Refute the "official story" without resorting to Argument from Indredulity

[1337m4n]

This is your challenge. Prove the following statements true:

1) It is very likely that the WTC buildings collapsed from something other than impact damage and/or fire.

2) It is very likely that the Pentagon was struck by something other than a hijacked airliner

3) It is very likely that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville

The caveat is that YOU MAY NOT use any argument of this form:

Argument from Incredulity

Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
Therefore, P.

A simple variation on this is
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
Therefore, not-P.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Examples:

Example 1:
Antagonist: I can't imagine how bread rises without fairies; therefore, I believe in faeries.

Example 2:
Antagonist: How could that dowser have made the stick move without paranormal powers? Obviously dowsing has to work.

Example 3:
Antagonist: I can't believe the medium figured all that stuff out about me without spiritual aid; she must be in touch with the paranormal.

Example 4:
Antagonist (Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon): "No one in their right mind can look in the stars and the eternal blackness everywhere and deny the spirituality of the experience, nor the existence of a Supreme Being. There were moments when I honestly felt that I could reach out my hand, just as the pilot John Magee says in his poem 'High Flight', and touch the face of God." (Source: Observer Magazine, 16 June 2002, cited by Julian Baggani)


In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is particularly true when the lack of evidence is merely personal incredulity and other potential explanations, are well-known to others, such as the existence of the ideomotor effect as an explanation of dowsing, or the standard cold reading stage technique as an explanation of many mediums' performances.

Argument from incredulity is also a fallacy in the hands of scientists as well; as Clarke's First Law puts it, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Note that the "first time in history" argument is simply a variant of Argument from Incredulity, as if it were truly impossible for something to happen for a first time, nothing could logically ever happen.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This will either be a very short thread, or a very long one full of flying goalposts, screaming, whining, bitching and bellyaching.

 

[Loss Leader]

This is your challenge. Prove the following statements true:
1) It is very likely that the WTC buildings collapsed from something other than impact damage and/or fire.
2) It is very likely that the Pentagon was struck by something other than a hijacked airliner
3) It is very likely that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville

You're asking people to prove a negative. That doesn't seem fair. It's up to the proponents of these theories to provide evidence sufficient to constitute proof.

Ostensibly, you believe that the proponents already have. The job then is to discredit such evidence until it falls below whatever level is sufficient to convince you that something is true. So, you create a problem for anyone accepting your challenge because nobody but you knows what level of evidence you require to be convinced of a historical event.

Certainly, you must accept some level of proof less than mathematical or scientific certainty. After all, it is perfectly possible that superintelligent invisible aliens engineered the whole chain of events. There being a possibility of such an absurd thing being true, there cannot be 100% certainty about the so-called official story.

What level of evidence constitutes proof of a historical event? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Clear and convincing evidence? That it is more likely than not?

More likely than not, King George III had acute intermittent porphyria. However, as the man has been dead for some 200 years, there is no way to test that theory and there are many reasons to at least suspect he had something else. So that historical fact has been proven to one standard, but not to another.

I think for your challenge to be fair, you define your standard of proof.


ETA: I, of course, hold no troother beliefs whatsoever. My comment is on the logical process, not the substance of the matter.

 

[Kid Eager]

... and arguments about the efficacy of fairy bread as a dowsing medium.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense at all now that another post has intervened. Never mind. Try the cabbage, it's wonderful.

 

[TJM]

Dude went and broke out the truther kryptonite on them.

Harsh.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This is your challenge. Prove the following statements true:

1) It is very likely that the WTC buildings collapsed from something other than impact damage and/or fire.

2) It is very likely that the Pentagon was struck by something other than a hijacked airliner

3) It is very likely that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville

1) Impact damage & fire, alone, caused them to collapse.

2) It was struck by Flight 77 & no missile debris were ever found at the site.

3) I live 20 miles North of Shanksville, trust me, it crashed there.

Any Truthers want to take on this thread, or me for that fact??

 

[WildCat]

Any Truthers want to take on this thread, or me for that fact??

Signs say... no.

 

[dvictr]

3) what about the EMP re-hijack theory - that claims the flight was intercepted by F16 but instead of being shot down was electronically forced into a high speed nose dive??

