to be established knowledge because both of them lack proof.

Quote:
4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
I demanded proof for the negative claim as much as I demand it for the positive claim (which nobody made in this thread).

Quote:
5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
Not applicable.

Quote:
6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
Not applicable.

This thread, in general, is a sad display of pseudo-skepticism that is, equally sadly, only too common in skeptical circles.
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 09:19 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 29th March 2020, 09:41 AM   #187
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,849
pseudo-skeptic schools on the made up 50/45/5 -

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As per Truzzi, pseudo-skepticism:
Yes you are a pseudo-skeptic, and don't know it. You are textbook project too.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Several people here claimed that NO covert operation was involved.
And you claim 50/45/5, and failed to produce support, you are a pseudo-skeptic, and don't know it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The same people claimed that only the positive claim, that there WAS covert operation, has a burden of proof bu the negative claim, that there was NO covert operation, does not carry a burden of proof.
You don't understand burden of proof, so you quibble. Don't be upset, you are good at being a pseudo-skeptic, maybe the best because you don't know it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not applicable.
Can you flesh out the 45? No? Why not. Right, you offer a claim with no support, thus you are the pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
None of the people making the negative claim presented any evidence or proof of their claim.
Where is your evidence for the 5%? You remain a pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
All of those people claimed that their negative claim requires no burden of proof.
You keep proving you have no clue what burden of proof is, like most pseudo-skeptics.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Making the negative claim without substantiating it.
You mean like your 50/45/5 woo, which makes you the pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not applicable (counter-claims have been based on nothing whatsoever, not even plausibility)
Like your 50/45/5?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
smartcooky even literally made this particular claim.
But you have no evidence at all. You are a pseudo-skeptic, and you have no idea why you are a pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then, as per Truzzi, true skepticism:
like your 50/45/5 claim with no meat.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I expressed maximum doubt, per about 50/50% chance either way.
Is this admitting you have no evidence, you made up the 50/45/5 due to paranoia and a need to have a conspiracy theory you can't explain? What exactly is the 5 percent, or did you pull that out of thin air? Your stand is that of a pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
My position of agnosticism ("50/50% chance as per maximum entropy" is an expression of agnosticism) does not require a burden of proof.
lol, just say you have no clue what happen on 9/11 because you have not invested the time to figure out 9/11, and you like to push BS and pseudo-logic/math nonsense to support your complete ignorance of 9/11 as you fail to explain 50/45/5 - and now you can't be wrong so you do the "sharpie shuffle quibble" posting calling others pseudo-skeptics - an illogical argument to hide your lack of research on 9/11, and your failed 50/45/5 empty claim.

Is the 5 percent about CD, or terrorists can't fly, or what? So far you got the empty set for evidence, like a pseudo-skeptic.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I refused to consider either the positive or the negative claim to be established knowledge because both of them lack proof.
Like your 50/45/5 claim? You lack the proof, so you call others pseudo-skeptics.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I demanded proof for the negative claim as much as I demand it for the positive claim (which nobody made in this thread).
Go ahead then, explain the 50/45/5 with proof, make my quarantined day, do it or remain the pseudo-skeptic quibbling about the failed 50/45/5 baseless claim.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not applicable.
When will you have some evidence, or at least explain your fantasy version of 50/45/5 - it would be more interesting than you quibbling about others and calling them what you are (projection), a pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not applicable.
Then why not explain the 50/45/5? Or is it as simple as you made it up because understanding 9/11 take too much effort, and you would rather call others what you are, a pseudo-skeptic.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
This thread, in general, is a sad display of pseudo-skepticism that is, equally sadly, only too common in skeptical circles.
And you are the pseudo-skeptic doing it. You did a great job of it.

What is the 5 percent?
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 09:41 AM. Reason: just spent more time posting than someone did understanding 9/11
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 29th March 2020, 11:14 AM   #188
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Generally, Oystein, Allen, Axxman, and smartcooky might do well to look up Wikipedia's article on pseudo-skepticism and in particular Truzzi's characteristics of the distinction between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.
The guy was a ghost hunter.

I'm a ghost hunter.

I win.
__________________
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 29th March 2020, 11:30 AM   #189
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,369
Wow, I’ve been humiliated. I bow to caveman1917’s superior understanding of logic which he has so clearly demonstrated. Congratulations.

From this day forth, I will answer every question with “50-45-5.”
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 29th March 2020, 11:31 AM   #190
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,369
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The guy was a ghost hunter.

I'm a ghost hunter.

I win.
If there’s something strange, in your neighborhood...
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 29th March 2020, 12:36 PM   #191
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
I concede the points above the following quote.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Quote:
Here's a quote relevant to the thread that you've missed by not reading it:
Likewise, we can say with a very high degree of confidence that there were no covert operations in 9/11, and there are heuristic arguments supporting it. I gave you one, that there's no precedent in history for such a mass killing of own people.
To which I replied that just because there is no known precedent in history doesn't mean there is no precedent in history. Your argument especially fails because if there were such a precedent in history then it can be assumed to be unknown (ie documentation destroyed etc).
No, it can't be assumed to be unknown.

- There are many known false-flag operations in history.
- Many of them were known indirectly, regardless of the attempts to keep them secret.
- There's no reason to believe that the number of mass killings in unknown false-flag operations that were successfully kept secret is any higher than the number of mass killings in known false-flag operations that couldn't be kept secret.
- Therefore, it's unlikely that such an operation was carried out in 9/11 and 50/50 is not a good estimation.

Here's another heuristic argument: A false-flag operation, by its nature is performed for the supremacy of a country. Those who care about a country logically care about its people (a country is nothing without its people). Therefore such a false flag operation including a mass killing is unlikely.
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 29th March 2020, 01:20 PM   #192
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
- There are many known false-flag operations in history.

- Many of them were known indirectly, regardless of the attempts to keep them secret.
And it is unknown how many unknown false-flag operations there are in history. For all you know, for every known false-flag operation there could be 10 unknown ones.

Quote:
- There's no reason to believe that the number of mass killings in unknown false-flag operations that were successfully kept secret is any higher than the number of mass killings in known false-flag operations that couldn't be kept secret.
There's also no reason to believe the opposite, which makes...

Quote:
- Therefore, it's unlikely that such an operation was carried out in 9/11 and 50/50 is not a good estimation.
...50/50 the proper estimate.

Quote:
Here's another heuristic argument: A false-flag operation, by its nature is performed for the supremacy of a country. Those who care about a country logically care about its people (a country is nothing without its people). Therefore such a false flag operation including a mass killing is unlikely.
In the US about 50.000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance. In the meantime the military budget of the US is over 10x higher than it would cost to provide health insurance to those who don't have it. In other words, those who run the country are willing to let 50.000 of their own people die each year to increase the military supremacy of the country by 10%. If they're willing to let 50k of their own people die each year for a small increase in the country's supremacy, what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to let 3k die once for it?

Similarly, about 200.000 people in the US die each year from poverty, while abolishing poverty would cost about half of the military budget. If those who run the country are willing to let 200k of their own people die each year for a doubling of the country's supremacy, what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to let 3k die once for it?

This line of reasoning really doesn't result in what you think it does, quite the opposite. Letting 3k die once for the country's supremacy would be a drop in the bucket compared to how many they're letting die for it every year.
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 01:25 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 01:36 PM   #193
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And it is unknown how many unknown false-flag operations there are in history. For all you know, for every known false-flag operation there could be 10 unknown ones.
Doesn't matter a bit for my argument.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Quote:
- There's no reason to believe that the number of mass killings in unknown false-flag operations that were successfully kept secret is any higher than the number of mass killings in known false-flag operations that couldn't be kept secret.
There's also no reason to believe the opposite, which makes...
Oh yes, there is. Secrecy success sounds like quite independent from whether there is mass murdering of own people or not. If they are basically independent variables, then the statistic sample taken over the operations that failed at secrecy can be extrapolated to the whole set.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...50/50 the proper estimate.
Wrong again.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
In the US about 50.000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance. [...]
This rant has nothing to do with the point.

Last edited by pgimeno; 29th March 2020 at 01:39 PM. Reason: wrong quote
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 29th March 2020, 02:00 PM   #194
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Doesn't matter a bit for my argument.
Then let's assume that for every false-flag operation that failed secrecy there are 100 that didn't fail secrecy. If it doesn't matter a bit for your argument then we can freely make such assumption.

Quote:
Oh yes, there is. Secrecy success sounds like quite independent from whether there is mass murdering of own people or not. If they are basically independent variables, then the statistic sample taken over the operations that failed at secrecy can be extrapolated to the whole set.

Wrong again.
Then provide your derivation for what you think is a better estimate.

Quote:
This rant has nothing to do with the point.
We've established the mass killing of about 250.000 of their own people each year for the country's supremacy. And from that we're supposed to conclude that they care so much about their own people that they'd never kill 3.000 for the same reason?
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 02:02 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 02:39 PM   #195
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No it isn't
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.
Quote:
ftfy
No, you just didn't understand what I said.
Quote:
Here's your homework
No, your time for homework.

Your claim is that a conclusion can be proved in logic even if the argument cannot guarantee that the conclusion is not false, right?

Show me any two well formed propositions in propositional calculus that are not consistent with each other and explain why they are inconsistent.
__________________
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 29th March 2020, 02:50 PM   #196
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,849
off topic rambling from the pseudo skeptic?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then let's assume that for every false-flag operation that failed secrecy there are 100 that didn't fail secrecy. If it doesn't matter a bit for your argument then we can freely make such assumption.



Then provide your derivation for what you think is a better estimate.



We've established the mass killing of about 250.000 of their own people each year for the country's supremacy. And from that we're supposed to conclude that they care so much about their own people that they'd never kill 3.000 for the same reason?
What a load of BS. Not sure what your point is, but it fails to support your 50/45/5 claim.

9/11 is an event. Your logic is failed, and you can't argue who won the Jets game after the score is in. You can't use the failed logic you make up to change the event of 9/11.

You can't define your 45%, or your 5% claims. You made up the numbers based on what?

What is the 5 percent?
__________________
"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; 29th March 2020 at 02:53 PM.
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 29th March 2020, 04:28 PM   #197
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then let's assume that for every false-flag operation that failed secrecy there are 100 that didn't fail secrecy.
Lets not, unless you have an evidential basis for making such an assumption. Do you?
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 07:37 PM   #198
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Look, you've made a series of easily-refuted technical claims about the law of non-contradiction, to wit:

1. That it can not be proven (within propositional calculus).
And this is true, because the very idea of a proof depends on this axiom.
Quote:
It can, as anyone picking up a copy of the Principia Mathematica can verify for themselves.
The "proof" in PM is circular, as I said
Quote:
2. That modus ponens depends on it.
And this is correct, modus ponens does depend on it
Quote:
It doesn't, as every paraconsistent logic has modus ponens as a valid rule of inference yet many of them do not have a law of non-contradiction.
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.
Quote:
3. That you can't derive anything in an axiomatic system where the law of non-contradiction is not included.
Again, true
Quote:
You can, such axiomatic systems are called paraconsistent logics, they are an entire subfield of logic allowing one to derive tons of things.
Again, wrong. By definition a system of logic that does not include the axiom of non-contradiction is an inconsistent logic, not a paraconsistent logic.

Quote:
4. That paraconsistent logics can't prove anything in consistent logics.
Again this is correct. For something to be considered proved in some logic A, the proof must be stated in A or some subset of A. A proof in a superset of A is only a proof of that proposition in the superset and cannot be considered a proof of something in A

Quote:
They can, they don't prove everything in consistent logics (they are weaker) but they do prove many things in consistent logics.
No, a proof in a paraconsistent logic is a proof of something in that logic, not a proof of something in a subset of the logic.

Since classical logic is a subset if any paraconsistent logic then the proofs in the subset also exist in the superset, but that does not imply that any proof in the paraconsistent logic can be consisdered a proof in the underlying consistent logic. I can't.
Quote:
5. That without the law of non-contradiction every set of wff is consistent.
And this is also true, pretty much by definition.
Quote:
The class of paraconsistent logics is defined as the class of logics where contradictions aren't explosive (ie where a contradiction doesn't entail every wff).
You have again got yourself confused between paraconsistent logics and inconsistent logics.

Quote:
Given this track record so far...
Seems pretty good to me so far, it is your own track record you should worry about.
__________________
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 29th March 2020, 07:40 PM   #199
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And it is unknown how many unknown false-flag operations there are in history. For all you know, for every known false-flag operation there could be 10 unknown ones.
Maybe they remain unknown because the targets had it coming.

Quote:
In the US about 50.000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance. In the meantime the military budget of the US is over 10x higher than it would cost to provide health insurance to those who don't have it. In other words, those who run the country are willing to let 50.000 of their own people die each year to increase the military supremacy of the country by 10%.
And there it is.

Military = Bad.

How pedestrian. Forget the fact that one half to one third of your medical bill goes to cover malpractice insurance, ignore Federal and State government bureaucracy which drives up costs, and who cares that health insurance has driven up costs. Nope, it's all the Pentagon's fault.

Quote:
If they're willing to let 50k of their own people die each year for a small increase in the country's supremacy, what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to let 3k die once for it?
In what world are people dying of illness and injury the same as people being murdered in a large-scale terrorist attack? We have Congress people and Senators who go to work every day trying to figure out ways to get people health care. The number of people going to work in Washington D.C. hoping to start a war is close to zero.

Quote:
Similarly, about 200.000 people in the US die each year from [blah, blah, blah, boo-hoo-hoo] what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to let 3k die once for it?
Again, 3,000 Americans were murdered.

Where your theory fails is that most of our current military spending goes to the war in Afghanistan, and much of that money doesn't go toward combat operations, it goes down the toilet that is Afghan society. Nobody in the Pentagon or the White House wanted to invade Afghanistan on 9/10/2001. Staying in that country as long as we have is a huge mistake. The invasion of Iraq was an even larger mistake, and no one at CIA or the Pentagon thought it was a good idea, and they were ignored.

As a result the US military's effectiveness and readiness has been severely degraded by our misadventures in the near-east, not increased as you allege. All of the money spent in Afghanistan has left the military with planes that can't fly, tanks that can't drive, and ships which can't sail due to lack of parts. And then their budget gets raided by President Clownstick for a border wall with Mexico (which you also ignore) which the country doesn't need.
__________________
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 29th March 2020, 08:10 PM   #200
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
If there’s something strange, in your neighborhood...
Here's the problem with Marcello Truzzi. His well-written rant is nothing more than eloquently stated butt-hurt. There was a time when I agreed with him, the days when I was an active ghost hunter.

He said:

Quote:
Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
If the PSI result is legitimate it will be replicated by independent researchers until it is confirmed.

CTists and purveyors of woo love to hide behind Truzzi in order to move the goal posts. I wish he was right, I'd have a Nobel Prize and be living large on the lecture circuit telling cool ghost stories. But he's not.

And this isn't science, it's a historic event which took place in bright daylight in NYC and Washington D.C. in front of hundreds of thousands of people.

The truth is simple: Bush, and his NSC, used the attacks of 911 to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq. Why isn't this sinister enough?
__________________
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
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 05:07 AM.
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.