Friday, October 23, 2015

This exchange was on a website Truthandshadows run by Craig McKee. It just shows you can take a horse to water but if he doesn't recognise water he will not be inclined to drink. If he is a 911 truther he will assume it is some kind of poison and will  accuse you of trying to poison him.

@Paul Zarembka
As an academic can you answer a straightforward question of logical deduction.
There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
They are mutually exclusive –
If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.
Do you
1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
or
2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?
REPLY
  1. Agent Wright,
    As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand
    Just more of your cheesy baseless insults. You are insufferably lame and transparent.
    \\][//
  2. I posed this question a few times
    “There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
    They are mutually exclusive –
    If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
    There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.
    Do you
    1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
    or
    2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”
    Option 1 is an illogical deduction using false deductive reasoning. Option 2 is obviously the correct logical reasoning to use when investigating anything.
    HR1 recognised this.
    Quote Hr1
    “As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand.”
    ————–
    In this case A is ‘the plane flew north of the gas station’ and B is ‘the plane hit the Pentagon.’
    So do you
    I: Look at evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and conclude that it flew north of the gas station. Conclude that since the plane flew north of the gas station that it could not have hit the Pentagon?
    or
    2: Look at the evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and also the evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon before reaching a conclusion about which is true.”
    Having recognised this , here are posts from HR1 using false deductive reasoning of option 1.
    ——
    Jens Schmidt:
    Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
    —
    As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
    This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.
    —
    There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about.
    —
    It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
    So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
    ——-
    Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentogon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.
    This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
    That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.
    Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.
    REPLY
    1. “Having recognised this , here are posts from HR1 using false deductive reasoning of option 1.”~Agent Wright
      Wright does not grasp the concept of Ultimate Fact; wherein the combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.
      The ultimate fact has been adduced from all of the combined points of evidence in the 9/11 Pentagon case proving beyond reasonable doubt that the aircraft in question flew on a trajectory north of the Citgo station. See:http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=49c680ff47c50fcefd79375f8995c465&showtopic=1863&st=15&#entry22008858
      This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore based on all deductive and adductive reasoning that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond reasonable doubt.
      . . . . . . . . .
      Everyone familiar with Agent Wright knows him/her to be a disingenuous agent provocateur, and none are impressed with his/her vapid attempts at reason and logic. As Adam Ruff remarks; Wright answers no questions, but only poses nonsense riddles ad infinitum.
      \\][//
      REPLY
  2. @HR1 You repeat the same false deductive reasoning yet again! -the deductive reasoning that you said yourself was obviously false!
    “This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore based on all deductive and adductive reasoning that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond reasonable doubt.”
    REPLY
  3. @HR1
    I should say this is exactly the same false reasoning used by CIT, who presented their conclusions that ‘A’ was true with hardly a mention of the evidence for ‘B’ at all, proving that their logic is false.
    The question about two contradictory explanations for an event , A and B and how to determine which is correct
    Do you
    1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
    or
    2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”
    Your answer was
    Quote Hr1
    “As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand.”
    And you then went on to repeat and repeat the false logic of option 1.
    “It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.”
    1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false.
    You asked if people thought that the plane could have hit the lightpoles – as if it was an accusation!
    Quote : “Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11.”
    So much for option 2.
    REPLY
  4. I think it is exceedingly revealing that Deets would agree with Agent Wright’s accusations that I and others here are using illogical reasoning in these debates.
    Obviously there is nothing wrong with Wright’s formulation – what is wrong is him applying it to us; as it is he who constantly mutilates the very principles articulated in his equation. It is hypocritical and disingenuous switch and bate to accuse others of his own willful sins.
    So here we have Deets, not only comparing Truth and Shadows to the justly defunct JREF forums; but also siding with a known, but anonymous stooge and toadyboy: Agent Wright.
    Of course this shreds any remaining validity one might have found in Dwain Deets arguments, his honesty, or his sincerity. He has committed virtual seppuku right before our eyes.
    \\][//
    REPLY
  5. @HR1 “Obviously there is nothing wrong with Wright’s formulation – what is wrong is him applying it to us;”
    Since the quotes I presented were entiirely your own words I’d say you applied it to yourself. The false logic is there for anyone to see. It is there in NSA for anyone to see. Personal attacks on me or anyone else won’t make the logic go away.
