redhen, on 15 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:
After reviewing notes and textbooks, I think I need to change my request for a causal argument. The argument is not really of the form; smoking causes cancer, or porn causes rape, but rather an abductive argument (inference to the best explanation), of the form;
By this criteria, I have not seen a single cogent argument on UM forums for any kind of 911 conspiracy. And I doubt I ever will.
then you are deluding yourself. I have given you a prima facie reasoned argument which you need to refute or accept, it is also an abductive argument since nobody has provided a better more plausible explanation.
http://www.unexplain...55#entry4622036
redhen, on 15 January 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:
I already gave you one, government bureaucrats were temporarily paralyzed like a deer in a headlight. It happens to the best of us. Anyways, you guys are shifting the burden of proof again. That's just not on.
show me a deer frozen in the headlights for 2 hours. "government bureaucrats" is a mis-description of the presidents secret service security team. the burden of proof is with the one who asserts, which was you. you asserted the reason for not moving the president to a safe location was that the security team froze for 2 hours. you provided no reasoned argument for this assertion. it is also not a plausible argument, so by your above new rules of abductive argument your explanation has to be rejected. A better explanation is that the person who made the decision to stay at the school knew the school was safe, which implies they knew the school was not going to be a target, which implies foreknowledge which implies involvement.
Quote
Right some people interpreted this as a sign of coolness under fire. Others, like OBL saw it as weakness, according to the al Jazeera video tape, he laughed and thought it was weak that he would leave his citizens alone for that amount of time.
this does not address the point as to why the president and his security team would decide to stay in an unsafe location for 2 hours, endangering the life of the president and those at the school. if what you say here is meant to be a reasoned argument for staying at the school then you have not taken into account all 8 points in my link above which demanded the president be moved.
Quote
Why not? I submit the deer in the headlight syndrome was greatly responsible for the rapid Nazi conquest of France in 1940.
not even a deer freezes in headlights for 2 hours, nevermind a security team whose prime function is to act quickly to ensure the president is safe at all times. you are appealing to an absurd analogy.
Quote
Can't you just summarize the pertinent points from this doc? Anyways, without even reading it, I see that CFR is a "think tank", That means they get paid to think up all kinds of scenarios to defend against. It's the same thing the military does. In this process all kinds of wild eyed scenarios are imagined, that's their job. It's like doing due diligence.
it describes the destruction of the twin towers in a catastrophic pearl harbour type event as a way that would change american society. it is not a lengthy document, you should look it up for the details. it was written by neocon phillip zelikow who went on to author the 911 commission report which concluded "911 was a failiure of imagination", and yet he had imagined the 911 event exactly in his cia/cfr document "imagining the transforming event". you also know about the pre-911 neocon PNAC document "rebuilding america's defences" which outlines the full neocon agenda, and which stated that a new pearl harbour event would be required to get through the agenda. again this is prima facie.
Quote
There are many instances of authority figures purposely putting on a brave front in order to keep people calm, especially the British, they are famous for it.
I note you deleted part of my reply in your response which addresses the point, subconscious denial perhaps?. I'll repeat it -
"simply stating "apologies, but the president has important business to attend to and has to leave" would have been the correct thing to do, but you only see the possibility of them running around like headless chickens.".
the underlined bit is not mutually exclusive to "a brave face".
staying at the school for 2 hours whilst the events were going on is stupid (unless you KNOW the school is not a target)
Quote
because your response to it was incoherent. I still don't know what point you were making.
Quote
I didn't say that specific policy changed all the time, I said government policy, in general changes all the time.
you were trying to imply it is normal for rumsfeld to have changed the defence response procedure, but it wasn't since it had not changed in 30 years and there was no reason to have changed it unless he wanted to have the power to stand down a defence response.
Quote
I have not researched this
the documents and analysis are online so there is no reason you can't. as I said your views are a composite of what information you are willing to expose yourself to. closing your eyes doesn't make it go away. you asked why truth seekers believe what they believe and i'm telling you why. consider yourself enlightened.
Quote
you claimed it was an automated system, to me, as systems analyst, means computer infrastructure, salaries, etc
you also asked for a "casual" argument when you probably meant "'causal" argument. I didn't jump on your head over words because i take time to understand the meaning of what someone says, not interpret what they say with a predefined prejudice. I clearly explained what was meant by "automatic" - the FAA was required to instruct NORAD to intercept the jets immediately, and NORAD was required to follow that instruction, that was the procedure, in other words a defence response was to have occurred automatically and quickly and independent of anyone outside of those needed to respond. rumsfeld changed all that just prior to 911. all he had to do was be awol and norad would stand down.
Quote
You're shifting the burden of proof. I started this thread to discover the belief system of truthers. I asked for a coherent, reasoned argument that explains who planned and controlled the 911 attacks, and why? Asking me to support my claims (which I have not made mind you) is shifting the burden of proof. It's a violation of the constitutive rules of argumentation. Reluctantly I have offered some counter arguments, after much prodding, but I didn't have to according to the rules of argumentation.
no i'm not reversing the burden, you are offering an alternative explanation for changing the procedure "cost of admin etc" so its your burden of proof. you did not provide a reasoned argument as you demand your responders do. I'm showing you a belief that is based on evidence, logic and facts. I've given you three prima facie points of evidence, and you've responded with implausible speculations. I'll give you a fourth - rumsfeld was on the lawn of the pentagon helping an injured person on a stretcher. he was helping carry that stretcher with several burly military guys, the footage was broadcast on cnn. rumsfeld is an 80 year old man, if anything his actions were hindering those stretcher bearers, so there was no reason to do that. but here's another thing - he was the defence secretary! yet his actions of impromptu stretcher bearer effectively compromised the defence response - he had more important things to be doing than wasting his time with ambulances and stretchers. the only possible legitimate reason i can see why rumsfeld was helping the injured at the pentagon was if he knew the attacks were over. now how did he know the attacks were over ? so again this is prima facie.
Quote
Ok so you meant that you had prima facie evidence, in the legal sense, not in the connotation of self-evident. That's good, for you see that it can mean "at first glance" and subject to further investigation .
do you have any evidence to disprove this prima facie evidence? or a reasoned argument? or a better abductive argument? what you've come up with is nothing of the sort.
if a man's gun is found at the scene of a murder and he had prior written about his wishes for the victim to be dead, and his prints were on the gun, that's prima facie - he has to now prove his innocence to the court or he will be convicted - prima facie reverses the burden of proof.
Edited by Little Fish, 16 January 2013 - 01:15 PM.
6
