IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
There's No Independent Verifiable Evidence For A Missile At The Pentagon, if you disagree please post evidence here

amazed!
post Mar 2 2009, 11:32 AM
Post #81





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Craig

I do not question your conclusion as to the flyby maneuver. It seems quite logical to me, and a useful tactic if one were planning the event.

But it is a huge leap to say that what you have shown regarding the flyby necessarily excludes the use of a missle.

Many folks will see a Boeing flyby low and sorta slow, but most MIGHT NOT see a lower and quite a bit faster and WAY SMALLER cruise missle. IF there are some folks who claim to have HEARD a missle, that might demonstrate that a small missle was present.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 11:36 AM
Post #82





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



No logic there.

All government controlled and provided information is 100% invalid evidence (WHETHER OR NOT it can be shown to be altered) within the context of an investigation into government involvement.

That is a fact and a rule that we must go by if we wish to find the truth.

By embracing the security video you are falling right into their trap.

We can never know if what they provide is valid so it must ALL be rejected. Given the extreme nature of the crime the best assumption is that ALL has been manipulated and released for a reason. The more important and high profile it is, the more chance it was altered.

The security video shows BLATANT signs of manipulation and is an EXTREMELY high profile piece of alleged evidence.

It has played a central role in the propaganda and the dubious nature with how it was "leaked" in the first months after the event is enough to remain permanently skeptical about it. If ANYTHING is invalid manipulated data that video tape is the number 1 prime candidate.

Obviously you have made up your mind and you will go to your grave with a belief in a missile at the Pentagon.

Logic, reason, and evidence be damned this is what you believe and you have admitted that you don't even need evidence to maintain this belief.

You have admitted that NO amount of evidence against a missile can convince you otherwise because to you it's "impossible" to prove a negative.

Even if you personally talked to 100 witnesses in this critical area and none saw a missile or anything on the south path you would STILL believe it.

I can't argue against faith.

I'll keep working on obtaining evidence.

You'll keep pushing a debunked theory and dismiss the evidence we present because you don't like me personally.

So I ask you AGAIN....

Are you really suggesting you don't feel the witnesses are accurate or honest about the north side approach???

Why are you avoiding answering this question?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 2 2009, 11:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 11:51 AM
Post #83





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 2 2009, 03:32 PM) *
Craig

I do not question your conclusion as to the flyby maneuver. It seems quite logical to me, and a useful tactic if one were planning the event.

But it is a huge leap to say that what you have shown regarding the flyby necessarily excludes the use of a missle.

Many folks will see a Boeing flyby low and sorta slow, but most MIGHT NOT see a lower and quite a bit faster and WAY SMALLER cruise missle. IF there are some folks who claim to have HEARD a missle, that might demonstrate that a small missle was present.



How many folks would it take?

How many who only saw one airborne object on the north side would it take to convince you that this is what really happened?

We don't present anything based on what people "might" have heard.

It's all about what they DID see.

The fact is that ZERO evidence for a missile exists and you don't care about how much evidence exists to the contrary.

You are insisting on believing in a missile based on nothing but pure speculation and invalid government data.

It is detrimental to our efforts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2009, 01:36 PM
Post #84



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



First,

Everyone cool their jets....

next....

Nothing should be "rejected", deemed "invalid", or ignored, just because it was controlled by the "suspect". Using such terms minimizes the true nature of the information being offered by the "suspect" and analyzed by independent investigators. The term "Anything you say, can and will be used against you..." is exactly what we are doing when analyzing govt controlled data and information. Much of the govt information/data conflicts with their own story. Evidence/statements/information provided by the suspect is never "rejected" in a court of law.

Further...

No one can control the way others think, feel or react to certain information. Craig, the only way you are going to squash the "missile" debate is if you hack every website which contain missile theories and start deleting pages. I feel you would attract more attention to witness statements by focusing on your work and disseminating such information publicly, as you have been doing, rather than trying to convince others where their focus should be. It appears you're spinning your wheels with this topic and getting the opposite of the desired results.

Finally...

If and when this information goes to a court of law (if there exists a just court in the land) and the discovery process runs its course, witnesses will not be the only evidence on the table. FDR, videos/photographs, parts, physically damaged materials (cab, light poles.. etc), expert testimony, the list is almost endless of which will be considered "evidence". Unfortunately for the "suspect", much of the evidence they provide conflicts with their own defense. This in itself is "evidence" and should never be marginalized with terms such as "invalid" or "rejected".

