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.

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 05:37

quantumparanormal wrote:
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.
I feel I have provided evidence to support my claim in earlier threads. In any event, just calm down Quantum, It's all good. Now give me that hug...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 05:43

Image
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 soldiergirl » 09 Sep 2009, 16:37

Okay so it is not a fact that it was an airplane thats fine. When you look out your window and see your yard covered in snow, neighbors yards covered in snow, the street covered in snow, and the weatherman says it snowed x inches last night the average prudent person will say to himself well blank i guess blank snowed last night. The conspiracy theorists will say blank i wonder why my neighbors bought a snow machine and decided to put snow everywhere to make me think its snowing out. Dam clever neighbors even got the weatherman in on it too.
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 23:37

soldiergirl wrote:Okay so it is not a fact that it was an airplane thats fine.


Who made that claim?

soldiergirl wrote:When you look out your window and see your yard covered in snow, neighbors yards covered in snow, the street covered in snow, and the weatherman says it snowed x inches last night the average prudent person will say to himself well blank i guess blank snowed last night.


Well, that's not at all a fair comparison because those are empirical facts: one can go outside and directly test the claim that it's snowing (or did snow) by observing the snow, then it's backed up by weather reports & satellites, etc. On the other, one cannot provide empirical evidence to support the claim 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." How does one test this? How can one indeed say with ultimate certainty it's a fact that every organization/individual on that thousands-plus list would be required to be "in on it?" One can speculate and say it's probably true that it would require thousands to perform a cover-up, but it's not a fact. It's speculation. That's it.
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 » 10 Sep 2009, 00:08

It has been reported by the Pentagon that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site. If conspiracy theorists claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, then 8,000 people who participated in that clean-up would have to claim that it was airplane parts they were cleaning up and helping to place bodies inside the crash site RATHER than actual missile parts as is being claimed by some CTers. Are these valid statements in your opinion?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 00:26

ProfWag wrote:It has been reported by the Pentagon that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site.


How does this demonstrate that each of those 8,000 individuals would have to be in on a 9/11 cover-up? What evidence do you have to support this? The problem with your logic is that you're using something that has already occurred (that 8,000 people helped clean-up) and can be confirmed to substantiate/validate/backup something that has supposedly not occurred. The former claim you can test by looking at government reports and even possibly interviewing the people involved in the cleanup. Even then, how can you be sure those reports and interviews reveal accurate, factual data? You cannot use the supposed fact "that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site" to support your theory 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." It's very faulty logic to assume you can do this. One claim does not substantiate the other. How can you empirically demonstrate it's a fact that 8,000 individuals would be required to pull off a 9/11 cover-up?

ProfWag wrote:If conspiracy theorists claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, then 8,000 people who participated in that clean-up would have to claim that it was airplane parts they were cleaning up and helping to place bodies inside the crash site RATHER than actual missile parts as is being claimed by some CTers. Are these valid statements in your opinion?


Again, and again, you are using unfair comparisons as arguments. If a claim was made that a missile hit the Pentagon, investigators could empirical test this claim (after the fact, of course) by analyzing the debris on-sight. It's testable. Furthermore, you can use strong inductive reasoning to argue that because "It has been reported by the Pentagon that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site," it's probably true that 8,000 people would be required to cleanup a missile crash site. Even then, it's not fact. It's a probability. You are guessing about possible future events. You simply don't know exactly how many people would be required. Therefore, it's not a fact. Similarly, you are guessing how many people would be required to cover-up a 9/11 conspiracy. It's not fact. Since you don't know for sure whether a conspiracy has occurred or not, you have to speculate how many people would indeed be required, a daunting task, but the answer would be in the form of a probability, not absolute fact. Given this fact, you would need to conduct extensive research into who exactly would need to be involved in the cover-up just to come up with a probability number. Either way, you are dealing with probabilities, not certainties. Not only can you not know for sure how many would need to be involved, you don't know exactly which organizations or individuals would need to be involved. Again, it's all speculation based on indirect, inferred evidence, if that.

