The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[SpitfireIX]

. . . You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.) . . . [emphasis original][emphasis added]

I doubt he knows this--I pointed it out quite a while back, and he failed to respond. Someone else asked him if he'd understood my point, and he still failed to respond.

 

[Myriad]

I doubt he knows this--I pointed it out quite a while back, and he failed to respond. Someone else asked him if he'd understood my point, and he still failed to respond.

My basis for conjecturing that he knows it is that he bothered to include the words "and only in" when he has not even tried to show that the 9/11 attacks (let alone any catalyzing and catastrophic attack whatsoever) would have been impossible without a government conspiracy. If he didn't know the gaping logic error was there, why would he try to cover it with a weak unsupported claim?

I'm not saying that's definitely the case, only that I have a reason to suspect it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay.



You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 21 pages of arguing, you've reached you're still on Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Quite correct, and in short

This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Errr... well 1stly its not their "website" Mr Clueless, but their biennial policy white paper.
2ndly, it is evidence of their deeming of a catastrophic and catalysing event as being propitious to policy, which gives us nothing more than a framework within which to proceed.
We are now dealing with foreknowledge. Please join in.

So what exactly are you implying? Please fill me in. What's the significance of this framework?

Foreknowledge of what?

 

[MIKILLINI]

mjd1982, I asked you two specific questions in my post 752







Please respond.

At this point Spitfire, he's flying a Messerschmidt ME 110 and you are on his tail. He's gonna get shot down here real quick.

 

[Corsair 115]

At this point Spitfire, he's flying a Messerschmidt ME 110 and you are on his tail. He's gonna get shot down here real quick.

Not if the rear gunner is a crack shot. One hit in the cooling system of that liquid-cooled engine and down it goes. Now, a nice radial-engined aircraft, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this weakness. You can shoot out entire cylinders and the engine can keep running.

 

[Jocce]

The event that is called for is one which has 2 distinct qualities: a) catastrophic, and b) catalysing

You're still twisting the wording to reflect your own interpretation. Nowhere in PNAC is this called for. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep doing that.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Err... there's 2500 words on foreknowledge at the top of this section. Feel free to address it whenever you choose (familiar pattern starting again...)



Err... how do you know?

Very simple. If you're right, they failed to keep it a secret. In fact, if you're right, they outright announced that they thought it would be a good thing if it happened and proceded to publish all the foreknowledge they could have acted upon to stop it, including all kinds of classified documents. The mind boggles.
And another thing: Would you like to be responsible for killing possibly 10,000 of your countrymen? Anyone you know, perhaps?

But this is just laughable. You seriously think that that is all that is standing in the way of any random person and 9/11? What the hell do u think the intel industry is for?

Yes.
Putting together all the pieces of this puzzle is easier when you know what to look for. They didn't.
All I see is a selection of [rule8]-ups that has been meticulously sifted from a no doubt larger list of unrelated [rule8]-ups. In some cases, those responsibe have tried to deny but got caught in the end, because some people don't just ask questions.

Also,
I think you might mean "you", but never mind.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Not if the rear gunner is a crack shot. One hit in the cooling system of that liquid-cooled engine and down it goes. Now, a nice radial-engined aircraft, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this weakness. You can shoot out entire cylinders and the engine can keep running.

I'll still most likely get him, even if he gets me, though.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Is this the new "I can't believe it's not kittens" topic?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll still most likely get him, even if he gets me, though.

The big question, of course, is - B, C or E wing? Four 303's throw a lot of bullets around but there's no real stopping power; do you trade for the two extra cannon or the two 0.50's?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Yes.
Putting together all the pieces of this puzzle is easier when you know what to look for. They didn't.
All I see is a selection of [rule8]-ups that has been meticulously sifted from a no doubt larger list of unrelated [rule8]-ups. In some cases, those responsibe have tried to deny but got caught in the end, because some people don't just ask questions.

If you already KNOW it's a conspiracy before you start, all the pieces that rational people see as unrelated, irrelevant, or misunderstood will certainly fit together to conform to your preconceived opinion.

We've seen it a thousand times. If you took all the things that are conjecture, half-truths, incorrect science, political bias, and out-and-out falsehoods away from your 'list', you'd find it would shrink to insignificance.

 

[Belz...]

Please give me an example of where i have "refused to look"

Well I, for one, and Aggle-rithm if I remember correctly, pointed to the fact that the PNAC did NOT consider it propitious. You just hand-waved that.

