|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th December 2013, 09:06 PM | #201 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
|
I haven't read the thirty-five or so posts after the one quoted, so forgive me if the point's been made, but I see you're invoking Schrödinger's cat. Now, I am no quantum physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe the theory states something like "the cat is in a closed box with a poison that kills 50% of the time, therefore, if the box is unopened, the cat is both alive and dead." That, to this simple soul, is a very profound way of looking at probabilistic events. However, the point is that, unless I'm mistaken, this holds true to account for future possibilities, not observed events. The events of 9/11 are the observed past; no matter how unlikely any of it was, the events happened. There is no evil government conspiracy, there is no thermite, there is nothing but the plot and actions by a relatively small number of terrorists that figured out how to pull off an attack that no one in the U.S. thought would happen. This may or may not fit your world view. But it is what it is and you just have to deal with it. |
28th December 2013, 09:08 PM | #202 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Just to cover the base Gish Gallop
|
28th December 2013, 09:50 PM | #203 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I'm back. Not intoxicated but neither am I sober. But don't think it is necessary to be totally sober to respond to some of this ... stuff that came back.
Not a single one of you gets my case. I am not totally surprised but I thought maybe at least one of you would have at least an inkling and acknowledge it. Let's start with the basis of everyone being neutral; a simple hypothetical. Everyone of us having just learned of 9/11 12 years after. No knowledge of any particular things. For the first time we are introduced to particular items that occurred. Based simply on the items -- no previous knowledge -- I presented, do I not make a case that the most likely explanation is FF? Yes or no. |
28th December 2013, 10:02 PM | #204 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
|
|
28th December 2013, 10:15 PM | #205 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
All of you start from a well entrenched position that CD/false flag absolutely did not occur. But, in spite of what you call your null hypothesis, you must come up with an explanation for ALL of the "oddities." You say that because your hypothesis is the "null," you do not have to explain anything.
Does not anyone get that you have proven not a thing about why anything in particular that happened, happened? Your only basis is it was not a false flag and that explains everything. All you need to do is come up with a [u]possible[u] explanation for each of the many odd occurrences, i.e., it was possible, i.e., NOT impossible. Fine. But there were [u]so[u] many! All you are able to come up with is that "it was possible." Is your hypothesis the "null" because you say the prima facie case is because of reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire? |
28th December 2013, 10:17 PM | #206 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
28th December 2013, 10:23 PM | #207 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
No.
What case? You haven't made a case. What do you mean by "it" OK - one particular "thing" is that the WTC Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11. I agree with the following observable items of fact. ("True facts" btw ). (1) A plane flew into each tower; (2)fires started; (3) fires were not fought and some time later (4) the towers collapsed. Do you agree that: A) Towers collapse was one of the things that happened on 9/11? B) That those four facts plane strike, fires, unfought and collapsed are true facts? AND I say based on that evidence of facts that plane strike plus unfought fires caused the collapse. That is what we call an hypothesis. You want that collapse to be a false flag - you had better start producing some evidence and argument. What do you mean "make a case"? you haven't even started. You need claim, evidence, reasoning. You haven't even said what "it' is that you allege is False Flag. In fact towers falling down CANNOT be false flag - it is simply a technical fact of a technical event which happened on 9/11 and it is backed by technical evidence. So whatever else you may be thinking of but won't tell us the technical event of collapse CANNOT be false flag. No obviously. |
28th December 2013, 10:33 PM | #208 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
You haven't made a case.
Inside job? Where's your paper trail? Detonators? Perpetrators? Audio recordings of explosives? Flash from thermite? Trail of material? Anything real, for forensic evidence? Anamolies you can't figure out? What the heck is that worth? Dude, you ain't got squat, as far as I can see. |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
28th December 2013, 10:37 PM | #209 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
You cannot see "it?" "It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag." And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible." For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest. That is the "it." |
28th December 2013, 10:39 PM | #210 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
|
|
28th December 2013, 10:42 PM | #211 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
28th December 2013, 10:46 PM | #212 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
28th December 2013, 10:56 PM | #213 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I agree. Planes crashed, buildings collapsed, etc. There is NO disagreement those things happened. They are in the past. But with "FF," it is not hard to understand why things happened the way they happened. IT WAS PLANNED. They planned to crash airplanes and bring down buildings. You can claim otherwise but have to explain "how." If not CD, you have to explain how. You have. But you have only explained "it's possible." You have not proved that is the only explanation. "FF" shows it was the expected result. My point: It does not have to be shown how they did CD. What I am showing is that it is that simplest explanation. AND that EVERY item I posted, "FF" is the simplest explanation. For EVERY item all you have shown is its "possible."
|
28th December 2013, 10:57 PM | #214 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
Nice strawmen.
