How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[Leftus]

Since it has been nearly 19 years from the event, and not one person has come forward to announce an involvement by any branch of the government in planning/execution of the 9/11 attacks, one could support that with rather high certainty, that the government was not involved with planning/execution of the 9/11 attack. Notice I did not indicate a 100 % certainty.

Disprove that.

One thing that bothers me is the phrase "the government" as if it's some monolith. It's highly fractured, which is one of the reasons that 9/11 actually happened. Info was not shared. Robust firewalls and strong agency tradition prevented sharing.

Just look at the response to Covid-19. It's disjointed. This is not a bug, but a feature. Which is the problem the OP is trying to address. Even if someone in the CIA wanted the USAF to not scramble fighters, it's going to take some co-ordination at very high levels. Also, it would lead to a different inquiry. Why didn't they react? A smaller conspiracy doesn't solve problems. It creates them.

 

[bknight]

One thing that bothers me is the phrase "the government" as if it's some monolith. It's highly fractured, which is one of the reasons that 9/11 actually happened. Info was not shared. Robust firewalls and strong agency tradition prevented sharing.

Just look at the response to Covid-19. It's disjointed. This is not a bug, but a feature. Which is the problem the OP is trying to address. Even if someone in the CIA wanted the USAF to not scramble fighters, it's going to take some co-ordination at very high levels. Also, it would lead to a different inquiry. Why didn't they react? A smaller conspiracy doesn't solve problems. It creates them.

I can accept that, perhaps I should have typed any part of the government.

 

[Axxman300]

And it's a list now? Where would you like me to start? For example before I was about 5 years old I believed in Santa Claus, I obviously got that wrong.

Hold on, using Marcello Truzzi nobody can definitively state that there is no Santa Claus.

Saint Nicholas of Myra was a real person, and in your world view there is no shelf life for institutions doing the same shadowy deeds. Using your logic it is safe to say that Santa Claus is 58% real, 40% a Christian conspiracy of Bishops slipping into every house in the world to deliver toys, and 2% Eggnog (as a control).

To my knowledge there has been no official or serious investigation into the existence of Santa Claus in spite of over 100 years of claims by children to the contrary.

If you say that there is no reason to investigate the existence of Santa Claus then you have joined Truzzi's world of Pseudoskeptics...don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter...

 

[caveman1917]

Hold on, using Marcello Truzzi nobody can definitively state that there is no Santa Claus.

As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

He accepted the argument, surely so can you. Also, your silly retorts in no way make you any less of a pseudo-skeptic, as demonstrated exhaustively in this thread.

 

[beachnut]

As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

He accepted the argument, surely so can you. Also, your silly retorts in no way make you any less of a pseudo-skeptic, as demonstrated exhaustively in this thread.

oh, my kid was going to tell the other kids there was no Santa... I explained, no Santa, no toys - yes, Santa exists - you lost this one

project much pseudo-skeptic - did dad save money that Christmas - math proves no presents this year - cool


Thus math prevents you from
Explaining your claim. the 50/45/5 opinion based on {}
Explaining the 5%. Is it CD, explosives, remote control aircraft?
Explaining what is the 45% MIHOP.

 

[Oystein]

...
3. Even if it were impossible to prove a claim, that's still no reason to consider the claim true. "It's impossible to prove this claim therefor I'm believing it" - seriously, think that one through for a second.
...

Why didn't I catch the problem with this one earlier?
You present a strawman argument here.

You see, no one says they believe a global negative because ("therefore") it's practically impossible to prove.
We believe the negative "no government agency MIHOP 9/11" because there exists no prima facie evidence to believe the contrary, no theory thereof, no nothing, but there exists plenty of evidence-based reasons to reject the plausibility of such a vague proposition.

Now if you construe this as us making a claim of having "Truth", absolute certainty: I think you would again be erecting a strawman, for I am sure most of us (I can speak for myself, and feel comfortable including Axxman300, pgimeno, Dave Rogers) believe it is exceedingly unlikely that 9/11 can be characterized as a MIHOP by some US or allied government agency.

This is where your pseudo-scientific misapplication of the maximum entropy principle comes in: I think we actually apply it intuitively more validly than you do. To pretend that the issue is correctly modeled as a dilemma, and to assign equal probability to both sides under the pretense that both sides have equal (zero) evidence are both gross errors of perception of reality.

 

[Robin]

LP does not have an axiom of non-contradiction.

And modus ponens is invalid in LP, as even Priest says.

 

[Robin]

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)

I asked you to show me how they were inconsistent.

All you have shown me is two conclusions that you can derive from this premise, you have not showed me how they are inconsistent.

Being able to derive two conclusions from one premise does not demonstrate inconsistency.

Are you perhaps suggesting that these two conclusions are inconsistent with each other because something cannot be simultaneously true and false?

 

[Robin]

As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

I see this flawed argument often.

Santa Claus, if he existed, would have visited the houses only that contained children that had been good for an entire year.

Any parent who has tried to get their children to be good for an entire day would be wondering what Santa did for the rest of Christmas Eve.

 

[Axxman300]

As I explained to my dad when I was 5, given the number of houses in Belgium and the number of seconds in a night, if Santa Claus existed he would have to visit multiple houses per second which is obviously impossible, therefor Santa Claus does not exist.

He accepted the argument, surely so can you. Also, your silly retorts in no way make you any less of a pseudo-skeptic, as demonstrated exhaustively in this thread.

And it never occurred to you that Santa Claus is CIA?