My .02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anduril
post Mar 2 2009, 01:39 PM
Post #85





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 118
Joined: 24-May 08
From: Bristol, England
Member No.: 3,418



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Mar 2 2009, 03:36 PM) *
No logic there.

All government controlled and provided information is 100% invalid evidence (WHETHER OR NOT it can be shown to be altered) within the context of an investigation into government involvement.

That is a fact and a rule that we must go by if we wish to find the truth.

By embracing the security video you are falling right into their trap.

We can never know if what they provide is valid so it must ALL be rejected. Given the extreme nature of the crime the best assumption is that ALL has been manipulated and released for a reason. The more important and high profile it is, the more chance it was altered.

The security video shows BLATANT signs of manipulation and is an EXTREMELY high profile piece of alleged evidence.

It has played a central role in the propaganda and the dubious nature with how it was "leaked" in the first months after the event is enough to remain permanently skeptical about it. If ANYTHING is invalid manipulated data that video tape is the number 1 prime candidate.

Obviously you have made up your mind and you will go to your grave with a belief in a missile at the Pentagon.

Logic, reason, and evidence be damned this is what you believe and you have admitted that you don't even need evidence to maintain this belief.

You have admitted that NO amount of evidence against a missile can convince you otherwise because to you it's "impossible" to prove a negative.

Even if you personally talked to 100 witnesses in this critical area and none saw a missile or anything on the south path you would STILL believe it.

I can't argue against faith.

I'll keep working on obtaining evidence.

You'll keep pushing a debunked theory and dismiss the evidence we present because you don't like me personally.

So I ask you AGAIN....

Are you really suggesting you don't feel the witnesses are accurate or honest about the north side approach???

Why are you avoiding answering this question?


Craig:

You are repeatedly missing the point!

You're working within a "Justified belief" paradigm. It cannot be made to work accurately.

The statement "All swans are white" is TRUE if -- and only if -- all swans are, in objective testable terms, white.

A statement or proposition can be objectively true even if everyone believes it to be false.

A statement or proposition can be false even if everyone believes it to be true.


The idea that you can start with "observation" is false. ALL observations are theory-impregnated, because all perceptions are synthesized by your mind into "observations" (pictures in your head) according to the theories your mind already has. Read up on Perception and Cognition. No two peope see the same thing in identical terms -- it's impossible. Just think about stage magic, or optical illusions. Or positive AND negative hallucinations. Or the fact that your perceptual system synthesizes a 'forward projection' of dynamic situations (like tennis games) _ahead of_ what the incoming photons imprint on your retina, so that you have time to aim your actions correctly. Scary, huh?

ALL statements are open to critical-rational appraisal as to their truth-content.

From the Wiki for Alfred Tarski, the most brilliant logician of the 20th Century:

"Truth in formalized languages

In 1933, Tarski published a very long (more than 100pp) paper in Polish, titled "Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych," setting out a mathematical definition of truth for formal languages. The 1935 German translation was titled "Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen," (The concept of truth in formalized languages), sometimes shortened to "Wahrheitsbegriff." An English translation had to await the 1956 first edition of the volume Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. This enormously cited paper is a landmark event in 20th century analytic philosophy, an important contribution to symbolic logic, semantics, and the philosophy of language. For a brief discussion of its content, see Truth for a brief description of the "Convention T" (see also T-schema) standard in Tarski's "inductive definition of truth".

Some recent philosophical debate examines the extent to which Tarski's theory of truth for formalized languages can be seen as a correspondence theory of truth. The debate centers on how to read Tarski's condition of material adequacy for a truth definition. That condition requires that the truth theory have the following as theorems for all sentences p of the language for which truth is being defined:

'p' is True if (and only) if p.

(where p is the proposition expressed by "p")

The debate amounts to whether to read sentences of this form, such as:


"Snow is white" is true if (and only if) snow is, in objectively factual reality, white

as expressing merely a deflationary theory of truth or as embodying truth as a more substantial property (see Kirkham 1992).

