Need help with this argument

[Dave Rogers]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

For anyone capable of being swayed by logical analysis, you don't need to tighten it up at all. The problem is that you may encounter a mindset that has no such tendencies. Possible counter-arguments - all absurd, but I suspect you'll encounter them - are:

(1) The NTSB didn't realise that the data contradicted its story, because they're not as clever as they think they are.

(2) The NTSB didn't mean to release the true data, they just forgot to substitute a corrected set that didn't prove the flyover [1].

(3) The NTSB didn't have any choice about releasing the data because an FOI request trumps the commands of their NWO masters.

(4) The NTSB released the data because they didn't think anyone clever enough to understand the discrepancies would be independent-minded enough to challenge the official story.

(5) The NTSB released the data but plans some other devious strategy at some future time to refute the analysis, thus discrediting the conspiracy theorists.

Basically, you can't use logic to argue someone out of a position that wasn't arrived at by logic.

Dave

[1] Yes, I know there are holes in this one you could fly a 757 through.

 

[ref]

Go_

To give you a better idea of who these people are. The main man claiming the FDR data is false is a man named Robert Balsamo aka JDX. Here is his hypothesis of what happened at Pentagon:


"It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits. "



Would you believe, when this guy comes and tells you, that all the massive amounts of evidence proving the Pentagon hit and the FDR is wrong, and the AA77 didn't hit?

 

[jaydeehess]

There is one other CT take on the FDR data that I have personally not seen but would be similar to an arguement by Apollo Hoax believers. That is that the FDR data shows the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon and that the NTSB person who released it knew this but instead of modifying the data he/she decided to become an anonymous whistle-blower and release this data so that someone out there would see the 'truth'.

Of course this would have to assume that the data showed that the plane would not hit the building in the first place, which it does not.

 

[beachnut]

I think you need a logic expert, I get carried away with the data stuff. I am not sure how to make your argument stronger. Are you going to drop this on your first and last PFTf post?

The dumbest part of JDX story implies the plane is north of the CITGO station. From that position he wants the plane to fly over the impact zone. The FDR proves this wrong. Physics prove it wrong. JDX pathetic story is not supported by the very FDR he says proves 77 was too high? He will have to throw out all evidence from 9/11 and the FDR to have his story and eat it too.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

Well, I believe your post can be rewritten as such:
P1: If the FDR contradicted the NTSB statement regarding flight 77, then the NTSB would be aware of this conflict
P2: If the NTSB were aware of a conflict between then FDR and the statement, then they would not release the FDR data as is or would have amended the statement
P3: The NTSB released the data as is and did not amend the statement
C: The FDR does not conflict with the NTSB statement

Now, if I have not accurately rewritten what you are saying then the following will be of little value:
Unfortunately, the above is affirming the consequent.
P1: If A then B,
P2: If B then C,
P3: C,
C: Therefore A and B

Unfortunately, there are other possible paths which can lead to P3; such as:
P1: If A then B,
P2a: If B then C,
P2b: If D then C,
P3: C
C: ?

Where P2b could be something like, "The NTSB altered the FDR data and did prior to releasing it"

Also, I fear there are assumptions being made in the construction that invalidate the statement. The assumptions are as follows:
1) No conflict exists between the FDR data and the NTSB statement
2) If data existed in the FDR that conflicted with the NTSB statement, then the NTSB must know about them
3) The NTSB released the FDR data "as is"

#1 should be easy enough to support
#2 will be difficult. Assuming that the conflict is shown in #1, then evidence must be presented that the NTSB knew of the conflict
#3 will be very difficult as it is basically proving a negative. Unless it can be shown that the NTSB did alter the data, then we must fall back on the assumption that they did not alter the data.

The base problem is that, from a logic standpoint only, that the FDR data and the NTSB statement are in agreement does not support the validity of either as it is a circular reference; if both were faked and faked in such a way as to be consistent with each other then it is impossible to tell if they are in agreement because they were faked that way, or because they are actually that way.

Now, from a practical standpoint, that the FDR data and the NTSB statement are in agreement does strengthen their value, as the only way they could both be false and in agreement is if the NTSB was in on the cover-up; thus leading to R. Mackey's Inflation of Conspiracy Theories Maxim. But, when dealing with conspiratorial thinking, such is of little value because the cabal behind the conspiracy is always infallible, except when they screw up.

My suggestion would be to go about proving that the FDR data and the NTSB statement are in agreement with each other and that the NTSB statement has not been amended. The onus is then on your opponent to show that the FDR data has been altered.

