View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 06 Sep 2009, 18:38

I could have sworn someone mentioned this was going to be on, but I couldn't find it so I started a new thread.
I watched this last night with great interest. Essentially, this is my abbreviated critique.
Gage, Griffin, Jones, etc. came on saying the government was not telling us the truth. There is all sorts of evidence that it was a controlled demolition, that a plane didn't go into the Pentagon, etc. Griffin was even allowed to have "PhD" after his name without them saying it was in Theology so that was a plus for them (later in the show, they snuck it in, but my wife didn't notice it so I'd assume most of the viewers missed it also.)
Scientists came on and disputed everything they had to say with strong science and experiments. Purdue's computer model, explosive experts, etc. all showed that a controlled demolition not only could not have occured, but showed thre was no evidence of it at all. NONE.
Gage, et. al, all sat around a table and watched these experiments and then flatley denied that they were valid experiments. Griffin simply giggled and said that doesn't show anything. (Psych majors, you know what it means when people giggle in the middle of trying to think of a story when someone is presented with something they don't have an answer for.) They were shown that it could not have been explosives and they claimed thermite. They were shown that it could not have been thermite and they claimed it was "super thermite" that no one has access too. Yea, okay.
One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is the fact (QP, yes I said "fact.") that if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up. From demolition crews, to airplane pilots, to news media, to witnesses. That's simply just not possible for a tragedy of this magnitude. No, they weren't alowed to dispute that, but then again, we just would have gotten some more giggling.
Bottom line, they looked like bafoons up there. They "screamed" that there is a cover up, but offered zero evidence to back up there claim. None whatsoever. I almost felt sorry for those truthers. Those guys definitely have an agenda.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 07 Sep 2009, 01:01

ProfWag wrote:One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is the fact (QP, yes I said "fact.") that if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.


Well, that's what I call strong induction, but it's not deduction at work, so, no, it's not a fact, but an inference obtain via probabilities. Probabilities are not facts. They are "most likelies." It's not that I don't agree with you, though. I'm simply saying you can't say it's a fact when you don't have supporting facts to justify it. In logical deduction, all of the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true, and that's certainly not demonstrable here. It's a most likely probability that "there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up," but that's it. Again, these are just the rules of logical deduction.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2009, 20:04

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is the fact (QP, yes I said "fact.") that if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.


Well, that's what I call strong induction, but it's not deduction at work, so, no, it's not a fact, but an inference obtain via probabilities. Probabilities are not facts. They are "most likelies." It's not that I don't agree with you, though. I'm simply saying you can't say it's a fact when you don't have supporting facts to justify it. In logical deduction, all of the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true, and that's certainly not demonstrable here. It's a most likely probability that "there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up," but that's it. Again, these are just the rules of logical deduction.

No, in this case it's a fact.
It's a fact that the Bush Adminisration would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that the NYC Fire Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
it's a fact that the NYC Police Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that NYC Port Authority would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that all of the Pentagon would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. (This alone shows well over a thousand people who would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. Thousands who were on scene that day do not questions there was a plane that hit their building. For that to be a conspiracy, they would all have to be lying and covering up)
it's a fact that the media would have had to have been in on it.
it's a fact that the photographers who took pictures would have had to have been in on it.
It's a fact that cleanup crews would have had to have been in on it.
Shall I continue? There's well over a thousand people there, hence, my statement. At least as much as facts can be so-called. Thanks to "zero-probability," nothing is impossible either, yet it's still in our vocabulary.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 23:50

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is the fact (QP, yes I said "fact.") that if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.


Well, that's what I call strong induction, but it's not deduction at work, so, no, it's not a fact, but an inference obtain via probabilities. Probabilities are not facts. They are "most likelies." It's not that I don't agree with you, though. I'm simply saying you can't say it's a fact when you don't have supporting facts to justify it. In logical deduction, all of the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true, and that's certainly not demonstrable here. It's a most likely probability that "there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up," but that's it. Again, these are just the rules of logical deduction.