(it is very likely Flight 93 was intercepted and based on GW's orders an appropriate course of action was taken to save further civilian casualties and the "let's roll" story was fabricated, to remove liability and use as propaganda along with the other course of events)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6234333&postcount=181

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

3) what about the EMP re-hijack theory - that claims the flight was intercepted by F16 but instead of being shot down was electronically forced into a high speed nose dive??

(it is very likely Flight 93 was intercepted and based on GW's orders an appropriate course of action was taken to save further civilian casualties and the "let's roll" story was fabricated, to remove liability and use as propaganda along with the other course of events)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6234333&postcount=181

You didn't read the OP and you don't understand what he was asking for.

 

[TJM]

You didn't read the OP and you don't understand what he was asking for.

Yes he did and yes he does.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6214070&postcount=63

Waste no time on this one.

 

[triforcharity]

3) what about the EMP re-hijack theory - that claims the flight was intercepted by F16 but instead of being shot down was electronically forced into a high speed nose dive??

(it is very likely Flight 93 was intercepted and based on GW's orders an appropriate course of action was taken to save further civilian casualties and the "let's roll" story was fabricated, to remove liability and use as propaganda along with the other course of events)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6234333&postcount=181

And yet, the FDR, which is electronic, didn't fail untill impact. Imagine that.....

 

[jaydeehess]

Refute the "official story" without resorting to Argument from Indredulity

I have rarely seen it tried.

3) what about the EMP re-hijack theory - that claims the flight was intercepted by F16 but instead of being shot down was electronically forced into a high speed nose dive??

(it is very likely Flight 93 was intercepted and based on GW's orders an appropriate course of action was taken to save further civilian casualties and the "let's roll" story was fabricated, to remove liability and use as propaganda along with the other course of events)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=181

This does on the face of it, satisfy the thread title. However it does so based upon one unproven conjecture, that of an EMP weapon that can disable an airliner and allow the DFDR to continue recording data from sensors on the aircraft that indicate all systems were working and ,,,, one Arguement from Incredulity,,, that the "let's roll" story is too incredible to believe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

3) what about the EMP re-hijack theory - that claims the flight was intercepted by F16 but instead of being shot down was electronically forced into a high speed nose dive??

(it is very likely Flight 93 was intercepted and based on GW's orders an appropriate course of action was taken to save further civilian casualties and the "let's roll" story was fabricated, to remove liability and use as propaganda along with the other course of events)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6234333&postcount=181

The word "Refute" does not mean "Fantasise about alternative possibilities to".

Dave

 

[dvictr]

I have rarely seen it tried.

This does on the face of it, satisfy the thread title. However it does so based upon one unproven conjecture, that of an EMP weapon that can disable an airliner and allow the DFDR to continue recording data from sensors on the aircraft that indicate all systems were working and ,,,, one Argument from Incredulity,,, that the "let's roll" story is too incredible to believe.

the "EMP type weapon" presumably overrides manual drive and executes a remote control and hacks the onboard computer/flight data recorder. OR the FDR was a fabrication sending a pre programmed sequenze of commands.. the "emp type weapon" may have been launched from a missle 100s of miles away.

nevertheless, after three other hijackings and airliners used as weapons.. the navy/airforce got off its butt and took action to protect the capital. the public relations nightmare of having to explain the destruction of a civilian aircraft was avoided and the rest is history.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This does on the face of it, satisfy the thread title.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. It's a series of random guesses that hint at a possible alternative narrative, without addressing the generally accepted narrative in any way whatsoever.

dvictr, please see post 13 among others. Your unsubstantiated guesswork has no relation to the subject of this thread.

Dave

 

[fess]

the "EMP type weapon" presumably overrides manual drive and executes a remote control and hacks the onboard computer/flight data recorder. OR the FDR was a fabrication sending a pre programmed sequenze of commands.. the "emp type weapon" may have been launched from a missle 100s of miles away.

I don't have a laughing dog, so I guess this will have to do...

 

[I Ratant]

Here ya go...
And another in the same vein...

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes we can refute the "official" sotry w/out needing argument from incredulity.

Mothra done it.

 

[carlitos]

Y'all really need to see the link that AJM8125 posted.

 

[Wolrab]

Come on, everyone knows EMP type devices just reboot electronic systems so they can be remotely controlled. Duh!