| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Hugh Hefner & The Crack Whore; Inductive and Deductive reasoning. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 11:52 AM (763 Views) | |
| Stundie | Jan 16 2008, 11:52 AM Post #1 |
|
Hi all, I wanted to share this with you guys from a member called "Lowball Path" over at the SLC Forum. I think he demonstrates a near perfect example of how to investigate something like 9/11 by highlighting the difference with deductive (Which CTers tend to use) and inductive reasoning. (Which debunkers tend to use) I’ve corrected some of the spelling and included a few links for anyone who is new to the world of 9/11 and investigating who may not understand certain words.
Next time you are debating with a debunker who makes the normal arguments like "Its impossible to set up a demo for the WTC." or "The Goverment would never do such a thing." etc etc...then it might be worth pointing this out to them. Cheers Stundie |
![]() |
|
| insert new name here | Jan 16 2008, 01:04 PM Post #2 |
|
A true skeptic deals with facts. My understanding is that 911 truth movement members ignore the evidence that has been presented, constantly cherry-picking at "proof" that really isn't. eg: "Pull It", "Stand Down", etc. So, by ignoring facts, skeptics are actually forced to ask someone presenting a theory how it could be accomplished. Like rigging up 3 skyscrapers to collapse. Most skeptics will not deny that our governemnt will and has completed "black ops." |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Jan 16 2008, 09:59 PM Post #3 |
|
Hi Insert New Name Here, Thats the whole point of the post, the truth movement see what the facts are and build a conclusion which fits with the evidence, aka deductive reasoning based on the facts available to them. A debunker (Not always) will look at the evidence and make a judgement on whether the evidence fits their theory, if it doesn't fit, then they sometime do whatever it takes to deny it. Things like "Pull It" is nothing more than circumstantial evidence and is hardly the most strongest of evidence pointing towards complicity from within. As for the "Stand Down" well this is an area of interest for me because if you look at all the evidence regarding Dick Cheney movements on the morning of 9/11, it doesn't back what the commission claims. According to the commission, Cheney didn't arrive at whats known as the PEOC until/after 9:58. The commissions arrive at this conclusion based on the following evidence.
However the commission admits “There is conflicting evidence as to when the vice president (Cheney) arrived in the (PEOC) shelter conference room.” When you look at all the evidence, bearing in mind how weak the evidence supporting the official story, it contradicts what the commission claims. Here is all the other evidence which doesn't support the official story.
See using deductive reasoning, the evidence suggest that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58. Inductive reasoning, you would say that Cheney or the commmission would not lie. Then commission ignores Norman Mineta statement (No official reason as been given as to why they ignored his statement, but debunkers will state that Mineta times are wrong without a single shrapnel of evidence and trust me, I've asked and looked for over a year!) who claims Cheney was in the PEOC when he arrived at 9:20. When you look at all the evidence, it supports Minetas timeline and the evidence overwhelms the official story. So if we assume that Mineta statement is correct, that he & cheney were at the PEOC at 9:20am, then what was the "Order" that Cheney gave to the aid which Mineta refers to his statement? If it was a "Shoot Down Order" as Mineta thinks it was and as debunkers claim too, then this goes against the another one of the commissions claims which states that Bush and Cheney confer on the "shoot down order" between 10:00-10:15am which is odd considering that Clarke says he asked for authorisation at 9:30am (Read his book on the link above) and even odder considering that the plane was scrambled in the wrong direction. Also, if it was a "shoot down order" and they knew a plane was heading for the Pentagon, why would the aid challenge Cheney on this? If it's protocol to take out the threats in the sky if they present a threat to ground targets and potential loss of life on the ground too, then why would he question it. I'm speculating here, but if the VP said "Shoot it down" then I would go through with the order, as I would be aware that it could save the lives of the people at the Pentagon. The Military and Units such as Secret Service are trained to follow orders why would he question it? I think it must have been a "Stand Down" order, Cheney admits in his interview with Tim Russert (See link above) that Secret Service were tracking "AA77" and they removed him to the PEOC as they thought it was coming to the White House. So once they realised that the White House was not the target and it was the Pentagon, which was 50, 30 and 10 miles out, the aid would have asked if the order still stands as no planes were sent to deal with AA77, other than the ones sent out over see and turn up too late. So the Aid knew where it was heading and questioned the order, because he may have known the Pentagon was about to be hit and kill the passengers and people at the Pentagon. Another thing which supports my arguement is according to the FDR, AA77 was approx 50 miles away from the Pentagon at 9:27am (As supplied by Pilots For Truth) and Cheney in his interview admits that they were tracking it. If you simply ignore this evidence and believe that an event like 9/11 could not possibly be an inside job, whether they made it happen or let it happen on purpose, or if you simply think it's JUST not possible. Then you are using inductive reasoning to come to your conclusions, as you are not basing it on the facts.
Thats the thing, just because we do not know exactly how they were rigged, doesn't mean they were not rigged. Of course, ignoring the facts could also be said for the actual collapse mechanism for all 3 towers, which there is no official theory/hypothesis for. NIST deal with the initiation and do not give a theory for how they collapsed.
I should hope so, if you deny the exsistant of "Black Ops" you are not a skeptic anymore, you a pseudoskeptic. I hope this helps and if you have any questions, or if you can find other evie Cheers Stundie |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic » |







2:13 PM Jul 11