Need help with this argument

[boloboffin]

Well, to play devil's advocate, there are counter arguments to the argument (which is why affirming the consequent doesn't work). All you have to do is come up with plausible reasons why somebody at the NTSB would have knowingly released incriminating data. The quickest one that comes to mind is that somebody was whistleblowing.

However, it's far more likely that the NTSB didn't think the evidence was incriminating. What needs to be established first is if the evidence is incriminating or not. PFT and CIT and Ace think that it is. No one else here does, because the positions of PFT and CIT on the flight recorder is completely off base. That has been very well demonstrated.

In order for your argument to work, Go, you have to construct If And Only If statements, where A implies B AND B implies A, and B implies C AND C implies B. Then you can get away with affirming C and thus affirming A. It's devilishly difficult to do.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As someone upthread pointed out, it's certainly possible that in NTSB, the right hand doens't know what the left hand's doing. But assuming it released FDR info and was aware of the implications, I would try to open your mind to the concept of "creating your own opposition". This is a technique used prevalently in 9/11.

I think that was (5) on my list.

Dave

 

[Go_]

Well, to play devil's advocate, there are counter arguments to the argument (which is why affirming the consequent doesn't work).

Please read my argument again. It doesn't affirm the consequent. It denies the consequent. That's what modus tollens, a valid form of argumentation, is.

The consequent in my argument is "The NTSB WOULD NEVER release the FDR data or would release the FDR data but only after first amending its story about the fate of flight 77."

I deny this consequent by pointing out that "The NTSB, in point of fact, DID release the FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77."

All you have to do is come up with plausible reasons why somebody at the NTSB would have knowingly released incriminating data. The quickest one that comes to mind is that somebody was whistleblowing.

On the contrary, this is an extremely implausible scenario unless you also believe that the person(s) who released the incriminating data could somehow manage to avoid detection. But how would that be possible? Surely the NTSB would know the identity of the high-ranking person who made the decision to release such a sensitive piece of evidence.

Further, what possible motive might the conspirators have had to keep such damning evidence around in the first place? Let's not forget that the official story says that the other black box (the CVR) was damaged beyond usefulness in the crash. Well, if this particular conspiracy theory is correct and flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, then this means that the conspirators themselves damaged the CVR beyond usefulness -- so what prevented them from doing the same to the FDR? They had to know that it contained data that showed that the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon. Such an oversight is more than just highly unlikely; it's incredible.

However, it's far more likely that the NTSB didn't think the evidence was incriminating. What needs to be established first is if the evidence is incriminating or not.

Not really because it is irrelevant to my argument whether the evidence provided by the FDR is or is not actually incriminating. What is relevant is only whether the NTSB BELIEVED that the evidence provided by the FDR was incriminating.

Since the NTSB released the evidence, it's self-evident that they did not believe that it was incriminating. Now the question becomes: Why did the NTSB believe that the FDR data was not incriminating evidence?

This is either because the NTSB is incompetent beyond reasonable belief or because the evidence really is not incriminating and PFT has got something wrong.

Spelled out in this manner, the answer is obvious.

 

[Go_]

Hey Go, thought you might appreciate hearing from an actual one of "them".

As someone upthread pointed out, it's certainly possible that in NTSB, the right hand doens't know what the left hand's doing.

Sure, anything's possible; but simply because something is possible is not the first reason to believe that it happened. For that you need evidence.

I seriously doubt that even were the NTSB stupid enough to save and not destroy evidence that potentially could lead to the execution of some NTSB employees, even if they were that stupid, it's still a whole 'nother level of stupidity to assume that they would have allowed this evidence to be released to the public. I need some smidgen of evidence before I'm willing to believe that anyone who holds down a regular job -- even a government job -- is THAT braindead.

But assuming it released FDR info and was aware of the implications, I would try to open your mind to the concept of "creating your own opposition". This is a technique used prevalently in 9/11.

But the implication we're talking about here is the implication that the plane seen by numerous eyewitnesses did NOT hit the Pentagon.

Assuming the NTSB wish not to be proved to be liars, why would they release information that proves they are liars? Wouldn't that alone then cast suspicion on them?

If OTOH you mean to say that the NTSB released FDR data which is being misused by PFT (and others) to make points that are invalid, then you agree with me.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The consequent in my argument is "The NTSB WOULD NEVER release the FDR data or would release the FDR data but only after first amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

The trouble is proving that this part is indeed true. Under the cases we have listed (mistake, FOI, or whistleblower) then is is possible for the NTSB to release the data without the Offical Story being amended to match the data.

 

[Go_]

The trouble is proving that this part is indeed true. Under the cases we have listed (mistake, FOI, or whistleblower) then is is possible for the NTSB to release the data without the Offical Story being amended to match the data.[emphasis added]

I preface this by pointing out, again, that we are not talking about the merely possible here. CT'ers thrive on the fact that some people confuse what is merely possible with what is probable. It's possible (it really is!) that the Tooth Fairy had a bad hair day and blew up the Pentagon to work out her frustration. But how probable is it?

So let's make clear right up front that we are concerned only with probability. In this light then, let's examine your three 'possibilities' for probability:

First, "mistake":

How likely is it that OJ would mistakenly hand over a knife covered with his fingerprints and Nicole's blood to the authorities?

Not very likely at all.

It would seem to be infinitely less likely then that the brilliant conspirators who somehow managed to jump through all the intricate hoops required to plant explosives inside the Pentagon and to discharge them in perfect sequence as a plane flew over the Pentagon, to create the illusion that a plane which actually flew over the Pentagon appears to crash into the Pentagon, to plant plane parts, body parts, a CVR, and a FDR from flight 77 inside the Pentagon, and who deftly handled myriad of other tiny details would then commit a blunder that OJ wouldn't commit on his stupidest day.

That the FDR data was released by accident is possible, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, not at all probable.

Next is "FOI": . . . I must have missed where this was given as a reason that the allegedly incriminating FDR data was released. Is the claim being made here the claim that the same people who had no problem breaking the law in this country against capital murder (and breaking it about 2,800 times) would for some reason feel compelled to obey the FOIA statutes?

Surely not. So what is the FOIA argument? Since I'm not for sure I'll move on to the third possibility, "whistleblower":

Whistleblowers either do their work anonymously or step forward and spill the beans entirely. Neither has happened in this case. Since the release of this information was instigated in order to be in compliance with FOIA regulations and not initiated by anyone at the NTSB,The NTSB (and the FBI, for that matter) knows which high-ranking official authorized the release. His or her name cannot be a secret. So why hasn't that official resigned from the NTSB? Why hasn't that official spilled the beans entirely as to what he or she knows?

I suppose this is possible but at present does not seem likely to be the case at all.