[edit]

Logical consequence

In 1936, Tarski published Polish and German versions of a lecture he had given the preceding year at the International Congress of Scientific Philosophy in Paris. A new English translation of this paper, Tarski (2002), highlights the many differences between the German and Polish versions of the paper, and corrects a number of mistranslations in Tarski (1983).

This publication set out the modern model-theoretic definition of (semantic) logical consequence, or at least the basis for it. Whether Tarski's notion was entirely the modern one turns on whether he intended to admit models with varying domains (and in particular, models with domains of different cardinalities). This question is a matter of some debate in the current philosophical literature. John Etchemendy stimulated much of the recent discussion about Tarski's treatment of varying domains.[21]

Tarski ends by pointing out that his definition of logical consequence depends upon a division of terms into the logical and the extra-logical and he expresses some skepticism that any such objective division will be forthcoming. "What are Logical Notions?" can thus be viewed as continuing "On the Concept of Logical Consequence."

[edit]

What are logical notions?

Another theory of Tarski's attracting attention in the recent philosophical literature is that outlined in his "What are Logical Notions?" (Tarski 1986). This is the published version of a talk that he gave in 1966; it was edited without his direct involvement.

In the talk, Tarski proposed a demarcation of the logical operations (which he calls "notions") from the non-logical. The suggested criteria were derived from the Erlangen programme of the German 19th century Mathematician, Felix Klein. (Mautner 1946, and possibly an article by the Portuguese mathematician Sebastiao e Silva, anticipated Tarski in applying the Erlangen Program to logic.)

That program classified the various types of geometry (Euclidean geometry, affine geometry, topology, etc.) by the type of one-one transformation of space onto itself that left the objects of that geometrical theory invariant. (A one-to-one transformation is a functional map of the space onto itself so that every point of the space is associated with or mapped to one other point of the space. So, "rotate 30 degrees" and "magnify by a factor of 2" are intuitive descriptions of simple uniform one-one transformations.) Continuous transformations give rise to the objects of topology, similarity transformations to those of Euclidean geometry, and so on.

As the range of permissible transformations becomes broader, the range of objects one is able to distinguish as preserved by the application of the transformations becomes narrower. Similarity transformations are fairly narrow (they preserve the relative distance between points) and thus allow us to distinguish relatively many things (e.g., equilateral triangles from non-equilateral triangles). Continuous transformations (which can intuitively be thought of as transformations which allow non-uniform stretching, compression, bending, and twisting, but no ripping or glueing) allow us to distinguish a polygon from an annulus (ring with a hole in the centre), but do not allow us to distinguish two polygons from each other.

Tarski's proposal was to demarcate the logical notions by considering all possible one-to-one transformations (automorphisms) of a domain onto itself. By domain is meant the universe of discourse of a model for the semantic theory of a logic. If one identifies the truth value True with the domain set and the truth-value False with the empty set, then the following operations are counted as logical under the proposal:

1. Truth-functions:

All truth-functions are admitted by the proposal. This includes, but is not limited to, all n-ary truth-functions for finite n. (It also admits of truth-functions with any infinite number of places.)

2. Individuals:

No individuals, provided the domain has at least two members.

3. Predicates:

One-place total and null (the predicate that has all members of the domain in its extension and the predicate that has no members of the domain in its extension).
Two-place total and null, as well as the identity and diversity predicates (the predicate with the set of all ordered pairs of domain members as its extension, the predicate with the empty set as extension, the predicate with the set of all order-pairs <a,a> where a is a member of the domain and the predicate with the set of all order pairs <a,b> in its extension, where a and b are distinct members of the domain.

n-ary predicates in general:

all predicates definable from the identity predicate together with conjunction, disjunction and negation (up to any ordinality, finite or infinite).

4. Quantifiers:

Tarski explicitly discusses only monadic quantifiers and points out that all such numerical quantifiers are admitted under his proposal. These include the standard universal and existential quantifiers as well as numerical quantifiers such as "Exactly four", "Finitely many", "Uncountably many", and "Between four and 9 million", for example. While Tarski does not enter into the issue, it is also clear that polyadic quantifiers are admitted under the proposal. These are quantifiers like, given two predicates Fx and Gy, "More(x, y)", which says "More things have F than have G."

5. Set-Theoretic relations:

Relations such as inclusion, intersection and union applied to subsets of the domain are logical in the present sense.