You seem to think that the issues you've raised have not been addressed ad finitum in the 900,000 posts in this sub-forum. You seem to think that everyone has not thought about the multitude of issues related to 9/11. You seem to think all we ever say is "it was possible". You are quite wrong. Hope this helps. |
28th December 2013, 10:58 PM | #215 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
28th December 2013, 11:08 PM | #216 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
How is that a strawmen (sic)?
Until just a few days ago I had NO idea how much all of this has been addressed. I just came here to post. I started looking for past threads a couple of days ago and wow(!), a whole bunch of them. I of course knew there had been discussion here but simply no idea how much. So since everything has already been thought about, why any new threads at all? Is it not okay that I post, at least with what I thought was a new approach? If not, that must mean I need read for many hours everything here from the past and try to figure out what is allowed for new postings. Is that the way JREF works? |
28th December 2013, 11:12 PM | #217 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
28th December 2013, 11:13 PM | #218 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Then do it - stop saying "I can explain it" - and actually post the explanation. I even wrote you a "road map" back at post#185 which you choose to ignore.
..and that comment is what, in polite circles, is called a lie. Specifically in the jargon of these forum discussions it is a lie supported by "quote mining". Taking something out of context and misrepresenting it to support an untrue statement. All the evidence has been posted multiple times on this and other forums. If you ever get round to posting your explanation we can call up whatever evidence is needed in response to your explanation of your claim. BUT NOT BEFORE you post an explanation worthy of response. We cannot respond to a claim that has not been made and supported by evidence and argument. I and others have explained the process many times. Please follow it. |
28th December 2013, 11:17 PM | #219 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
This is a huge list of things you missed.
Saying these things (miraculously) happened is not evidence. You need photographs, emails, memos, recordings, etc of the actual planning and orchestration of the "false flag". Saying it was a false flag or an inside job just raises a whole lot of questions. It is not evidence. Where are the FDNY, NYPD, FBI, CIA, NORAD, Forensic, etc whistleblowers? Where are the bank statements showing payments to silence the inside job witnesses? Where are the nanothermite requisition slips, delivery slips, packaging? Where is the det cord for the charges? Where are the Wikileaks / Snowden files on any premeditation or coverup? I'm sure others can add more. |
28th December 2013, 11:22 PM | #220 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
You built up arguments to fight that noone here is making.
You acted so sure of yourself. If you'd seen so many discussions why did you say all we say is "it's possible"? Having said that, I welcome new members. This is a discussion forum, after all, and I hope we can continue to have a "friendly and lively" discussion. |
28th December 2013, 11:22 PM | #221 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I sure can...BUT
It is his claim - HOWEVER if he doesn't know the basis of both his claim AND the claim he disagrees with he is being dishonest in claiming that he can explain it easily <<< and the various ways he has said that. How can any honest person claim he can easily explain something when he doesn't know what he is explaining??? So I'm not into spoon feeding him. Conversely - if he ever gets around to raising some points of factual evidence and expresses some logic as to where they fit I will expend effort assessing his facts and correcting them if they need correcting AND ditto for his logic. Who knows - he may be right on some points and I will be the one who learns. Wouldn't be the first time. |
28th December 2013, 11:23 PM | #222 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
1. Yes.
2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes A) Yes B) Yes "AND I say based on that evidence of facts that plane strike plus unfought fires caused the collapse. That is what we call an hypothesis." I understand. And you also call it the "null." Are these you reasons for calling it the "null?" (I am sure they are but to avoid any misunderstanding I want to make sure I have it absolutely straight.) (#214): "... reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire?" Thank you My post (#217) |
28th December 2013, 11:40 PM | #223 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
To put in another way:
Everything you have in defense of official story is that all of the many "things" that happened 'are not impossible.' E.g., (I believe I am right about this) ozeco said, not that we have proved WTC7 to be a fire-induced collapse, we have only proven it possible. Note: I understand that if you have proven that in fact it could NOT have been a CD, that proves it. There are no other possibilities. To be clear, I claim you have not proven WTC7 was no CD. For if nothing else, for proof of no CD you require the many 'explosion' reports to be false or mistaken. There are at least two videos with audio of explosions. I fail to see why it is not more reasonable to consider explosions than not to. You can explain them away but only in terms of many people misinterpreting or lying. And there is audio. How is that explained away? I very reasonably, based on the above, believe there were indeed explosions. And if explosions, CD cannot be summarily dismissed. |
28th December 2013, 11:43 PM | #224 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
Many things explode in fires. Try thinking of a few.