No, in this case it's a fact.
It's a fact that the Bush Adminisration would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
It's a fact that the NYC Fire Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
it's a fact that the NYC Police Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
It's a fact that NYC Port Authority would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
It's a fact that all of the Pentagon would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. (This alone shows well over a thousand people who would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. Thousands who were on scene that day do not questions there was a plane that hit their building. For that to be a conspiracy, they would all have to be lying and covering up) [Most likely, but fact? No.]
it's a fact that the media would have had to have been in on it. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
it's a fact that the photographers who took pictures would have had to have been in on it. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
It's a fact that cleanup crews would have had to have been in on it. [Most likely, but fact? No.]
Shall I continue? There's well over a thousand people there, hence, my statement. At least as much as facts can be so-called. Thanks to "zero-probability," nothing is impossible either, yet it's still in our vocabulary.


Again, induction. You can call it a "fact" all you want, it doesn't make it so. Unless you can "prove" each of those things are true, they are simply probabilities. It's a fact that 1 + 1 = 2 (We can test it to find out the truth), but not that "the Bush Adminisration would have had to have been in on a conspiracy" = true (How can we test this for truth?). It's a strong probability, yes, but fact (i.e., "A concept whose truth can be proved"), absolutely not. You are simply incorrect here. You're assumptions are not empirically based. They are based on inductive assumptions, which is fine, and they are probably correct, but definitely not facts. I'd suggest you read up on the rules of deductive logic.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 00:18

No need to read up on anything presented here. I am quite comfortable with my presentation's validity.
Using the Pentagon "fact" as an example, if a missle hit the Pentagon, the 23,000 employees (some of them friends and acquaintances of mine) who were there that day would have to have lied and covered up their knowledge that a plane did not hit the building that day, but rather it was a missle. They would have to have assisted in placing aircraft parts, bodies, broken light poles, and other evidence of an airplane in and around the crash site. If they did that, then a conspiracy is possible. If not, then the theory that a missile hit the building that day is not possible. From my knowledge garnered from friends and acquaintances who were there that day, a missile did not hit the pentagon but rather it was a large commercian airliner with passengers on board. Hence, it is a fact that thousands of people from the Pentagon, some of whom I have spoken with personally, would have had to be in on a conspiracy.
However, if you like to play word games, then that is fine. As I always say, readers can judge for themselves.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 00:26

ProfWag wrote:No need to read up on anything presented here. I am quite comfortable with my presentation's validity.
Using the Pentagon "fact" as an example, if a missle hit the Pentagon, the 23,000 employees (some of them friends and acquaintances of mine) who were there that day would have to have lied and covered up their knowledge that a plane did not hit the building that day, but rather it was a missle. They would have to have assisted in placing aircraft parts, bodies, broken light poles, and other evidence of an airplane in and around the crash site. If they did that, then a conspiracy is possible. If not, then the theory that a missile hit the building that day is not possible. From my knowledge garnered from friends and acquaintances who were there that day, a missile did not hit the pentagon but rather it was a large commercian airliner with passengers on board. Hence, it is a fact that thousands of people from the Pentagon, some of whom I have spoken with personally, would have had to be in on a conspiracy.
However, if you like to play word games, then that is fine. As I always say, readers can judge for themselves.


You seem to be missing the point (again). I'm not arguing that it was all a conspiracy. I, myself, do NOT believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, but do I know it's a fact? No. It's HIGHLY unlikely it was a conspiracy, but I admit I cannot prove that. Deductive logic dictates it's not a fact. It shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 03:04

quantumparanormal wrote:You seem to be missing the point (again). I'm not arguing that it was all a conspiracy. I, myself, do NOT believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, but do I know it's a fact? No. It's HIGHLY unlikely it was a conspiracy, but I admit I cannot prove that. Deductive logic dictates it's not a fact. It shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Once again, a pseudo-believer has put words in my mouth. I have not said that it is a fact there was not a conspiracy. If I did, please show me.
This is what I said:
"One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is the fact (QP, yes I said "fact.") that if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up."
Did I say it's a fact that there was not a conspiracy? No, I did not. In simple terms, I said it is a fact that if it WERE a conspiracy, then thousands of people would have to be in on it. That is what I am saying is factual.
If I were building a new, 100 story skyscraper, it is a FACT that I would need more building materials than if I were building a one-story, neighborhood pizza pub.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 03:29

ProfWag wrote:If I were building a new, 100 story skyscraper, it is a FACT that I would need more building materials than if I were building a one-story, neighborhood pizza pub.


