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

[caveman1917]

Whoever said it was the same? Not me.

That's what you did:

It is pretty easy to show that modus ponens depends on the axiom of non-contradiction.

Suppose you have

P1 p->q
P2 p
Conclusion q

But any conclusion C can only be a consequence of an argument A if there is no interpretation of A in which C is false. So we add the negation of C to A

P1 p->q
P2 p
P3 ~q

If q can be true and false at the same time then this is a valid interpretation of A in which the conclusion is false and therefore C cannot follow from A.

So modus ponens does depend upon the axiom of non-contradiction.

You haven't shown that modus ponens depends on non-contradiction, you've shown that it is inconsistent with the negation of non-contradiction. Big difference.

I said that a proof in those logics depended upon the axiom of non-contradiction and so any proof would have to assume this axiom and therefore any proof of the axiom would be circular.

Yes and this is false. Just because modus ponens is inconsistent with lack of non-contradiction doesn't mean it requires non-contradiction as an axiom. More generally, any set of axioms is inconsistent with the negation of one of its theorems, but that doesn't mean that said theorem needs to be assumed as an axiom in order to prove it. You actually got quite a bit of leeway to decide which things you will take as axioms and which you will take as theorems. You could take the excluded middle and De Morgan's laws as axiomatic and derive non-contradiction as a theorem, or you could take non-contradiction and De Morgan's laws as axiomatic and derive the excluded middle as a theorem, or...

 

[caveman1917]

I am not aware of having claimed to have come up with the idea.

I assume it was those hundreds of logicians who uncovered this, I just learned about it at Uni.

Can you provide a reference? I know that several criticisms have been made of PM, but I've not heard of it being circular.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just for context:

Have you apologised for claiming that Northwoods suggested wounding people with plastic explosives yet?

Dave

When it was demonstrated to me that the primary source did not strongly suggest what I thought it did I acknowledged that and adapted my claim. That is the behaviour consistent with making an error, not with "clearly lying."

Now, as someone said earlier:

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?

All you've in fact admitted - though, in fact, by doing so you've therefore demonstrated the invalidity of your starting premise - is that Northwoods may be interpreted as not requiring any deaths as part of the plan. So perhaps you'd like to either (a) link to the post where you acknowledged that Northwoods did not suggest wounding people with plastic explosives, or (b) admit that you were lying a couple of hours ago when you claimed you had made that admission?

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

All you've in fact admitted - though, in fact, by doing so you've therefore demonstrated the invalidity of your starting premise - is that Northwoods may be interpreted as not requiring any deaths as part of the plan.

So perhaps you'd like to either (a) link to the post where you acknowledged that Northwoods did not suggest wounding people with plastic explosives

As you acknowledge, I've admitted that the Northwoods document may be interpreted as intending not to cause any deaths, which implies it may be interpreted as not suggesting to wound people with plastic explosives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As you acknowledge, I've admitted that the Northwoods document may be interpreted as intending not to cause any deaths, which implies it may be interpreted as not suggesting to wound people with plastic explosives.

Well then, I have to say it was very nice of you to imply all of that in the single word, "Sure".

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

Well then, I have to say it was very nice of you to imply all of that in the single word, "Sure".

Dave

What else would be needed? It follows directly from the fact that attempting to wound people with plastic explosives would likely lead to deaths, something I think we both agreed on. Hence if the intention is to not cause deaths then the intention is to not attempt to wound people with plastic explosives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What else would be needed?

You're asking for the word "Sure" to do one hell of a lot of work here. Let's go back to where Northwoods was first mentioned in the thread.

Speaking of that, there is not a single false flag operation in history that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people.

None that we know of at least. We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods) so as a concept it's hardly unthinkable.

Now, we've established that Operation Northwoods was not a "serious proposal for such," where "such" clearly refers to "a [single] false flag operation [in history] that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people"; in fact, it did not suggest the murder of a single one of "the committers' own people" (which must be taken to mean "US citizens," as the "committers" were themselves US citizens), and that it is at best merely arguable that it called for any deaths at all given that it did not specifically state that even Cuban nationals were to be killed. So can we further read into your use of the word "Sure" that you admit that your claim about Operation Northwoods - that it was a "serious proposal for such" - was in fact incorrect?

I know this may seem pedantic, but most people, if faced with the necessity of posting a list of admissions of things that they got wrong, would actually do so, rather than assuming that several paragraphs' worth could easily be read into the word "Sure" in response to a subset of that list.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

So can we further read into your use of the word "Sure" that you admit that your claim about Operation Northwoods - that it was a "serious proposal for such" - was in fact incorrect?

No, I admit that the primary document available is insufficient to establish the claim - it can be interpreted in multiple ways. That's not the same as saying that it is in fact incorrect that it's a serious proposal for such, it may very well have been so, it's just not established by the primary documents available to us.

I know this may seem pedantic, but most people, if faced with the necessity of posting a list of admissions of things that they got wrong, would actually do so, rather than assuming that several paragraphs' worth could easily be read into the word "Sure" in response to a subset of that list.

Necessity? There is no necessity, I am responding to you on this because I choose to, I could just as well simply ignore you. Which I may very well do once I'm fully convinced you have a personalized ulterior motive, as demonstrated by you singling me out for this "list of admissions of things I got wrong." Of course, I may still be shown wrong by what I can only assume to be a delay in your posts demanding everyone else in this thread to do the same.

And it's a list now? Where would you like me to start? For example before I was about 5 years old I believed in Santa Claus, I obviously got that wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, I admit that the primary document available is insufficient to establish the claim - it can be interpreted in multiple ways. That's not the same as saying that it is in fact incorrect that it's a serious proposal for such, it may very well have been so, it's just not established by the primary documents available to us.