Explosions ≠ explosives. |
28th December 2013, 11:50 PM | #225 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I would like to see a response to the "bandana" question above. I restate it so that is does not get lost in the shuffle.
For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest. Which is simpler, a "plant", or "its not impossible"? |
28th December 2013, 11:55 PM | #226 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
So what are you saying? They did not hear explosions or they are lying? THIS WAS the DAY of 9/11!! Do you think they were the first truthers fabricating a story?
Maybe there were a couple of pressure cookers exploding that sounded like explosions. Okay, I'll give you a few. But dismiss them all? Is that reasonable? Were the audios tampered with by truthers? |
28th December 2013, 11:56 PM | #227 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Great. That is your starting line. Now you can take the next couple of steps.:
1) state your position on CD (i.e. Yes to CD or No to CD); AND 2) state what it was about WTC that you claim was FF or inside job ["IJ"]. (presumably you claim "Crashing planes into towers was FF/IJ. Do you claim collapse was intended? Intended with or without CD?) I would usually avoid the term "NUL" - it has specific technical meaning which is not fully appropriate. I tend to say "default hypothesis". If I have said "NUL" my apology because I don't use it with the same implications as some of our other members. Not a big issue - see my next comment. I specifically do not refer to hypotheses which make global claims. All the ones I have posted in these discussions refer to a specific and defined claim. Remember I have cautioned multiple times to start from the technical elements of 9/11 AND to define what we talk about. And I have given clear reasons for that advice. So my recent comments were specifically about an hypothesis which I put forward explaining the Twin Towers collapses. Whether we call it "nul" or "default" or "Santa's personal hypothesis" matters not. It is the hypothesis which I have posted in an effort to assist you focus on presenting a reasoned explanation. Put as simply as I can - whatever we call the hypothesis before us the challenge is for you to produce a better hypothesis - one that is more persuasive than the exiting hypothesis. It is a bigger job that I think you realise. I have hypothesised about "airplane crashes and fire". I have not hypothesised at this stage about "Arab hijackers". My intention open - transparent. I want every building block of evidence validated and logically explained. "Arab hijackers" is about "who" - "airplane crashes and fire" is about "what" - totally different and separate issues requiring different proofs. I see you wanting to conflate multiple arguments as if they are one single but heterogeneous argument. I won't go there. Think of what is needed if putting an argument - a "case" - before judge and jury. Each part of the case has to be supported by the evidence which is relevant to that part of the case. |
28th December 2013, 11:57 PM | #228 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
"It was planted" implies "it was planted without being noticed or reported". Your answer is not as simple as you think.
Do you really think when a plane crashes that every item in every direction around is instantly engulfed in fire, or that fabric disintegrates when hitting the ground at speed? |
29th December 2013, 12:02 AM | #229 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Neither - you are comparing apples with concrete blocks.
And I may explain if it persists AND is somehow relevant to a reasoned claim. At present it is merely irrelevant noise. Try making YOUR explanation AND STOP criticising others. Even if the members post utter nonsense proving it is nonsense DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CLAIM. Your claim will stand or fall on whether it is valid. Not how many nits you can pick in the opposing claims. |
29th December 2013, 12:05 AM | #230 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
You are building strawmen again. No, I'm not saying they didn't hear explosions. No, I'm not saying they were lying.
"It sounded like an explosion/bombs" is a simile. How else do you describe an explosion? That doesn't mean they were actual bombs. Try reading the reports of "bombs going off" with similes in mind. Debunkers aren't denying that people heard explosions, much as you'd like them to be. |
29th December 2013, 12:09 AM | #231 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Why?