Then his magical powers are consistent with MIHOP.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure, you can start with the following post by smartcooky:


It should be an interesting list as almost every claim in it is demonstrably wrong.

The only issue I would take with it is that the last two words should be replaced by "a sensible conclusion, unless and until any contrary evidence arises."

Smartcooky, are you OK with that?

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

And modus ponens is invalid in LP, as even Priest says.

Good thing then that nobody claimed that. For reference, here is what actually happened:

There is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction

LP does not have an axiom of non-contradiction.

You've made the claim that there is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, when you were shown wrong you changed the subject to a different claim (that modus ponens is invalid in LP). Did you really think I would fall for that?

So do you retract your claim that there is no paraconsistent logic without an axiom of non-contradiction?

 

[caveman1917]

I asked you to show me how they were inconsistent.

All you have shown me is two conclusions that you can derive from this premise, you have not showed me how they are inconsistent.

Being able to derive two conclusions from one premise does not demonstrate inconsistency.

Are you perhaps suggesting that these two conclusions are inconsistent with each other because something cannot be simultaneously true and false?

Here is what actually happened:

So you are saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent???

Please be explicit that this is what you are saying.

Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)

You claimed that an argument can't prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent, when you were shown wrong you changed the subject to demanding of me to show the argument is inconsistent.

Do you retract your claim that an argument can not prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent?

Changing the subject when your claims are shown wrong (twice in a row now) doesn't bode too well for your intellectual honesty.

 

[caveman1917]

The only issue I would take with it is that the last two words should be replaced by "a sensible conclusion, unless and until any contrary evidence arises."

That speaks volumes. Let's see if you're being honest here rather than, as I suspect, just having a personalized ulterior motive and being willing to support any random nonsense for it. Here is one of the claims you take no issue with:

The negative claim carries no burden of proof as its proof is the absence of evidence. This is a technical way of saying that you cannot prove a negative.

Here's a negative claim: "There are no planets around stars in GN-z11."

By smartcooky's argument, which you agree with, absence of evidence of such planets is proof of this claim. Therefor GN-z11 is a very special galaxy that, unlike the Milky Way, has no planets around its stars. Agreed? Would you be willing to publish a paper claiming to have proof that there are no planets around stars in GN-z11 because there is no evidence of them? Want to have a bet how reviewers' comments on such paper would look like?

 

[Robin]

You've made the claim that there is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, when you were shown wrong you changed the subject to a different claim (that modus ponens is invalid in LP). Did you really think I would fall for that?

So do you retract your claim that there is no paraconsistent logic without an axiom of non-contradiction?

Here is what I said (without the relevant parts carefully snipped out):

There is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, by definition a logic that leaves this out would be an inconsistent logic, which as I said, are just toys for logicians.

Paraconsistent logics have this axiom but it is relaxed in some cases.

And this is true of LP.

The axiom of non-contradiction is retained for reasoning about sentences that are not paradoxical. I just re-read The Logic of Paradox where Priest defines it to check this.

So thanks for giving me an example that confirms what I said.

So, tell me again, why should I retract it???

 

[caveman1917]

Here is what I said (without the relevant parts carefully snipped out):

And this is true of LP.

The axiom of non-contradiction is retained for reasoning about sentences that are not paradoxical. I just re-read The Logic of Paradox where Priest defines it to confirm this.

So thanks for giving me an example that confirms what I said.

So, tell me again, why should I retract it???

That's funny, I vaguely seem to remember someone telling me that just because something is true in a subset of a logic that doesn't mean it is true in the whole logic.

Are you willing to change your claim to "In paraconsistent logics the principle of non-contradiction is retained in special cases but not in general"?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a negative claim: "There are no planets around stars in GN-z11."

Not relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was quite clear about that. But in any case, there is evidence to the contrary, in that planets are commonly observed around stars with a frequency very much greater than one per galaxy, so a reasonable provisional conclusion would be that the claim is false.

Dave

 

[Robin]

Here is what actually happened:
You claimed that an argument can't prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent, when you were shown wrong some irrelevant inference you changed the subject to demanding of me to show the argument is inconsistent.

In this case I misread what you were responding to, I assumed you were responding to:

Show me any two well formed propositions in propositional calculus that are not consistent with each other and explain why they are inconsistent.

When in fact you were responding to:

So you are saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent???

Please be explicit that this is what you are saying.

Your answer was

Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)

Which doesn't seem to relate in any way to what I said.

I asked you to be explicit that you were saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of th argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent

You still haven't responded to that.

Do you retract your claim that an argument can not prove its conclusion if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent?

Nope, do you confirm that you think I am wrong in saying this?

 

[zooterkin]

If you want a philosophical discussion on the nature of argument, please take it to a more appropriate thread.

In this thread, please keep to the subject, which is "How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...".

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Robin]

So let's back up a few days to before this went meta am

The claim was:

Sure, if you gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there then it's trivial to debunk because it indeed runs into major issues. None of that was specified in this thread though, it's also quite lazy skepticism going after the lowest-hanging fruit.

And for reference the "low hanging fruit" that the OP. was about includes:

Architects and Engineers for Truth
Pilots for Truth
CIT
A certain senior lecturer in International Relations in Lincoln University (who studied at Oxford).

I am pretty new to the 9/11 Truth field. Who are the individuals or groups, for example, who are prosecuting the theory that the CIA or some other agency had convinced the Jihadis to undertake this operation?