Oh, come on. That's not a fair comparison at all because you can test the preceding mathematically, easily. An architect/engineer can test this empirically. Not only that, but it makes simple, logical sense. The logic involved is analogous to the following claim: "A computer costing $1,000 would require more money to purchase than a computer costing $500." Similarly, one can say "A computer costing $1,000 would require $500 more to purchase than a computer costing $500." And to put it another way, one can say "California is larger, in size, than Catalina Island." Well, duh! Those claims are facts, true. They are mathematically obvious and simple to prove. :lol:

In contrast, it's not so mathematically obvious that "there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up." There are so many variables involved, many being dependent of each other, that it would take a huge undertaking for you to prove them all true, and since all premises must be true in order for a claim/conclusion to the true using deductive logic, I don't see how you could do this. Put another way, how do you know it wouldn't take, let's say, 500 people in total to cover up a 9/11 conspiracy? What about 900? 999? Hell, what about a million? Sorry, but logic isn't on your side. It probably would take thousands of people to do this, sure, but is it a fact? Absolutely not.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 03:38

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:If I were building a new, 100 story skyscraper, it is a FACT that I would need more building materials than if I were building a one-story, neighborhood pizza pub.


Oh, come on. That's not a fair comparison at all because you can test the preceding mathematically, easily. An architect/engineer can test this empirically. Not only that, but it makes simple, logical sense. The logic involved is analogous to the following claim: "A computer costing $1,000 would require more money to purchase than a computer costing $500." Similarly, one can say "A computer costing $1,000 would require $500 more to purchase than a computer costing $500." And yet put another way, one can say "California is larger than the size of Hawaii." Well, duh! Those claims are facts, true. They are mathematically obvious and simple to prove. :lol:

In contrast, it's not so mathematically obvious that "there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up." There are so many variables involved, many being dependent of each other, that it would take a huge undertaking for you to prove them all true, and since all premises must be true in order for a claim/conclusion to the true using deductive logic, I don't see how you could do this. Put another way, how do you know it wouldn't take, let's say, 500 people in total to cover up a 9/11 conspiracy? What about 900? 999? Hell, what about a million? Sorry, but logic isn't on your side. It probably would take thousands of people to do this, sure, but is it a fact? Absolutely not.

Maybe you're right, though here's a count to help back up my claim of "thousands."