6. Set membership:

Tarski ended his lecture with a discussion of whether the set membership relation counted as logical in his sense. (Given the reduction of (most of) mathematics to set theory, this was, in effect, the question of whether most or all of mathematics is a part of logic.) He pointed out that set membership is logical if set theory is developed along the lines of type theory, but is extralogical if set theory is set out axiomatically, as in the canonical Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

7. Logical notions of higher order:

While Tarski confined his discussion to operations of first-order logic, there is nothing about his proposal that necessarily restricts it to first-order logic. (Tarski likely restricted his attention to first-order notions as the talk was given to a non-technical audience.) So, higher-order quantifiers and predicates are admitted as well.

In some ways the present proposal is the obverse of that of Lindenbaum and Tarski (1936), who proved that all the logical operations of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica are invariant under one-to-one transformations of the domain onto itself. The present proposal is also employed in Tarski and Givant (1987).

Solomon Feferman and Vann McGee further discussed Tarski's proposal in work published after his death. Feferman (1999) raises problems for the proposal and suggests a cure: replacing Tarski's preservation by automorphisms with preservation by arbitrary homomorphisms.

In essence, this suggestion circumvents the difficulty Tarski's proposal has in dealing with sameness of logical operation across distinct domains of a given cardinality and across domains of distinct cardinalities. Feferman's proposal results in a radical restriction of logical terms as compared to Tarski's original proposal. In particular, it ends up counting as logical only those operators of standard first-order logic without identity.

McGee (1996) provides a precise account of what operations are logical in the sense of Tarski's proposal in terms of expressibility in a language that extends first-order logic by allowing arbitrarily long conjunctions and disjunctions, and quantification over arbitrarily many variables. "Arbitrarily" includes a countable infinity.


Craig: PLEASE do not mislead yourself and others onto thinking that the pursuit of truth and lnowlege is easy -- it isn't.

If (and only if) you really want to learn the objective truth, get up to speed on all this.

If you don't, your opponents can and will easily rip your "observations" and arguments and (unavoidably tentative) conclusions to shreds.

People like Jerome Hauer are REALLY SMART...

Don't play into their hands: raise your game instead. You're on the right track.

No-one said all this would be easy, and if they did, they're utterly mistaken.


You could do worse than start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Keep these in mind when evaluating "9/11" stuff. Depth and certainty are inversely proportional...

People have died in the pursuit of truth already.

And every intelligence agency in the world has people evaluating what actually happened (and didn't happen) on 9/11. It was an epochal event, with repercussions of great magnitude.

Consider this: "9/11 Truth" could conceivably precipitate a Civil War in America.


Regards (and thank you for your work).


Anduril

------------ * * * * * ------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 2 2009, 02:02 PM
Post #86


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Anduril @ Mar 2 2009, 09:39 AM) *
...
Consider this: "9/11 Truth" could conceivably precipitate a Civil War in America.


At the very least it should mount a counter-coup. But I believe, if taken to its full conclusion, it could do more than that; it could precipitate a revolution in social understanding and social organization -- and that is what I'm aiming for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 02:07 PM
Post #87





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Anduril,

You have not addressed a single thing I have said direct.

From your very first post even painter asked you to clarify how any of it pertained to the topic.

Frankly it seems as though you are talking to yourself.

If you have a coherent point that applies to this topic please quote me and make it but I can't make heads or tails of a single one of your posts in this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 02:17 PM
Post #88





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Rob,

Whether it's spinning wheels or not it's high time this issue gets addressed.

We've been tip-toeing around it for too long and it continues to haunt us.

Disinfo is harmful.

I don't think many would doubt that.

The disagreement only starts when people are considering what is disinfo.

We strongly feel the missile theory is and we provide the evidence to back this up.

Now as far as government provided evidence goes.....

You can't conflate an investigation and court.

Those are two entirely different contexts.

My point is that NO investigator would accept evidence that was controlled by the suspect of any crime as valid.

I'm sorry but that is a fact.

The situation is even worse when the crime is a world wide black operation of deception when we know for a FACT that deliberate disinfo and counter-intelligence operations are involved.

I've never claimed that government evidence should be ignored. It should be picked apart with a fine toothed comb because typically tampering can be detected as is the case with the security video and many other data sets that they have provided.