To state that people would want a revolutionary, wonderful change to happen sooner or later is speculative, is, well, a bit silly I would say. Not least for the reason that i could sat to draw the opposite conclusion is speculative. Please show me how that isnt.

Remember the car crash accident analogy ? Just because something would be good, doesn't mean it was caused by those who'd see it as a good thing. Of course, IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD, so your whole point fails, anyway.

Ha... because if it wasnt propitious, they would have stopped it. You know, stopped it?

How could they stop it if they didn't know it was going to happen ? See, you're assuming that the good ol' US of A is invincible, and that any and all attacks would be spotted and stopped, and that any attack that DOES make it is necessarily allowed to happen.

Of course, that doesn't make sense. No one is invincible, and no one would claim that the US government is 100% efficient.

No; it just catalysed everything they asked for.

Really ? US economy has dropped since 9/11, and things aren't exactly going well in Iraq for the military. Do you live in the US ? I don't. If you do, could you tell me how all this has improved the US situation ?

Please quote the whole sentence in context; then you wont have to ask such a question.

I see you simply don't want to answer.

Who is threatening them? Who are these people that are to be threatened?

I have no idea. You're the one who brought it up.

No expert on this, but heard of E Howard Hunt?

Nope.

 

[Belz...]

"To state" does not necessarily mean to be present in writing; something can be stated very clearly in not so many words.

The problem with this line of thought is that you can add words that you see fit anywhere. Stick to the words that ARE there, please.

Please read, and think, before you post. I did not say that 9/11 could only have happened in case of a conspiracy.

Yes, you did. Why just one post ago I answered your claim that they would have stopped it.

Which is NOT what they were talking about when refering to Pearl Harbor.

Which was?

A bad thing.

You're continuing to add words that aren't there.

Like what?

"We want a new Pearl Harbor".

OH MY GOD!!!

Read this,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

and dont ask that question again.

You want me to read that whole page again ?

Just answer the question, instead:

fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

And how is this war of terror related to what the PNAC asked for ?

 

[Belz...]

This implies however that you think this is a fairly probable scenario, which I think is, well, bonkers, really.
The first reason being that making people indiscriminately kill thousands of their countymen is not a very easy thing to do or keep quiet.

Err... how do you know?

Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.

This isn't the X-files.

The point is that if that is the case, then the attacks on the Cole etc were not catalysing. This is pretty simple.

After the fact, no.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.
This isn't the X-files.
After the fact, no.

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Augustine View Post
Horribly wrong. America has used pre-emption, or prevention, as justification for numerous military actions since the early 1800's. The "Bush Doctrine" is re-packaged and re-emphasized foreign policy specifically targeted to terrorism supporters, but the United States has used pre-emption as a national security strategy for over one hundred ninety years.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[Swing Dangler]

After many pages of drivel, we come to the bombshell: Osama was offered to Bush by the Taliban! Radical leftist Alexander Cockburn floated this myth in a column. But how credible is it? It must be considered somewhat curious that the legion of professional Bush-bashers is silent on the subject.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252

Try reading this article, Pomeroo from CNN about the offer.

Apparently there was more than one attempt at the offer.

Bush ignored questions about the Taliban's latest offer.

From the above article.

And yes, why would Bush bashers remain silent on something so important that was reported on by the mainstream media? Is that gate open or closed?

And then the Taliban after being rejected before the bombing, offers to talk again about the handover.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over-Source: Guardian Unlimited

But alas, Bush apparently isn't interested in the man responsible for 9/11. It really does make you wonder why, doesn't it Pom?

 

[gumboot]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

It didn't take any time to expose. It was self evident when Jews started getting rounded up and carted off to death camps. It was self evident in 1939 when Hitler said publicly that WW2 would be a war to end European Jewry.

-Gumboot

 

[Dave Rogers]

Try reading this article, Pomeroo from CNN about the offer.

You've posted two links that don't say what you claim they say. One is an offer from the Taliban that if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan they would talk about handing over Bin Laden to an unspecified third country, and the other is an offer to put Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan, under Islamic law. Nowhere is there a clear offer to hand over Bin Laden, and both of these efforts look like simple bluff by the Taliban to save their skins without committing themselves to anything. I hate to compliment the man, but it looks like Bush was right to reject these non-offers.

Dave