 

[Anti-sophist]

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

You've implied an assumption that you haven't stated, namely,
- If there was an error, the NTSB would have caught it (ie, an infallibility premise)

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

This premise, to be honest, is weak. What about the possibility that the NTSB released it with false information on purpose for 'disinfo'? What about the possibility that the NTSB released it with false information knowingly because of time/money/bureaucratic constraints?

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Yes.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

There are three main issues you've avoided, on a purely logical level. One, you've assumed infallibility of the NTSB. Two, you've neglected the possibility of intentionally bad data. Three, you've neglected the possibility of shoddy work because of external factors.

I think #1 (infallibility) presents the most problem because it reduces your argument to something fairly close to fallacy (ie, no true scotsman).

If we assume the NTSB is perfect, then we must assume their results are correct, therefore we must assume reality matches their results. Anyone who claims the reality of the situation was different from the NTSB must be wrong, therefore, because the NTSB is perfect and they've disagreed with the NTSB. That's a backwards way (...in the last sentence, replace NTSB with God) to approach the scientific method because your logical premise essentially enforce how reality must be as opposed to allowing reality to enforce the truth of your assumptions.

 

[Brainster]

Bear in mind whom your target audience is. Remember that the odds of you swaying a denier who's into this NTSB stuff is probably nil to begin with. So the question becomes who are the fence-sitters you're trying to reach with this argument. If it's an academic panel or observers at a formal debate, then using terms like "modus tollens" might work. If it's in a non-technical forum or in a shoot-the-breeze session, something like, "Let me get this straight, you're trying to use the black box from Flight 77 which was discovered at the Pentagon to prove that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?" may prove more effective.

 

[Go_]

Well, I believe your post can be rewritten as such:
P1: If the FDR contradicted the NTSB statement regarding flight 77, then the NTSB would be aware of this conflict
P2: If the NTSB were aware of a conflict between then FDR and the statement, then they would not release the FDR data as is or would have amended the statement
P3: The NTSB released the data as is and did not amend the statement
C: The FDR does not conflict with the NTSB statement

Now, if I have not accurately rewritten what you are saying then the following will be of little value:
Unfortunately, the above is affirming the consequent.
P1: If A then B,
P2: If B then C,
P3: C,
C: Therefore A and B

First, thank you very much for replying. This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to get.

Second, I disagree that the rephrased argument (which is an improvement on my original) affirms the consequent.

Since the consequent in premise 2 is ["they would not release the FDR data as is or would have amended their statement"]. It's denial is ~[they would not release the FDR data as is or would have amended their statement] or [they released the FDR data as is and did not amend the statement].

Thus, rather than

P1: If A then B,
P2: If B then C,
P3: C,
C: Therefore A and B

. . . we have

P1: If A then B,
P2: If B then C,
P3: Not C,
C: Therefore, not B and not A

 

[Go_]

"Let me get this straight, you're trying to use the black box from Flight 77 which was discovered at the Pentagon to prove that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?" may prove more effective.

Possibly, Brainster, but you know how these guys are. Reasoning of any stripe is not their long suit. They'd just as likely as not reply to "Let me get this straight, you're trying to use the black box from Flight 77 which was discovered at the Pentagon to prove that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?"

by claiming that the black box was planted at the Pentagon after the fact.

In fact, that's exactly what at least one of them has written.

The crux of my argument, analogically, is that it is highly unlikely that OJ would go to the LA police department and turn in a hunting knife covered with his fingerprints and Nicole's blood.

Yet this is exactly the kind of scenario that one must believe is realistic if one believes that the NTSB BOTH knew that the FDR data contained incriminating evidence AND then willingly released the data to the public.

To believe this is akin to proclaiming one's insanity.

 

[Go_]

Thanks for the critique, AS.

You've implied an assumption that you haven't stated, namely,
- If there was an error, the NTSB would have caught it (ie, an infallibility premise)

Yes, that is one of many implicit assumptions in the argument. But it's not an infallibility premise. I don't claim that it is absolutely certain that the NTSB would catch all errors in their work. This is why I used the word 'obvious' to characterize the kind of error to which my argument referred.

I assume, and I think rightly so, that the error of the sort that PFT believes they detected in the NTSB's work is HIGHLY unlikely to have gone undetected by the NTSB itself.

My argument is intended to be inductive, not deductive. Perhaps I should have used language like "probable" "most likely" etc. to make that clearer.