OF COURSE it can be used against them when it comes to being able to prove it fraudulent.

But we should never use it as a means to support what truly happened and that is my only point in calling it "invalid" and that is clearly the problem with using it as evidence in support of a "missile".

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 2 2009, 02:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2009, 02:40 PM
Post #89



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Mar 2 2009, 01:17 PM) *
Rob,

Whether it's spinning wheels or not it's high time this issue gets addressed.

We've been tip-toeing around it for too long and it continues to haunt us.

Disinfo is harmful.

I don't think many would doubt that.

The disagreement only starts when people are considering what is disinfo.

We strongly feel the missile theory is and we provide the evidence to back this up.


In my opnion, the only way to expose such "disinfo" is to ask people to provide evidence each time it is brought up. The only results being gained here (and elsewhere) are arguments turning into hostility with people who support your work.... which im sure is opposite of the original intent.



QUOTE
My point is that NO investigator would accept evidence that was controlled by the suspect of any crime as valid.


It depends who its "valid" for.. An investigator, prosecutor et al would most certainly accept "evidence", statements, information, data... controlled or offered by the suspect especially when it damages the suspects' defense (think IRS, think SEC.. etc). "Valid" does not automatically mean its "valid" only for the defense's case. Information provided by the suspect can be valid (and very valuable) for the prosecutions' case when the "evidence" does not support, and is damaging, to the defenses' story (such as the FDR data). Search warrants are made for just that, lawyers are made to mitigate just that... gathering evidence/statements/information already "controlled" by the suspect to use as evidence against the suspect. If all evidence controlled by the suspect was "invalid", there would be no reason for warrants or defense attorneys as a judge would "reject" it all (information gathered whether it be statements, materials, data.. etc) as "not valid due to controlled by suspect".


Bottom line, using words such as "invalid" and "rejected" just because the evidence came from the suspect marginalizes the impact and damage such evidence can be to the suspects case. Much of the evidence controlled and provided by the "suspect" in this case is very damaging to the suspects story and therefore is very valid to use in the prosecutions case.

With that said, i still think your time would be better spent focusing on your work. The more you disseminate, the more people will focus. There are always going to be people who believe in whatever they want to regardless of the information provided or lack thereof.... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 02:54 PM
Post #90





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 2 2009, 06:40 PM) *
With that said, i still think your time would be better spent focusing on your work. The more you disseminate, the more people will focus. wink.gif



Don't worry that's not getting neglected.

Again I have never said government data should be "ignored".

I said the opposite.

Everything you said I agree with but the fact is that the security video IS invalid.

It is fraudulent.

Of course this can be used against them in court as evidence for a cover-up but the notion that can be considered valid evidence in support of a missile is false and was the clear original intent of this disinfo.

In fact we believe it's even MORE harmful to exposing 9/11 than "no plane at the WTC" theories.

You've agreed that the missile theory should be considered "alternative" but it is much more than a fringe theory.

It is a predominate belief in the movement which is why this is difficult for many to discuss yet also WHY it's so important that we address this head on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2009, 02:59 PM
Post #91



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Mar 2 2009, 01:54 PM) *
but the notion that can be considered valid evidence in support of a missile is false


....and thats is how to properly use the word "valid" in context.... Thanks!

Now lets put the word "valid" to work....

Due to the fact the video has be proven to be manipulated, the video is valid evidence of manipulation and damaging to the defense story of a 757 "impact", or any other "impact" theory.


Enjoy your day bro! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 03:02 PM
Post #92





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 2 2009, 07:59 PM) *
....and thats is how to properly use the word "valid" in context.... Thanks!

Now lets put the word "valid" to work....

Due to the fact the video has be proven to be manipulated, the video is valid evidence of manipulation and damaging to the defense story of a 757 "impact".


Enjoy your day bro! tongue.gif


Fully agreed of course.

I would think that should be obvious but clarifying context is always a good thing.

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anduril
post Mar 2 2009, 03:29 PM
Post #93





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 118
Joined: 24-May 08
From: Bristol, England
Member No.: 3,418



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Mar 2 2009, 06:07 PM) *
Anduril,

You have not addressed a single thing I have said direct.

From your very first post even painter asked you to clarify how any of it pertained to the topic.

Frankly it seems as though you are talking to yourself.

If you have a coherent point that applies to this topic please quote me and make it but I can't make heads or tails of a single one of your posts in this thread.


[ FX: "Beware the swine that cast Perles..." ] (smiles)

OK, Craig,

We'll demolish a couple of your principal methodological assertions:

"All government controlled and provided information is 100% invalid evidence (WHETHER OR NOT it can be shown to be altered) within the context of an investigation into government involvement.

That is a fact and a rule that we must go by if we wish to find the truth."


Firstly, it is no sense ANY kind of fact.

WHERE THE ASSERTION COMES FROM IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO ITS TRUTH (or falsity)

ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH-CONTENT OF ANY ASSERTION AS STATED.

IF NIST ASSERTS THAT "2 + 2 = 4" DO YOU DISCARD ARITHMETIC??

------------ * * * * * ------------

Secondly: The hypothesis that a missile hit the Pentagon is advanced as a tentative solution to this problem-situation:

"What caused (some of) the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11?"

We can then deduce testable propositions from this hypothesis "A missile damaged the Pentagon".

We proceed to TEST these propositions, with a view to FALSIFYING the hypothesis.

Only testable and refutable hypotheses have any possible scientific value.

A million "confirmations" prove NOTHING, because there are an indefinitely great number of possible tests. Think of all the millions of observations of white swans. That could not possibly prove the hypothesis that "All swans are white."

Whereas a refutation counts AGAINST the hypothesis itself.

All that time, Aborigines in Australia were observing millions of black swans...

------------ * * * * * ------------

This is Scientific Method. Deal with it if you want to find the truth (as you say you do).


It is unavoidable, that we will NEVER discover 'The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth.' Scientific Research is always open-ended. There is no 'finish-line.'

Even the perpetrators cannot know exactly what happened (especially since the operations were clearly compartmented, 'firewalled').

------------ * * * * * ------------

In Counter-Intelligence work, you have to deal all the time with your adversaries pitching disinformation towards you. And you do it to them all the time.

Typically, the item of disinformation has a truth-content of 95%

That is, in fact, a good deal higher than most 'good-faith' reports.

The 95% truth-content is there to "sell" the 5% disinformation 'nuggett', as it is called in the bizness...


Information Analysts have found that 95% of all 'secrets' are in fact in the public domain, in good Reference Libraries. Another 2% can be inferred from what _isn't_ there, but should be.

Another 2% can be logically inferred from what IS there.

Leaving just one percent that you cannot find.

It is logically impossible to have complete knowledge of ANY complex subject-matter.

------------ * * * * * ------------

This directly addresses your methodological errors and mistaken assertions.

Elementary human error is present in all of our "fact-bases." CIA analysts can read down seven layers of meaning within a given text.

Whether you can understand this is your problem. If you don't or can't, your progress will be unnecessarily slow and full of mistakes.

And you really don't want that, do you, Craig?


Regards,


Anduril

PS: And I'm not writing this especially for you. Millions of people world-wide read these posts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 03:48 PM
Post #94





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Sorry Andruil but it honestly seems like you are going off on a completely irrelevant tangent to me.

You seem to not understand what I am saying as your interpretations have nothing to do with what I meant to convey.

You have quoted me out of context while not giving any indication that you have comprehended my overall point.

There is a serious lack of coherent communication going on between us so I prefer to leave it at that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 2 2009, 03:49 PM
Post #95


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Anduril @ Mar 2 2009, 11:29 AM) *
[ FX: "Beware the swine that cast Perles..." ] (smiles)
...
This directly addresses your methodological errors and mistaken assertions.
...


I appreciate what you're doing, Anduril. You're obviously educated in these arts and most of us 'swine' are not thumbsup.gif -- and that is a fact.

I think the simple point Craig is making is that the truth movement needs to focus more on what it has established and less on what it speculates but has little, if any, evidence to verify. The missile strike at the Pentagon hypothesis being one example. In his Debate Forum thread he has asked people who subscribe to this hypothesis to post any independently verifiable evidence they have -- and no one has, so far as I can tell. So he concludes that we can't prove it and it is therefore speculative and we should focus on what we know, not on what we don't know and can't prove.

Beyond that he is saying that evidence coming from government sources is not trustworthy. Whatever they put forward must be independently verified from non-government source. I have no reason to distrust your assertion that Aborigines were observing millions of black swans -- but if I did have a reason to distrust it -- because you had lied to me before -- could I accept your statement of evidence that not all swans are white? Of course not. I would seek independent verification of this fact. I might even have to see them for myself.

To date, we have no independently verified evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon -- and considerable reason to suspect this very notion was placed in the arena of discussion for disinformation purposes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 2 2009, 04:01 PM
Post #96





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Craig

I'm not avoiding answering anything. This is what I consider rational public dialogue. Yes, it's about historical events, but nonetheless....

And to repeat myself, the ONLY thing I embrace about this is: The OCT is a damn lie. As to North Path, South Path, light poles, etc, etc, I read it all, and reject or accept as I see fit. In historical perspective, it is ALL trivial pursuit. I really don't care about all the trivia, but I do enjoy reading through it from time to time. It is a fact that this was staged by folks that control the government, and I could not care less how or why the light poles came down. I could not care less whether the flyby was north or south. I could not care less whether a missle was used, or NOT.

I'm not really into personality conflicts, and try to avoid them at all costs. I enjoy discussing angles of this event that interest me, and am MOST skeptical of those advancing orthodox views that must be embraced, or face the risk of rejection. I've been rejected a million times and it does not bother me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 04:07 PM
Post #97





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



All right let me take a stab at it.

QUOTE (Anduril @ Mar 2 2009, 08:29 PM) *
Firstly, it is no sense ANY kind of fact.

WHERE THE ASSERTION COMES FROM IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO ITS TRUTH (or falsity)

ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH-CONTENT OF ANY ASSERTION AS STATED.

IF NIST ASSERTS THAT "2 + 2 = 4" DO YOU DISCARD ARITHMETIC??


The NIST report is not evidence.

It is a report.

Therefore using it as an analogy for the fraudulent security video is an inherently flawed analogy so you can not possibly be making a relevant point.

QUOTE
Secondly: The hypothesis that a missile hit the Pentagon is advanced as a tentative solution to this problem-situation:

"What caused (some of) the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11?"

We can then deduce testable propositions from this hypothesis "A missile damaged the Pentagon".

We proceed to TEST these propositions, with a view to FALSIFYING the hypothesis.

Only testable and refutable hypotheses have any possible scientific value.


That is what we did.

We tested it by speaking with numerous witnesses first-hand and providing their on-location video-taped accounts for all to view.

Everyone saw a plane on the north side proving 9/11 was an inside job.

They are unanimous.

Nobody saw a missile or any type of airborne object on the south side.

The missile hypothesis failed the test,

Miserably.


QUOTE
A million "confirmations" prove NOTHING, because there are an indefinitely great number of possible tests. Think of all the millions of observations of white swans. That could not possibly prove the hypothesis that "All swans are white."

Whereas a refutation counts AGAINST the hypothesis itself.

All that time, Aborigines in Australia were observing millions of black swans...


This is yet another completely irrelevant analogy.

The swans in Australia can not possibly be compared to the notion that none of the witnesses saw a missile in Arlington.

If there was a missile in Australia it would not matter.



QUOTE
It is unavoidable, that we will NEVER discover 'The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth.' Scientific Research is always open-ended. There is no 'finish-line.'

Even the perpetrators cannot know exactly what happened (especially since the operations were clearly compartmented, 'firewalled').


This is irrelevant to the discussion and the fact that there is no evidence for a missile.

Furthermore you can not know how many people are aware of the full scope of the operation and you most certainly are incorrect in the notion that none of the perpetrators know.


QUOTE
In Counter-Intelligence work, you have to deal all the time with your adversaries pitching disinformation towards you. And you do it to them all the time.

Typically, the item of disinformation has a truth-content of 95%

That is, in fact, a good deal higher than most 'good-faith' reports.

The 95% truth-content is there to "sell" the 5% disinformation 'nuggett', as it is called in the bizness...



This is irrelevant to the fact that there is no evidence for a missile.

This is irrelevant to the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for a single plane on the north side with NOTHING on the south side.

Your sweeping generalization regarding the percentage of disinfo that may or may not have some truth to it has nothing to do with this very specific discussion and proves nothing.