Regardless, the claim you originally made was not "If conspiracy theorists claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, then 8,000 people who participated in that clean-up would have to claim that it was airplane parts they were cleaning up and helping to place bodies inside the crash site RATHER than actual missile parts as is being claimed by some CTers," but, rather, "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." You are using one claim to backup another, extremely faulty logic.

So, to answer your question, "Are these valid statements in your opinion?" no, they are definitely not valid statements (with the exception that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site, as that can be tested via historical records & interviews, but even then, it's difficult to know for sure what level of truth you could obtain via such inquiry).
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 » 10 Sep 2009, 02:08

quantumparanormal wrote:
Regardless, the claim you originally made was not "If conspiracy theorists claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, then 8,000 people who participated in that clean-up would have to claim that it was airplane parts they were cleaning up and helping to place bodies inside the crash site RATHER than actual missile parts as is being claimed by some CTers," but, rather, "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." You are using one claim to backup another, extremely faulty logic.

So, to answer your question, "Are these valid statements in your opinion?" no, they are definitely not valid statements (with the exception that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site, as that can be tested via historical records & interviews, but even then, it's difficult to know for sure what level of truth you could obtain via such inquiry).

Noted that I wasn't clear on the building collapses. I was definitely thinking of 9/11 as a whole that day to include 4 airplanes.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 02:10

OK
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 » 10 Sep 2009, 02:30

quantumparanormal wrote:
Again, and again, you are using unfair comparisons as arguments. If a claim was made that a missile hit the Pentagon, investigators could empirical test this claim (after the fact, of course) by analyzing the debris on-sight. It's testable. Furthermore, you can use strong inductive reasoning to argue that because "It has been reported by the Pentagon that 8,000 people helped clean-up the area of the crash site," it's probably true that 8,000 people would be required to cleanup a missile crash site. Even then, it's not fact. It's a probability. You are guessing about possible future events. You simply don't know exactly how many people would be required. Therefore, it's not a fact. Similarly, you are guessing how many people would be required to cover-up a 9/11 conspiracy. It's not fact. Since you don't know for sure whether a conspiracy has occurred or not, you have to speculate how many people would indeed be required, a daunting task, but the answer would be in the form of a probability, not absolute fact. Given this fact, you would need to conduct extensive research into who exactly would need to be involved in the cover-up just to come up with a probability number. Either way, you are dealing with probabilities, not certainties. Not only can you not know for sure how many would need to be involved, you don't know exactly which organizations or individuals would need to be involved. Again, it's all speculation based on indirect, inferred evidence, if that.

NO SHIT SHIRLOCK! A claim WAS made but I am not the one making a claim that a missile hit the Pentagon!!!!! The debris HAS been tested AND analyzed after the fact, yet DUMBASSES still think that a conspiracy took place that said a missile hit the Pentagon. WHY ARE YOU CONTINUOUSLY CHANGING WHAT I HAVE SAID??? Second, it HAS been substantiated that 8,000 people from the Pentagon helped with the clean-up! I am NOT guessing as to how many people would be required. It can be empirically verified! It HAS HAPPENED AND THAT IS HOW MANY ASSISTED. PERIOD. Again, I am not speculating anything! There are HUNDREDS of Fire and Rescue that assisted with the Twin Tower clean up. It has happened and it does NOT have to be estimated how many helped. It HAS happened and can be empirically verified!!! Same thing with the NYPD and the NY/NJ PA.Conspiracy Theorists ARE making a claim that a missile hit the Pentagon and there was a controlled demolition that brought down the Twin Towers. If their DUMBASS theories are correct, then people doing the clean up would have to flatly deny they found any evidence of a controlled demolition. If their DUMBASS theories was correct about the Pentagon, then ALL 8,000 of the EMPIRACALLY VERIFIED CLEAN UP CREW MEMBERS would have had to say it was a plane and not a MISSILE. It would only take 1 out of 8,000 to say it was a missile they were cleaning up. Hence, simple math says that ALL 8,000 cleanup crew members were in on a CONSPIRACY, IF YOU BELIEVE THEIR DUMBASS THEORIES!!!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 04:54

ProfWag wrote:NO SHIT SHIRLOCK! I am not the one making a claim that a missile hit the Pentagon!!!!! The debris HAS been tested AND analyzed after the fact, yet DUMBASSES still think that a conspiracy took place that said a missile hit the Pentagon.