This premise, to be honest, is weak. What about the possibility that the NTSB released it with false information on purpose for 'disinfo'?

If the NTSB knowingly released data that is false then the PFT claim is false because the PFT claim relies on the truth of the NTSB data.

What about the possibility that the NTSB released it with false information knowingly because of time/money/bureaucratic constraints?

Such may very well be the case and if it is the case, then the PFT claim, again, is false.

There are three main issues you've avoided, on a purely logical level. One, you've assumed infallibility of the NTSB.

Actually, I don't. I merely assume that the NTSB is by an order of magnitude more likely to catch such an obvious, blatant error in their interpretation of the flight data than is John Doe or some college student in England.

Two, you've neglected the possibility of intentionally bad data.

No, I haven't. I simply recognize the irrelevancy of that possibility. If the data is intentionally bad then PFT's claim is false since it relies on the data being accurate. Whether the released FDR data is good or bad is a dilemma that PFT has to deal with, not me. If the data is bad, then their claim is clearly mistaken; if OTOH it's good then their claim is highly unlikely to be true.

Three, you've neglected the possibility of shoddy work because of external factors.

Same as above. If the data is bad for ANY reason (and I think that here you've hit on by far the most likely reason that the data may be bad) then PFT's claim is false; i.e., the data does not show what PFT claims it shows because the data is false.

 

[beachnut]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

1. The NTSB has no story. The NTSB was asked by the FBI to decode and show them. NTSB has no story to support. Number 1 becomes not logical. The NTSB products show data.

2. The NTSB has no story to amend, just data delivered to the FBI. When the FBI said it was okay to release the info, the NTSB gave out data. NTSB still has no story they are not the guys who did the investigation, the FBI is.

3. The NTSB has no story, just data presented to the FBI.

4. The NTSB has no story to contradict.

I went off on the data binge, but I can not find a NTSB story. They supplied data to the FBI. The NTSB story does not exist.

If a truther was smart enough, when you finally get a rock solid logic set, they will tell you the NTSB did not have a story; and go along their insane path of truthy lies.

The only official story would have to come from the FBI. The NTSB does not do on purpose stuff, crimes are done by law enforcement, FBI. The truthers can be shut down with one line; There is no NTSB story. Ask them to produce the story from the NTSB, they will not be able to find one and they will fail to answer.

This brings up a pimp point of the day. Did the NTSB leave a nav error (like an offset error, or error in decoding software) in the data to see if the FBI would see the slight difference in the presentation of data which question could arise if one was not aware of what the data meant. I mean did the NTSB pimp the FBI with some errors not related to the date but presentation to see if the FBI had the expertise to catch the errors of presentation (I know there is an error in the animation presentation, not related to the quality of the data). Did the NTSB do this since the FBI was lead and the NTSB was limited to what they also wanted to study?

ie, the NTSB and the airlines had impact data that could help improve flight safety in a pure research kind of way, did they pimp the FBI if that research, if wanted, was denied in a bureaucratic kind of way. (they would never tell them either, they would sit back and see who was smart enough to find the presentation error)

 

[Anti-sophist]

If the NTSB knowingly released data that is false then the PFT claim is false because the PFT claim relies on the truth of the NTSB data.

Only in a rational world. PFT regularly picks and chooses which bits of data it chooses to believe. This is an endemic quality of the 9/11 CTers. However, I see your point.

Such may very well be the case and if it is the case, then the PFT claim, again, is false.

This statement, while true, has two main problems:

1) The primary underpinning of PFT isn't that the NTSB data is correct and therefore shows XYZ. The primary motivation is to attack the official story in any conceivable way. That means that showing the data to be flawed or faked or whatever does constitute a success, not a failure. They've chosen a particular (ridiculous) scenario and claimed it to be most likely, but they would happily abandon it for some other and more provable scenario that shows misconduct (ie, the data was faked).

2) They will reject this logic because they will say they aren't making -any- claims. They are just asking questions that they need answered.

Having actually studied their objections in some depth, however, fear not. Because all of their nonsense fails miserably on scientific grounds. That means they've lost long before we ever get to apply logic to our scientifically backed premises in order to form rational conclusions.

 

[Go_]

This statement, while true, has two main problems:

1) The primary underpinning of PFT isn't that the NTSB data is correct and therefore shows XYZ. The primary motivation is to attack the official story in any conceivable way. That means that showing the data to be flawed or faked or whatever does constitute a success, not a failure. They've chosen a particular (ridiculous) scenario and claimed it to be most likely, but they would happily abandon it for some other and more provable scenario that shows misconduct (ie, the data was faked).