1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E. / Aine M. Brazil, P.E., S.E. / Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E. / Alfred D. Barcenilla, Sr., P.E. / Allan Jowsey, Ph.D. / Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E., S.E. / Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E. / Amy Zelson Mundorff / Anamaria Bonilla, S.E. / Andre Sidler, P.E., S.E. / Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Andrew Coats, P.E., S.E. / Andrew McConnell, S.E. / Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E. / Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E. / Andrew Whittaker, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist / Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E. / Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D. / Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E. / Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS / Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.) / Asif Usmani, Ph.D., B.E. / August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E. / Ayhan Irfanoglu, P.E., S.E. / Barbara Lane, Ph.D. / Bernie Denke, P.E. US&R Structural Specialist / Bill Cote / Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E. / Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI / Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group / Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.), / Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center / Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.) / Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E. / Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E. / Brian Lyons, Tully / Brian McElhatten, S.E. / Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB / Brian Tokarczik, P.E., S.E. / Charles Hirsch, M.D. / Charles J. Carter, P.E., S.E. / Charles Thornton, P.E. / Charlie Vitchers / Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University / Christopher E. Marrion, P.E. / Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC / Christopher N. McCowan / Chuck Guardia, S.E. / Conrad Paulson, P.E., S.E. / Curtis S.D. Massey / D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E. / Dan Doyle (IW 40) / Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E. / Dan Koch Jr. / Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E / Daniele Veneziano, P.E. / David Biggs, P.E., S.E. / David Cooper, P.E. / David Davidowitz, ConEd / David Hoy, S.E. / David J. Hammond, P.E., S.E. / David Leach, P.E. / David M. Parks, ME / David Newland Sc.D., FREng. / David Peraza, P.E., S.E. / David Ranlet / David Schomburg / David Sharp, S.E. / David T. Biggs, P.E. / Dean Koutsoubis, S.E. / Dean Tills, P.E. / Delbert Boring, P.E. / Dennis Clark (IST) / Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D. / Dennis Mileti, Ph.D. / Dennis Smith / Dharam Pal, M.E. / Dick Posthauer, S.E. / Donald Friedman, P.E. / Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E. / Ed Jacoby Jr., NYSEMO / Ed McGinley, P.E. / Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD / Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief / Edward M. DePaola, P.E., S.E. / Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD / Eiji Fukuzawa / Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E. / Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Frank Vallebuono, FDNY Battalion Chief / Anthony Varriale, FDNY Captain / Frank Cruthers, FDNY Chief / Frank Fellini, FDNY Chief / Joseph Callan, FDNY Chief / Daniel Nigro, FDNY Chief of Operations / Nick Visconti, FDNY Deputy Chief / Peter Hayden, FDNY Deputy Chief / Sam Melisi, FDNY Firefighter / Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E. / Francis J. Lombardi, P.E. / Frank Gayle, Sc.D. / Frank Greening, Ph.D. / Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B. / Fred Endrikat, FEMA USAR / Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA / Gary Steficek, S.E. / Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA / George Tamaro, P.E., S.E. / Gerald Haynes, P.E. / Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist / Glenn Corbett / Graeme Flint / Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA / Guylene Proulx, Ph.D. / H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E. / Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D. / Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E. / Harry Martin, AISC / Howard R. Baum, Ph.D., M.E. / J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E. / J. David McColskey / Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department / Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully) / Jack Spencer, P.E. / Jacques Grandino, P.E., S.E. / James A. Rossberg, P.E. / James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist / James H. Fahey, S.E. / James J. Cohen, P.E., S.E. / James J. Hauck, P.E., S.E. / James Lord, FSFP.E. / James Milke, Ph.D., P.E. / James Quintiere, Ph.D., P.E. / Jan Szumanski, IUOE / Jason Averill, FSFP.E. / Jeff Rienbold, NPS / Jeffrey Hartman, S.E. / Jim Abadie, Bovis / Joel Meyerowitz / John Fisher, Ph.D., P.E., / John Flynn, P.E. / John Gross, Ph.D., P.E. / John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.) / John J. Healey, Ph.D., P.E. / John J. Zils, P.E., S.E. / John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. / John Lekstutis, P.E. / John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E. / John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC) / John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC) / John O'Connell, Chief FDNY / John Odermatt (NYC OEM) / John Ruddy, P.E., S.E. / John Ryan, PAPD / John W. Fisher, P.E. / Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E. / Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D / Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E. / José Torero, Ph.D. / Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E. / Joseph Englot, P.E., S.E. / Jozef Van Dyck, P.E. / Juan Paulo Morla, S.E. / Karen Damianick, P.E. / Karl Koch III / Karl Koch IV / Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E. / Keith A. Seffen, MA, Ph.D. / Ken Hays / Kenneth Holden / Kent Watts / Kevin Brennan, OSHA / Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.) / Kevin Terry, S.E. / Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E. / Larry Keating (IW 40) / Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E. / Lawrence Griffis, P.E. / Lawrence Novak, P.E., S.E. / Leo J. Titus, P.E. / Leonard M. Joseph, P.E. / Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E. / Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E. / Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E. / Louis Errichiello, S.E. / Manny Velivasakis, P.E. / Mark Blair / Mark Kucera, USACE / Mark Pierepiekarz, P.E., S.E. / Mark Stahl / Mark Tamaro, P.E / Mark Volpe, IW 40 / Marty Corcoran / Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E. / Matthew McCormick, NTSB / Melbourne Garber, P.E., S.E. / Merle