QUOTE
Information Analysts have found that 95% of all 'secrets' are in fact in the public domain, in good Reference Libraries. Another 2% can be inferred from what _isn't_ there, but should be.

Another 2% can be logically inferred from what IS there.

Leaving just one percent that you cannot find.

It is logically impossible to have complete knowledge of ANY complex subject-matter.



This is irrelevant to the fact that there is no evidence for a missile.

This is irrelevant to the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for a single plane on the north side with NOTHING on the south side.

Your sweeping generalization regarding the percentage of disinfo that may or may not have some truth to it has nothing to do with this very specific discussion and proves nothing.


QUOTE
This directly addresses your methodological errors and mistaken assertions.

Elementary human error is present in all of our "fact-bases." CIA analysts can read down seven layers of meaning within a given text.

Whether you can understand this is your problem. If you don't or can't, your progress will be unnecessarily slow and full of mistakes.

And you really don't want that, do you, Craig?


Regards,


Anduril

PS: And I'm not writing this especially for you. Millions of people world-wide read these posts.


I'm sure we all wish there were "millions" who read this but I think you're numbers are off by at least 990,000!
lol


I understand the words you are typing Anduril but you are not responding to my points logically or coherently.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 2 2009, 04:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 04:12 PM
Post #98





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 2 2009, 09:01 PM) *
As to North Path, South Path, light poles, etc, etc, I read it all, and reject or accept as I see fit. In historical perspective, it is ALL trivial pursuit. I really don't care about all the trivia, but I do enjoy reading through it from time to time.



Trivia?

Now hard evidence proving a deception is trivia?

Enjoy reading?

You do this for enjoyment???

Wow.

I noticed how you STILL avoided answering my question.

Your are furiously defending a completely unsupported disinformation theory while brushing aside hard evidence as "trivia" that is simply enjoyable to read.

Unbelievable.

No wonder we are butting heads.

I've heard enough "amazed!".

We don't need to continue this discussion with each other.

You've made your position painfully clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Mar 2 2009, 04:16 PM
Post #99


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



So I don't get it.

What do you all hope to accomplish with all this amateur ballistic/munitions analyses?

Is it just a hobby? Do you really think you are going to convince anyone a missile hit? Have even one of you even provided us with an example of what a missile strike looks like INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY as compared to the Pentagon?

You have all spent days arguing over this sh*t and you could have been preparing a DVD of the NoC witnesses/Lloyd England Interrogation for your elected officials.

I am so baffled by this obssession you people have.

The reason that it IS dangerous, because all this theorizing about a goddamn missile takes the unresearched back to that surveillance video leading some to think an object actually hit the Pentagon.

So the missile blew these columns up and out?




Seriously, what do you all hope to accomplish by muddying the waters with your hobby of discussing missiles? It is a hobby. That is ALL it is. There is 0 evidence for a missile. It is just an exciting fantasy/theory you all built up (and won't let go of) in your heads because for 6 years Loose Change and Thierry Meyssan and David Von Kleist and Donald Rumsfeld's "slip" and all your infinite video/still staring skills told you it was a missile.

No one saw a missile. They all saw ONE plane and a large explosion. A large explosion that contained directional damage that does not match a plane on a north side flight path.

So please, stop with the conspiracy theory hobbies and let's get some actual work done and justice served.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 2 2009, 04:27 PM
Post #100


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Mar 2 2009, 12:16 PM) *
So please, stop with the conspiracy theory hobbies and let's get some actual work done and justice served.


thumbsup.gif

I'm with you but I think I have some inkling of what is going on here. You're talking about getting serious. See, the paid disinfo warriors and 9/11 perps don't give a sh*t so long as we stay at our desks arguing about crap. In fact, they encourage it. Woo hoo! It looks lie free speech and like we're doing something. Meanwhile, they get away with mass murder, treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity -- not to mention every other god damned thing they are doing we don't even have a clue about.

It's like the difference between playing a video game and actually getting out there in the trenches where it is life and death, kill or be killed. Right?

I agree. This isn't entertainment -- not anymore. This is serious business.

FWIW, I also think Anduril is seriously trying to help.
Reason for edit: corrected Anduril spelling
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th August 2019 - 02:33 PM