Good point. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that virtually any response given to a CTers' claim will be interpreted by them as support for their claim, not as refutation of it. IOW, if it is shown that the data is correct then they'll either argue for an interpretation of that data such that it supports an alternative 9/11 theory or abandon that particular theory and simply move on to the next; if OTOH it's shown that the data is false, then they'll say this proves 'cover-up.'

2) They will reject this logic because they will say they aren't making -any- claims. They are just asking questions that they need answered.

Yes, I've witnessed this myself. It's the old creationist 'false dilemma' argument (i.e., "We're not claiming that God created the world, we're only saying that either God created the world or evolution is true; and since we've 'shown' that evolution is false, well, you draw your own conclusions.")

There are many similarities between the types of arguments advanced by CT'ers and by ID'ers -- all of them fallacious.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Beachnut, stop being pedantic. It's obvious to a blindman that Go_ is trying to construct a logic argument that basically stated that the NTSB wouldn't have released DFDR Data that contradicted the official story because it'd be stupid to do so.

Of course while that it likely a correct argument it's not unassilable to those for who Reality is a village south of Katmandu because they will just claim that the NTSB screwed up, that since experts don't really know anything so they wouldn't have figured out what was wrong, or that a whistleblower released the "real" data instead of the faked stuff. The idea that they are wrong because they haven't got a clue won't even enter their head.

 

[Go_]

Thanks, Phantom Wolf

. . . and, yeah, you're probably right about that: These people are no more likely to be swayed by logic than they are by scientific fact.

It doesn't matter what's logical or what the broad consensus of expert opinion says. At the end of the day it all boils down to the fact that they are going to believe what they choose to believe and not what the facts and reasoning points to.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, stop being pedantic. It's obvious to a blindman that Go_ is trying to construct a logic argument that basically stated that the NTSB wouldn't have released DFDR Data that contradicted the official story because it'd be stupid to do so.

Of course while that it likely a correct argument it's not unassilable to those for who Reality is a village south of Katmandu because they will just claim that the NTSB screwed up, that since experts don't really know anything so they wouldn't have figured out what was wrong, or that a whistleblower released the "real" data instead of the faked stuff. The idea that they are wrong because they haven't got a clue won't even enter their head.

I was wondering what I was being. I agree. Sorry about that Go.

I was serious that the NTSB did not have a story, and only presents data to the FBI. There are no conclusions from the NTSB, just data.

I do understand he means the official story, and having to argue with the truthers using logic about facts is a worthy, but many times a fruitless pursuit (but may save some people from joining the truthers). Good luck Go.

GO Go, get em (hope he does well)

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

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. 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.

By releasing the data that appears to conflict with it's own story, they have framed the debate for you. Is the story true, or is the FDR data true? What is the truth about that darn airplane? Argue within these narrow limits now please.

Ahem, Go, listen up. No airplane hit the Pentagon. There were no airplanes crashing at any of those 4 places on 9/11. There might have been a plane flying around to create some eyewitnesses, or not. We don't know. But no plane hit the Pentagon.

As long as you believe a plane hit the Pentagon, the perps don't give a rat's behind which exact version of the story you go with. FDR, original story, whatever.

 

[ref]

Ahem, Go, listen up. No airplane hit the Pentagon. There were no airplanes crashing at any of those 4 places on 9/11. There might have been a plane flying around to create some eyewitnesses, or not. We don't know. But no plane hit the Pentagon.

Why do you say that? What happened at Pentagon according to you?

 

[apathoid]

Ahem, Go, listen up. No airplane hit the Pentagon. There were no airplanes crashing at any of those 4 places on 9/11. There might have been a plane flying around to create some eyewitnesses, or not. We don't know. But no plane hit the Pentagon.

I'm sorry if this seems like a flame, but statements like this never cease to amaze me. Ace, have you told your family that you're not sure whether airplanes were involved on 9/11? What was their response?

 

[Gravy]

Ahem, TruthSeeker, listen up. There is no "Go." There is no post by "Go." There may be "Gos" elsewhere, on signs and whatnot, but not here.

As long as you believe there is a "Go," the perps who post here are thrilled. They have you thinking that there is a "Go," and there isn't. But now you're preoccupied with this "Go" problem, which may or may not be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

Are you paying attention? There is no "Go," there is no "Go post," and you are not reading this thread because there is no thread.

But don't look under your bed, because something very, very real is there, and it wants to speak to you.