About the logic problems we face in discussions here: facts vs logic?

I hope it does not bother RH nor any rules of this forum to post an issue of RH. I think it contains not only the problem to discus with RH but also how to cope with the media and the CIA(NORAD bushist lies:
quote:
>>>the point being the premise that something would have been planned to begin with. With nothing apart from conjecture to substantiate an argument to the effect that anything in Washington was an intended target there is thus a yawning flaw in the logic.

If you suppose that cats are black and an animal seen was not black, You have not then proved that an animal was not a cat. You first have to to prove that all cats are black. So where then is the proof that everything that Al Qaeda does is planned? There is none.

To comprehend sensibly you need to be able think without the benefit of hindsight. It may now perhaps be reasonable to surmise that something in Washington was an intended target but when all that anybody knew was that that a plane had vanished from the ATC screens, how the hell were they to know what was intended or where it was headed to anyway? For the time being how were they to know that Flight 77 had not already crashed?

Or are you seriously intending to suggest that the air force shoot first and think about it later?<<<

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

>>>when all that anybody knew was that that a plane had vanished from the ATC screens, how the hell were they to know what was intended or where it was headed to anyway? For the time being how were they to know that Flight 77 had not already crashed?
Or are you seriously intending to suggest that the air force shoot first and think about it later?<<<

Here the line has changed: the logic and well known fact comes in the end. Nobody intends to suggest that. He just forgets to mention that the sense of intercepting is not to shoot. It is only to have a look.

So see the above sentences: IF ( IF!!!)we follow his argument that a plane has vanished from the screens ( and we say: so the interceptors task is to have a look what is going on)- if we follow him and the bushist lies, what happenes?
He takes the planes away. Maybe AAL77 did not exist anymore...

Another version could be: RH agrees to the possibility of existence but suddenly claims that the ATCs only got partial information. Or the only ATC on duty that day may have had a headache.

Whatever: HE and the bushist are the real conspiracy theorists. They must prove that AAL77 vanished from the screens and that -if- the standard operational procedure is NOT to send interceptors to have a look. They are juggling the facts - not the logic. Okay- a little bit dumbness may be part of the game.

As a long time reader of this forum I see the level of discourse from just a few of the posters on this forum rapidly descending to nothing but mud. MUD.

Or, as medienanalyse puts it: " ..special logic.. ".

I have been nailed several times by the moderators for mild infractions. Bit my tongue, saw the logic in the mod's actions, and hit the "I promise" button.

What's fair is fair.

I am not someone who likes rules. Be free, and all that. But I'm coming around to think we need one to stop the MUD.

Many people don't seem to have ANY idea what they are talking about, yet act like THEY are the knowledgable and logical ones, like this person:

It may now perhaps be reasonable to surmise that something in Washington was an intended target but when all that anybody knew was that that a plane had vanished from the ATC screens, how the hell were they to know what was intended or where it was headed to anyway? For the time being how were they to know that Flight 77 had not already crashed?

If the author of the above understood how radar ATC worked, he would know that his statement is wrong. So here is the truth.

A radar works by transmitting high frequency (microwave) radio waves into the sky. When an aircraft flies into range of a radar, its skin reflects this radio energy back towards the radar which receives it after a short delay. Where the beam is pointing tells you what direction the return is coming from, and the time taken for the signal to go out and back to the radar tells you how far away the aircraft is.

However, this information (position, and after several "paints" speed and heading) is not adequate to use for ATC purposes, and having a special military style "tracking" radar is too expensive and would require too many radar sites. So to overcome this limitation, aircraft carry a radar "transponder". This transponder detects the incoming radar waves, and sends out its own signal carrying information such as altitude and flight number.

So the radar not only receives the reflected waves that it transmitted, it also receives a data stream from the transponder. Combined, the two sources of information (skin paint and transponder signal) tell ATC everything they need to know to direct the flight according to its flight plan and other traffic.

So, when the transponder was switched off on Flt 77, the aircraft did NOT disappear from the radar scopes. In fact not even STEALTH aircraft truly disappear from radar - their signal is merely reduced to a level where the radar controlling computer filters it out believing it to be "clutter" (returns from things such as birds and clouds).

What happened that day was that the extra information provided by the transponder of altitude etc disappeared from the scope, but the normal aircraft return did not. The controllers knew where it was, and where it was heading at all times. However, they also knew that something was very wrong on Flt 77 (and the other flights where the transponder signal was turned off). No commercial aircaft is supposed to fly without its transponder on, and failing a reply from the pilots as to why the transponder had been turned off, ATC would have declared an emergency.

On edit: I forgot to say what "radar" actually means - it is in fact a word made out of the acronym RDAR, which stands for Radio Direction And Ranging.