What claim are you making? What does the evidence of a bandanna do for your claim? Where does it fit in your claim? Remember my "road map" posted at #185. Step #1
Quote:
Here I'll play "Aussie Tag Team" with Orphia and give you an example: I ozeco41 claim that the evidence does not support the use of explosives to cut steel at WTC Towers on 9/11 <<<My claim. The opposing sides of evidence are: A) Multiple reports from witnesses of sounds of explosions and a few of blast and flash effects. Opposing that: B) There is no evidence of: (i) steel members cut by explosives; (ii) remnants of explosive devices or accessories in the debris piles; (iii) collapse mechanisms which indicate explosive cutting in preference to damage from impact and fires; (iv) (another 5 or six big ones and lots of little ones) <<<I present the evidence both ways THEREFORE << I draw two reasoned conclusions. The weight of evidence says no explosive cutting of steel. AND Whether or not people heard explosive sounds those were not sounds from the use of explosives used to cut steel in CD. Now whether you agree with that or not it has the structure of a reasoned argument. And you have to do that for every point where you choose to disagree with the existing hypothesis. Do that then stand back for the next round - because you ain't seen nothing yet in terms of reasoned argument. |
Last edited by ozeco41; 29th December 2013 at 12:28 AM. Reason: Got the claim pedantically accurate - I hope. |
|
29th December 2013, 12:12 AM | #232 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
You have no idea what occam's razor is. It is the simple path.
Planting the stuff makes it much more complicated. This means you are using some dumbed down "watt's razor", make up a lie and claim it is simple. You only tell lies about 911. I am using occam's razor, you lie, it is simple. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html
Quote:
You don't use occam's razor, you make up lies, aka "the path of least resistance", no research required. |
29th December 2013, 12:29 AM | #233 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Pretend you were planning an horrific horror show of a false flag for whatever reason. I say it was to get a "blank check." You won't pretend so let me do it for you.
We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!! Remember Payne Stewart? Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea? Not only is everyone confused with false radar blips, there won't be any fighters close enough. And maybe we can confuse any attempted communications with NORAD etc.. That should work. Hey, any video cameras around the Pentagon that might show what we are going to hit the Pentagon with? Check it out. Oh, a Hotel and a Citgo have cameras. Not sure what they will show. So dispense quickly after and confiscate them. That should take care of that. And on and on. So how do you explain false radar blips on same day? "It's possible". How do you explain fighter intercepts way away? "Coincidence". How do you explain multiple video confiscation within minutes? "Possible reasonable explanation." ALL "possibles" or "possibilities." How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag." It goes on and on. I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out. You have to -- many times contort -- to find a "possible" explanation for EVERY SINGLE THING!! A well planned False Flag? That very easily and in a straight forward, unambiguous, very clear, easy to understand manner, explains EVERYTHING!! Occam's Razor! Put a guess at reasonable odds on every explanation the Official Story Requires? I mean, what are the odds? But I agree with you, "it's not impossible!" |
29th December 2013, 12:33 AM | #234 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
You have said that many times. We can all read.
Do it!!! Explain it!!! Do it. Pick ONE. EXPLAIN it. We don't "have to" - you do. We will explain our claims. You explain yours. Your expectation that we explain our claims AND explain yours is ridiculous. |
29th December 2013, 12:34 AM | #235 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
Hi David.
Are you going to reply to our earlier posts, or keep changing the subject? |
29th December 2013, 12:43 AM | #236 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
And the dance continues...
|
29th December 2013, 12:45 AM | #237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
29th December 2013, 12:53 AM | #238 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
It's not about ODDS as you now know. It is simply "True" or "false" for each assertion of fact AFTER weighing the evidence both ways.
The "Official Story" doesn't require any explanation. It IS an explanation. Get your basics right. If you disagree with it tell us what, where and why you disagree. Stop saying "it is easy" just DO IT!!! That's easy even though it is irrelevant. 100% for what happened. 0% for what didn't happen. |
29th December 2013, 12:54 AM | #239 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
This whole bandana thing puzzles me.
If it was actually UA 93 which crashed, why plant anything at all? Why take the risk of being spotted/caught out when UA 93 is actually there? OTOH, if it was not UA 93 which crashed, then where is UA 93 and it's passengers? Either way it adds a huge layer of complexity to the conspiracy/false flag scenario. Complexity which Occam happily rejects. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
29th December 2013, 12:54 AM | #240 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
If I were planning the op I wouldn't time it to occur during an exercise. An exercise places more personnel and assets in the area which can easily be switched from exercise to operations. That would only serve to increase the likelihood of an interception. You might also like to note that the people responsible for QRA aren't part of any exercises and won't be getting false targets on their screens.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|