    REPLY
  6. “Since the quotes I presented were entiirely your own words”~Wright
    Quote those words back to me here and now Wright, or forever shut you face.
    \\][//
    REPLY
      1. “@HR1 The quotes are in the posts above.”~Agent Wright
        This will not do Wright, you post the quotes you say are mine or shut your stinking face.
        \\][//
        REPLY
        2. “No. The quotes are in the posts above where you can scroll up and read them.”~Wright
          You stinking lying prevaricating whore shill. I know every word I said and what you said. If you don’t post the quotes you claim are mine that prove I have not made a logical argument, You will prove yourself to be exactly as I characterize in my first sentence here – One more shot asshole.
        3. Agent Wright, You are again evading a direct challenge to respond – to put up or shut up. Let’s have your answer as spurious as it is certain to be.
          \\][//
        4. As it is clear that Agent Wright has squirmed off into the shadows once again, I will explain his nonsense here:
          My mode of argumentation falls squarely in Wright’s;
          #2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?
          I have assessed the (A) government’s case for flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I have assessed the total lack of any confirmed evidence thereof.
          I have then assessed (B) the confirmed testimonials of the ‘North Side Witnesses’, and tried them agains what are now asserted to be ‘South Side Witnesses’ – although there were never such distinctions drawn until the CIT discovered through personal and direct investigation the witnesses referred to as the NOC witnesses.
          That many of the NOC witnesses have been attempted to be put into the SOC camp by the opposition is clearly a disingenuous ruse; as is shown in the witness comparisons originally compiled by Onesliceshort, and presented below as a fairly complete cast of the witness pool.
          . . . . . .
          Now as Wright has plainly misaprehended my arguments are plain. That Wright uses the first mode of taking only ‘A’ without consideration of ‘B’, also shows how disingenuous his argumentation is.
          \\][//
        5. “There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
          They are mutually exclusive –
          If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
          There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.
          Do you
          1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
          or
          2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”
          ________
          Quote HR1
          “My mode of argumentation falls squarely in Wright’s;
          #2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?
          I have assessed the (A) government’s case for flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I have assessed the total lack of any confirmed evidence thereof.
          I have then assessed (B) the confirmed testimonials of the ‘North Side Witnesses’, and tried them against what are now asserted to be ‘South Side Witnesses’ – although there were never such distinctions drawn until the CIT discovered through personal and direct investigation the witnesses referred to as the NOC witnesses.
          That many of the NOC witnesses have been attempted to be put into the SOC camp by the opposition is clearly a disingenuous ruse; as is shown in the witness comparisons originally compiled by Onesliceshort, and presented below as a fairly complete cast of the witness pool.
          . . . . . .
          Now as Wright has plainly misaprehended my arguments are plain. That Wright uses the first mode of taking only ‘A’ without consideration of ‘B’, also shows how disingenuous his argumentation is.”
          —————————-
          Now compare to HR1’s actual mode of argument from quotes here:
          ___
          This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory.
          ___
          Jens Schmidt:
          Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
          —
          As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
          This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.
          —
          There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about.
          —
          It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
          So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
          ——-
          Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.
          This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
          That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.
          Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.
          _____
        6. And so what Agent Wright? As I have already determined by looking at the evidence from both sides of the argument, that it is impossible for the plane on that trajectory to have hit the light poles or made the damage in the Pentagon; there is no reason to argue for any but what my legitimate analysis has determined.
          You have again blown a load of nothing here with your stupid and vapid remarks.
          You are truly an utter dolt Wright.
          \\][//
        7. I have already tried to explain to Agent Wright the concept of Ultimate Fact; which in law and logic is the drawing together of all the facts as deduced in particular points and adding them together as one ultimate fact. The deduced facts are adduced to this single “ultimate fact” that is then considered to be proof beyond reasonable doubt.
          Wright apparently hasn’t the mental capacity to grasp this fairly simple and straight forward concept. I am sure the larger readership can. Which is the reason that Wright is the odd man out on this forum.
          \\][//
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)