But in fact it is incorrect - just trying to wring the last drop of meaning out of the word "Sure" here - to say that "We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods)," right?

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

But in fact it is incorrect - just trying to wring the last drop of meaning out of the word "Sure" here - to say that "We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods)," right?

Yes that is true. It is incorrect that we know that serious proposals were considered.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes that is true. It is incorrect that we know that serious proposals were considered.

Thank you. We got there in the end.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

Thank you. We got there in the end.

No we were already there several days ago when I acknowledged that the first time. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your grilling of Axxman, Allen, smartcooky, Oystein, et al with the same pedantry.

 

[Leftus]

Giving an example of an hypothesis with a specific property is not the same as claiming the hypothesis to be true. As for your persistent claims of disingenuity, I think you might want to look up the - much referenced in this thread - concept of "projection".

But it's also not addressing the actual question.

You said "If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "

And I did. As noted above, you weren't asking if it was true, only if it existed. BTW, since then you've done nothing but push a covert MIHOP. So, clearly, dishonesty.

But rather than address that honestly, you deflect and accuse me of your own faults. It's disingenuous. It was not about the content of the claim, but if the claim existed. It does, you are wrong, and should stay on point about the dishonest context you put the "911 was not an inside job" statement. In short, nobody starts a conversation that way. It's always a reaction to the converse statement that it was an inside job. It's not a statement, but a shorthand rejection to the claim that it was an inside job. It's not a perfectly worded argument, just a common way to say "Prove it" or BS.

 

[Dave Rogers]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]An American citizen that participated in a plot to "kill about 3,000 of his own countrymen
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and start unlawful wars in Asia and the Middle-East" would be ever petrified with fear and terror of discovery. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The thought of prison or firing squad would supply ample incentive for eternal silence.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Additional persuasion to protect their sorry tuckus would arise when they come to realize [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the upper echelon
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of the plot perpetrators might sleep better at night knowing loose-ends[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]were neutralized.[/FONT]

Yes, I agree that any reasonably intelligent person would be able to predict finding themselves in that predicament as soon as they accepted the invitation to participate in a plot to kill thousands of their countrymen. Yet one thing we can say for certain is that nobody was invited to join a conspiracy to fake the 9/11 attacks, refused the invitation and then went public about it afterwards; nor has anyone gone public by saying that their life was threatened if they didn't join in the conspiracy. So why, if people really were asked to do such a thing, would every one of them have willingly accepted the invitation?

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

But it's also not addressing the actual question.

You said "If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "

And I did. As noted above, you weren't asking if it was true, only if it existed. BTW, since then you've done nothing but push a covert MIHOP. So, clearly, dishonesty.

But rather than address that honestly, you deflect and accuse me of your own faults. It's disingenuous. It was not about the content of the claim, but if the claim existed. It does, you are wrong, and should stay on point about the dishonest context you put the "911 was not an inside job" statement. In short, nobody starts a conversation that way. It's always a reaction to the converse statement that it was an inside job. It's not a statement, but a shorthand rejection to the claim that it was an inside job. It's not a perfectly worded argument, just a common way to say "Prove it" or BS.

Person A: "There exists no hypothesis saying the moon is made of any sort of food."

Person B: "Sure there does, here's an example: 'the moon is made of cheese'"

You: "Person B is claiming that the moon is made of cheese."

Person B: "No I'm not."

You: "You're dishonest, disingenuous, pushing a covert claim that the moon is made of cheese, blah blah blah!"

 

[Dave Rogers]

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your grilling of Axxman, Allen, smartcooky, Oystein, et al with the same pedantry.

Perhaps you'd like to recommend the specific posts where each of them says something (a) relevant to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories and (b) demonstrably wrong.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

Rather something like 100% can't explain 50/45/5

Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)

In that case you're even more wrong, see previous paragraph.

Wow, this is how you came up with 50/45/5? That explains why you claim of 50/45/5 is undefined, ready for the bit bucket, aka, the empty set {}.

9/11 was an event. 19 terrorists associated with UBL did it and they used our response to hijacking to give about an hour before we figured out it was planes as weapons. It was our habits, our response customs which help make it happen.

Your posts are BS, and useless for an event. You can't explain your 50/45/5.

Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

Can you give details, facts and evidence to support your claim. I guess that is 100% NO.

Can you explain what is in the 5%. Is this another 100% can't do it?


Can you expand on the 45% MIHOP. Is this also 100% no clue?



Next time you comment on what happen on 9/11 just say "{}".

 

[caveman1917]

Perhaps you'd like to recommend the specific posts where each of them says something (a) relevant to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories and (b) demonstrably wrong.

Dave

Sure, you can start with the following post by smartcooky:

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.

It should be an interesting list as almost every claim in it is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Leftus]

Person A: "There exists no hypothesis saying the moon is made of any sort of food."

Person B: "Sure there does, here's an example: 'the moon is made of cheese'"

You: "Person B is claiming that the moon is made of cheese."

Person B: "No I'm not."

You: "You're dishonest, disingenuous, pushing a covert claim that the moon is made of cheese, blah blah blah!"

Again with the lies? The statement was not "there exists no hypothesis" but "nobody is putting forward said hypothesis"

You can shoot down the hypothesis all you want, but it doesn't address the statement that nobody is saying it.

You said "If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "

 

[bknight]

<snip>
It should be an interesting list as almost every claim in it is demonstrably wrong.

Since it has been nearly 19 years from the event, and not one person has come forward to announce an involvement by any branch of the government in planning/execution of the 9/11 attacks, one could support that with rather high certainty, that the government was not involved with planning/execution of the 9/11 attack. Notice I did not indicate a 100 % certainty.

Disprove that.