E. Brander, P.E. / Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. / Michael Burton, P.E. / Michael Dallal / Michael Fagel, Ph.D., CEM / Michael Hessheimer, S.E. / Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI / Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E. / Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC) / Mike Marscio, P.E. / Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E. / Mohammed Ettouney / Mohammed R. Karim, Ph.D. / Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E. / Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E. / Nick Carcich / Norman Groner, Ph.D. / Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E. / Patrick McNierney, P.E., S.E. / Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E. / Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E. / Paul Sledzik / Paul Tertell, P.E. / Pete Bakersky / Peter Chipchase, S.E. / Peter Rinaldi, P.E. / Phillip Murray, P.E. / Pia Hoffman / Rajani Nair, S.E. / Ralph Castillo, P.E., F.P.E. / Ralph D'Apuzo, P.E. / Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E / Randy Lawson / Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E. / Raymond F. Messer, P.E. / Raymond H.R. Tide, P.E., S.E. / Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E / Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E. / Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E. / Richard Gann, Ph.D. / Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E. / Richard J. Fields, Ph.D. / Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist / Robert Athanas (thermal imaging specialist, FDNY) / Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E. / Robert Clarke, S.E. / Robert F. Duval (NFPA) / Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist / Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E. / Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. / Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Robert Shaler, M.D. / Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E / Robert Solomon, P.E. / Robert Wills, AISC / Ron Dokell, president, Demolition Consultants / Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. / Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E. / Ronald J. LaMere, P.E. / Ronald Rehm, Ph.D. / Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C / Ruben M. Zallen, P.E. / Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD / Ryan Mackey / S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E. / Saroj Bhol, P.E. / Saw-Teen See, P.E. / Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E. / Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal / Skip Aldous, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.) / Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E. / Sonny Scarff / Stan Murphy, P.E. / Stephen Cauffman / Stephen W. Banovic, Ph.D. / Steve Douglass, image analysis consultant / Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC) / Steve Spall, P.E., S.E. / Stuart Foltz, P.E. / Terry Sullivan, Bovis / Theodore Galambos, P.E. / Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E. / Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. / Thomas A. Siewert / Thomas Eagar, Sc.D., P.E. / Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD / Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D / Thomas Schlafly, AISC / Timothy Foecke, Ph.D. / Todd Curtis, Ph.D / Todd Ude, P.E., S.E. / Tom Scarangello, P.E. / Tom Stanton (IST) / Tomasz Wierzbicki / Tony Beale, P.E. / Valentine Junker / Van Romero, Ph.D. / Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E. / Victor Hare, P.E. / Victoria Arbitrio, P.E. / Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.) / W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / W. Lee Evey / Wallace Miller / William Baker, P.E., S.E / William E. Luecke, Ph.D. / William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME / William Howell, P.E., S.E. / William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA / William McGuire, P.E. / Willie Quinlan, IW / Won-Young Kim, Ph.D / Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp. / Yukihiro Omika / Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E. /
ACE Bermuda Insurance / AEMC Construction / AIG Insurance / Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington / Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue / Allianz Global Risks / American Airlines / American Concrete Institute / American Institute of Steel Construction / American Red Cross / Applied Biosystems Inc. / Applied Research Associates / Arlington County Emergency Medical Services / Arlington County Fire Department / Arlington County Sheriff's Department / Arlington VA Police Department / Armed Forces Institute of Pathology / Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee / ARUP USA / Atlantic Heydt Inc. / Bechtel / Berlin Fire Department / Big Apple Wrecking / Blanford & Co. / Bode Technology Group / Bovis Inc. / Building and Construction Trades Council / Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms / C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville / Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept. / California Incident Management Team / Carter Burgess Engineering / Celera Genomics / Centers for Disease Control / Central City Fire Department / Central Intelligence Agency / Cleveland Airport control tower / Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics / Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee / Consolidated Edison Company / Construction Technologies Laboratory / Controlled Demolitions Inc. / Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Counterterrorism and Security Group / CTL Engineering / D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc. / DeSimone Consulting Engineers / Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners / DiSalvo Ericson Engineering / District of Columbia Fire & Rescue / DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon / D'Onofrio Construction / E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews / Edwards and Kelcey Engineering / Engineering Systems, Inc. / Environmental protection Agency / Exponent Failure Analysis Associates / EYP Mission CriticalFacilities / Fairfax County Fire & Rescue / Falcon 20 crew in PA / Family members who received calls from victims on the planes / FBI Evidence Recovery Teams / Federal Aviation Administration / Federal Bureau of Investigation / Federal Emergency Management Agency / Federal Insurance Co. / FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1 / FEMA Disaster Field Office / FEMA Emergency Response Team / FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3 / Fire Department of New York / Fort Myer Fire Department / French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force / Friedens Volunteer Fire Department / Gateway Demolition / Gene Code Forensics / Georgia Tech Engineering Dept. / Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP / GMAC Financing / Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers / Guy Nordenson Associates / HAKS Engineers / Hampton-Clarke Inc. / HHS National Medical Response Team / HLW International Engineering / Hooversville Rescue Squad. / Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department / Hoy Structural Services / Hughes Associates, Inc / Hugo Neu Schnitzer East / hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC / Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives / Industrial Risk Insurers / Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems / International Association of Fire Chiefs / International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15 / J.R. Harris & Company / Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority / Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc. / KCE Structural Engineers / Koch Skanska / Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates / Laboratory Corp. of America / Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory / Leslie E. Robertson Associates / LIRo Engineering / Listie Volunteer Fire Company / Lockwood Consulting / M.G. McLaren Engineering / Masonry Society / Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc. / Metal Management Northeast / Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit / Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue / Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team / Montgomery County Fire & Rescue / Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers / Murray Engineering / Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc. / National Center for Biotechnology Informatics / National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States / National Council of Structural Engineers Associations / National Disaster Medical System / National Emergency Numbering Association / National Fire Protection Association / National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania / National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) / National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute / National Law Enforcement and Security Institute / National Military Command Center / National Reconnaissance Office / National Response Center / National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems / National Security Agency / National Transportation Safety Board / National Wrecking / Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center / New Jersey State Police / New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force / New York City Department of Design and Construction / New York City Department of Environmental Protection / New York City Office of Emergency Management / New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner / New York City Police Department Aviation Unit / New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit / New York Daily News / New York Flight Control Center / New York Newsday / New York Port Authority Construction Board / New York Port Authority Police / New York State Emergency Management Office / New York State Police Forensic Services / New York Times / North American Aerospace Defense Command / Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew / Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs / Numerous Forensic Anthropologists / Numerous Forensic Dentists / Numerous Forensic Pathologists / Numerous Forensic Radiologists / NuStats / Occupational Safety and Health Administration / Office of Emergency Preparedness / Office of Strategic Services / Orchid Cellmark / Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering / Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection / Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services / Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group / Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association / Pennsylvania State Police / Pentagon Defense Protective Service / Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team / Pentagon Medical Staff / Pentagon Renovation Team / Phillips & Jordan, Inc. / Port of New York and New Jersey Authority / Pro-Safety Services / Protec / Public Entity Risk Institute / Purdue University Engineering Dept. / Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers / Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc / Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers / Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity / SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams / SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams / Salvation Army Disaster Services / several EPA Hazmat Teams / several FBI Hazmat Teams / several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams / several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams / Severud Associates Consulting Engineers / Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company / Silverstein Properties / Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP / Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire / Society of Fire Protection Engineers / Somerset Ambulance Association / Somerset County Coroner's Office / Somerset County Emergency Management Agency / Somerset Volunteer Fire Department / St. Paul/Travelers Insurance / State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency / Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company / Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) / Structural Engineers Association of New York / Superstructures Engineering / Swiss Re America Insurance / Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes / Teng & Associates / Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc. / TIG Insurance / Tokio Marine & Fire / Transportation Safety Administration / Tully Construction / Twin City Fire Insurance / Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Underwriters Laboratories / Union Wrecking / United Airlines / United States Air National Guard / United States Fire Administration / United States Secret Service / United Steelworkers of America / University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research / US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County / US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command / US Department of Defense / US Department of Justice / US Department of State / Virginia Beach Fire Department / Virginia Department of Emergency Management / Virginia State Police / Vollmer Associates Engineers / Washington Post / Weeks Marine / Weidlinger Associates / Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering / Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency / Whitney Contracting / Willis Group Holdings / WJE Structural Engineers / Worcester Polytechnic Institute / World Trade Center security staff / XL Insurance / Yonkers Contracting / York International / Zurich Financial / Zurich Re Risk Engineering
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 03:42