But I'm not arguing those claims. I'm arguing your following claim:

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.


Then you provided a list of all of these organizations/individuals. I'm also arguing how you could know for a "fact" that every organization/individual on that list would be required to cover-up a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy.

ProfWag wrote:Second, it HAS been substantiated that 8,000 people from the Pentagon helped with the clean-up!


That might be true (I haven't seen the evidence, so I have to take it on faith that it's true), but I'm not arguing that it is or isn't a fact that indeed 8,000 people were used for the cleanup. You tend to drift away from your original claim. That seems to be a typical theme with you. You are also mixing up past and future tenses and using each to reinforce each other. Again, you are inferring, or implying, rather, that because "8,000 people from the Pentagon helped with the clean-up" on 9/11/01 (past tense) that this somehow empirically demonstrates it's a "fact" that 8,000 would also be required to cover-up a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy (future tense). Let's stay on track here. We are talking about your original claim, not others'.

Let me dumb it down a bit... you are essentially saying this:

    8,000 people from the Pentagon helped with the clean-up. (past tense; already occurred; empirically testable)

    Therefore, it would require 8,000 from the Pentagon to help cover up a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy. (future tense; has not already occurred; not empirically testable)

So, as you can see (hopefully), you are using inductive logic, not deductive logic. You are speculating that it it would take 8,000 people from the Pentagon to help cover-up a government-led 9/11 conspiracy. The problem is that you cannot predict with any great degree of accuracy if indeed that's how many Pentagon people would be necessary. Perhaps, depending on the future event, you would need more or less than 8,000. How can you test this empirically? You can't! You simply can't predict a number with certainty. You can guess, sure, but a guess is not a fact. A guess can be assigned a theoretical probability, but that's it.

Here's why...

What makes it further difficult to demonstrate it's a "fact" that it would require 8,000 from the Pentagon to help cover-up a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy is that this future, theoretical event is markedly different from the event that has already occurred (the one that happened on 9/11/01). The event that has already occurred is not known to have been a government-led cover-up conspiracy, yet you are stating it's a "fact" that another "similar" future event would require 8,000 from the Pentagon to help cover it up, but they are two different types of events. In the former event, you are assuming that a cover-up has not occurred. In the latter event, you are assuming a cover-up could occur and that such a cover-up would require 8,000 from the Pentagon to help cover it up. In other words, the two events are dissimilar in that one does involve a cover-up and other does not.

I'll dumb it down a bit and give you a very simple example to explain what the problem is:

    The sun has come up on the East every day that I have been alive, as it has for so many other days throughout the years.

    Therefore, it will come up on the East again tomorrow.

While that's inductive logic, it's very strong inductive logic (you can even argue it's deductive logic, since its probability is so damn high). We have two benefits: 1) We are dealing with the same exact event when comparing the past and the future--the sun coming up every day on the East, and 2) we have empirically observed this occurring over and over again for thousands of years. We have no such benefits when it comes to your claim, however.

To elaborate further, the past and future events of the sun rising are the same types of events. We have the benefit of being able to observe the sun rising each day on the East, and this has occurred for thousands of years. It has been empirically demonstrated/tested that the sun has risen on the East and will in very high likeliness rise again on the East tomorrow. However, your claim doesn't have such an empirical benefit. In contrast, there's no exact similarity between what happened on 9/11/01 and what another future, theoretical 9/11-like event might entail because only one 9/11 attack has occurred so far. In an event like 9/11, any future, similar 9/11 event could entail many different variables, each contributing to markedly different outcomes. In other words, we cannot infer from one event (original, non-conspiracy 9/11 attack) alone what a similar future event (future, government-conspiracy 9/11 attack) might entail. We need what science requires: replicability. To say that because 9/11 already occurred and required 8,000 from the Pentagon to clean it up, a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy would also require 8,000 from the Pentagon to clean that as well is deductively incorrect. Since we cannot observe 9/11 attacks occurring on a daily basis, we cannot infer what might occur in a similar, future event.

Let me give you another example of what I mean. I'll use psi REG experiments as an example:

    Today, my very first experiment showed that humans can affect REGs to generate non-random patterns.

    Therefore, future experiments will also show that humans can affect REGs to generate non-random patterns.

Notice how those two statements include the same event. However, they are inductively weak. I've only conducted one experiment, so how can I conclude that future experiments will result in the same outcomes? I can't! I would need to conduct many more experiments to determine if it's probable that humans could affect REGs to generate non-random patterns in future experiments. One won't do. Regardless, the above is induction, not deduction. In other words, I cannot state it's a fact that future experiments will also show that humans can affect REGs to generate non-random patterns. After many repeated experiments, I can say it's a probability that it will occur, but that's it.

Let me now modify the statements to be more similar to what you're saying in your original claim:

    Today, my very first experiment showed that humans can affect REGs to generate non-random patterns.

    Therefore, future experiments will also show that humans can affect RNGs to generate non-random patterns.

With the REGs, we're using quantum-level randomness. With RNGs, we're using computer-based, algorithmic randomness. They are not the same type of events. Therefore, the conclusion that future experiments will also show that humans can affect RNGs to generate non-random patterns is absolutely false. Similarly, the conclusion that it's a "fact" that because 9/11 already occurred and required 8,000 from the Pentagon to clean it up, a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy would also require 8,000 from the Pentagon to clean that up as well. They are not the same exact type of events, and you do not have enough empirical, evidential support to support a conclusion that it would be a "fact."

ProfWag wrote:I am NOT guessing as to how many people would be required. It can be empirically verified! It HAS HAPPENED AND THAT IS HOW MANY ASSISTED. PERIOD. Again, I am not speculating anything!


Again, your logic is flawed, and it seems your emotions are to blame. You have to guess how many people would be required for a future and/or theoretical event. Unless there are predefined laws that determine what and how many variables must be in place in order for a 9/11-like attack to occur and we have full knowledge and access of/to those laws, and since the variables are not exactly the same for a non-cover-up event that are for a cover-up event, I just don't see how it's possible to determine with certainty what the exact, factual outcome would be. The only thing that could be empirically verified is what's already happened, not what might happen in a future, theoretical government-led, 9/11-like cover-up.

Let me, again, dumb it down a bit:

    "It HAS HAPPENED AND THAT IS HOW MANY ASSISTED."

    "Therefore, I am NOT guessing as to how many people would be required."

False. Again, you don't have the benefit, for example, of having what we have to determine whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow on the East. 9/11-like events haven't occurred every day for thousands of years, unlike the sun. How on Earth can it be, therefore, "empirically verifiable" that it would require 8,000 from the Pentagon to clean up a future, theoretical government-led, 9/11-like cover-up? Your logic is just so fundamentally flawed that I'm baffled as to how and why you just don't see it. I blame your emotions.

ProfWag wrote:There are HUNDREDS of Fire and Rescue that assisted with the Twin Tower clean up. It has happened and it does NOT have to be estimated how many helped. It HAS happened and can be empirically verified!!!


No argument there. It can be verified because it's already occurred. However, you cannot make a valid argument that because "HUNDREDS of Fire and Rescue that assisted with the Twin Tower clean up" that another future, theoretical government-led, 9/11-like cover-up would also require "HUNDREDS of Fire and Rescue that assisted with the Twin Tower clean up." Again, that's fundamentally flawed logic.

ProfWag wrote:Same thing with the NYPD and the NY/NJ PA.


Similarly, no argument there. It can be verified because it's already occurred. However, you cannot make a valid argument that because "HUNDREDS of NYPD and the NY/NJ PA assisted with the Twin Tower clean up" that another future, theoretical government-led, 9/11-like cover-up would also require "HUNDREDS of NYPD and the NY/NJ PA assisted with the Twin Tower clean up." And again, that's fundamentally flawed logic.

The two preceding examples are examples of probabilities, not certainties. You cannot be certain about them.

ProfWag wrote:Conspiracy Theorists ARE making a claim that a missile hit the Pentagon and there was a controlled demolition that brought down the Twin Towers. If their DUMBASS theories are correct, then people doing the clean up would have to flatly deny they found any evidence of a controlled demolition. If their DUMBASS theories was correct about the Pentagon, then ALL 8,000 of the EMPIRACALLY VERIFIED CLEAN UP CREW MEMBERS would have had to say it was a plane and not a MISSILE. It would only take 1 out of 8,000 to say it was a missile they were cleaning up. Hence, simple math says that ALL 8,000 cleanup crew members were in on a CONSPIRACY, IF YOU BELIEVE THEIR DUMBASS THEORIES!!!


And yet again, I'm not arguing those claims. I'm arguing your original, following claim:

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.


My argument all along has been this particular clause:

ProfWag wrote:there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.


You nor the conspiracy theorists know this for sure. The fact that you used the word "fact" is what I have a problem with. In other words, it's absolutely NOT a 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." That claim is definitely refutable, and I've shown how and why time and time again, yet you don't seem to get it. :roll:

I would agree with you if you said there would probably have to be THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up, but I do NOT agree that it's a "fact." Logic wins.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 10 Sep 2009, 05:01, edited 1 time in total.
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 » 10 Sep 2009, 05:17

quantumparanormal wrote:[
Then you provided a list of all of these organizations/individuals. I'm also arguing how you could know for a "fact" that every organization/individual on that list would be required to cover-up a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy.

Let me dumb it down a bit... you are essentially saying this:

    8,000 people from the Pentagon helped with the clean-up. (past tense; already occurred; empirically testable)

    Therefore, it would require 8,000 from the Pentagon to help cover up a theoretical, future government-led 9/11 conspiracy. (future tense; has not already occurred; not empirically testable)

No Quantum, I am not saying anything about a future 9/11 conspiracy. I am referring to the one that happened 8 years ago on this coming Friday. It appears that you are either trying to read too much into what I am saying or are simply trying to be an ass at this point. No further discussion needed.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 05:20

ProfWag wrote:No Quantum, I am not saying anything about a future 9/11 conspiracy. I am referring to the one that happened 8 years ago on this coming Friday. It appears that you are either trying to read too much into what I am saying or are simply trying to be an ass at this point. No further discussion needed.


You're the one "putting words in my mouth." (probably one of your debate tactics) Read what I wrote in detail and think about it carefully. It's as plain as day:

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.


That statement is absolutely false because it's a theoretical/hypothetical cover-up, not a fact. You simply cannot demonstrate the "fact" to be true. Because we don't know for sure a cover-up has occurred, it's theoretical/hypothetical! Simple.

"if those buildings came down via a government coverup" = THEORY/HYPOTHETICAL, NOT FACT
"if those buildings came down via a government controlled demolition" = THEORY/HYPOTHETICAL, NOT FACT
THEREFORE...
"there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it" = THEORY/HYPOTHETICAL, NOT FACT
"there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people willing to cover it up" = THEORY/HYPOTHETICAL, NOT FACT

Has a 9/11-like government-led cover-up ever occurred before? No (that we can tell). Therefore, any suggestions as to what such a cover-up event might entail would be theoretical/hypothetical and based, therefore, on probabilities. Therefore, your claim is a PROBABILITY, NOT A FACT. Yikes. :roll:

Simple.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 10 Sep 2009, 06:25, edited 5 times in total.
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 » 10 Sep 2009, 05:37

I only mentioned the word "future" because the same logic applies to both future and theoretical/hypothetical events. Your use of the word "if" describes a theoretical/hypothetical event that supposedly has not yet occurred. You really need to read...carefully.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 10 Sep 2009, 06:27, edited 1 time in total.
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 » 10 Sep 2009, 05:40

How hard is it to state the following?

One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is that if those buildings came down via a government cover-up and a controlled demolition, there would most likely have to be THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.


That's logically valid.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA


PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron