How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[pgimeno]

No, that's not how things were framed.

Yes it was:

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.

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:

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.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

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.

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)?

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?

 

[caveman1917]

My bad, you're right.

Thank you for admitting a mistake.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

 

[beachnut]

pseudo-skeptics, the evidence for 50/45/5?

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.

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:

Denying, when only doubt has been established

Double standards in the application of criticism

The tendency to discredit rather than investigate

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

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.

 

[caveman1917]

...

As per Truzzi, pseudo-skepticism:

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established

Several people here claimed that NO covert operation was involved.

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.

3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate

Not applicable.

4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

None of the people making the negative claim presented any evidence or proof of their claim.

5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

All of those people claimed that their negative claim requires no burden of proof.

6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

Making the negative claim without substantiating it.

7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

Not applicable (counter-claims have been based on nothing whatsoever, not even plausibility)

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:

1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established

I expressed maximum doubt, per about 50/50% chance either way.

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.

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.

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).

5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing

Not applicable.

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.

 

[beachnut]

pseudo-skeptic schools on the made up 50/45/5 -

As per Truzzi, pseudo-skepticism:

Yes you are a pseudo-skeptic, and don't know it. You are textbook project too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Making the negative claim without substantiating it.

You mean like your 50/45/5 woo, which makes you the pseudo-skeptic.

Not applicable (counter-claims have been based on nothing whatsoever, not even plausibility)

Like your 50/45/5?

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.

Then, as per Truzzi, true skepticism:

like your 50/45/5 claim with no meat.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Axxman300]

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.

 

[Allen773]

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]

The guy was a ghost hunter.

I'm a ghost hunter.

I win.

If there’s something strange, in your neighborhood...

 

[pgimeno]

I concede the points above the following 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.

 

[caveman1917]

- 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.

- 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...

- 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.

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.

 

[pgimeno]

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.

- 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.

...50/50 the proper estimate.

Wrong again.

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.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Robin]

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.

ftfy

No, you just didn't understand what I said.

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.

 

[beachnut]

off topic rambling from the pseudo skeptic?

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?

 

[smartcooky]

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?

 

[Robin]

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.

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

2. That modus ponens depends on it.

And this is correct, modus ponens does depend 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.

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.

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

Again, true

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.

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

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.

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

And this is also true, pretty much by definition.

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.

Given this track record so far...

Seems pretty good to me so far, it is your own track record you should worry about.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Axxman300]

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:

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?