ProfWag wrote:Maybe you're right, though here's a count to help back up my claim of "thousands." ...


And how do you know it's true that each of these organizations/individuals would have to be involved to pull off a 9/11 government cover-up?

See what I mean? That would take a huge undertaking. You can't prove it empirically. You are assuming they would all need to be involved. They might all be required, but that's a maybe. You simply don't know if it's true. You can assess each of these organizations and guess their probability of being required to be part of this total list, but you're using probability. That's where your inductive logic comes into play. You're not using deductive logic. Sorry, but you simply got this one wrong.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 04:07

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Maybe you're right, though here's a count to help back up my claim of "thousands." ...


Hell, forget all of the organizations on the list. Just concentrate on a handful:

"1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene"

How do you know it's true that "if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be" "1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene" to "have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up?"

40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero

How do you know it's true that "if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be" "40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero" to "have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up?"

55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York

How do you know it's true that "if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be" "55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York" to "have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up?"

7,000+ FBI Agents

How do you know it's true that "if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be" "7,000+ FBI Agents" to "have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up?"

8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon

How do you know it's true that "if those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition, there would have to be" "8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon" to "have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up?"

I don't want to go on with the others on your list, but you get the point. You simply can't prove the preceding.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 04:14

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Maybe you're right, though here's a count to help back up my claim of "thousands." ...


And how do you know it's true that each of these organizations/individuals would have to be involved to pull off a 9/11 government cover-up?

See what I mean? That would take a huge undertaking. You can't prove it empirically. You are assuming they would all need to be involved. They might all be required, but that's a maybe. You simply don't know if it's true. You can assess each of these organizations and guess their probability of being required to be part of this total list, but you're using probability. That's where your inductive logic comes into play. You're not using deductive logic. Sorry, but you simply got this one wrong.

Whatever QP. I think anyone reading this knows exactly what my intention is. How do I know it's a fact that "thousands" from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy? The same way I know it's a fact that my farts don't smell. Observation and common sense.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 04:28

ProfWag wrote:How do I know it's a fact that "thousands" from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy? The same way I know it's a fact that my farts don't smell. Observation and common sense.


Wrong again. You don't know "it's a fact that 'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy." You are guessing it's true, but you can't prove it. Therefore, it's NOT a fact.

Oh, you can demonstrate that "'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy" based on the same logic you use to "know it's a fact that your farts don't smell." That's certainly NOT common sense. That's common induction. I'm assuming you meant "your farts do smell." If so, that's, again, an unfair comparison. You can test, empirically, over and over again, whether or not your farts smell, then you can say, for example, "currently, my farts smell 90% of the time based on 1,000 fart trials conducted recently." :lol: That's an empirically proven statement. How can you test, empirically, that "'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy?"

Observation? Where's the data you "observed" that shows "'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy?" I'd like to see this "observed" data.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 04:54

quantumparanormal wrote:Wrong again. You don't know "it's a fact that 'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy." You are guessing it's true, but you can't prove it. Therefore, it's NOT a fact.

Dean Radin admits that he hasn't proven the existance of psi. You and him are "guessing" it's true, but you can't prove it. Therefore, psi is NOT a fact. Just so ya' know.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 05:20

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:Wrong again. You don't know "it's a fact that 'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy." You are guessing it's true, but you can't prove it. Therefore, it's NOT a fact.

Dean Radin admits that he hasn't proven the existance of psi. You and him are "guessing" it's true, but you can't prove it. Therefore, psi is NOT a fact. Just so ya' know.


Oh, I see. So, you are now correct about your "fact" about the 9/11 cover-up requiring thousands because Dean Radin hasn't "proven" the existence of psi. Nice try, but again, your comparisons are terrible. Our assumption that psi is real is based on empirical testing, on underlying facts and probabilities, not presumptions.

Where did I ever say psi was a "fact?" I know I've said things like "there's evidence to support psi is real," but fact? No. If I did, I'd like to see where I posted that.

And I surely don't need to guess psi is real. I infer that psi is real based on empirically derived data. I admit it's not a fact. I do admit it's most likely it is real based on the empirical data.

We test our hypotheses. Let me see you test your 9/11-thousands hypothesis. Where's your empirically derived data?

And, again, scientists don't "prove" things. They provide evidence to support/confirm or dismiss a hypothesis. What the evidence "proves" is ultimately up to the reviewer.

What I should've said, instead, is this:

You don't know "it's a fact that 'thousands' from the Pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy." You are guessing it's true, but you can't provide evidence to support such a claim. Therefore, it's NOT a fact.

And since you provided NO empirical evidence to backup your claim, it's not only not true, it's simply a guess. Hell, is it even probable? Do you have statistical data that can demonstrate it's probable? It's not that easy, is it?
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Next

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron