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 quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 07:18

ProfWag wrote:http://debunking911.com/massivect.htm


debunking911 wrote:All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...


They don't know for a fact who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off. They do, however, speculate who most likely would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off, but they are basing their speculations on inferred probabilities, not facts.

Neither the non-conspiracy theorists nor the conspiracy theorists can say with any factual certainty who are "All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off."
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 10 Sep 2009, 07:54, 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, 07:46

ProfWag wrote:http://debunking911.com/massivect.htm


Let me use this example:

American Airlines


How can they, or you, substantiate the claim that it's a "fact American Airlines would have to be involved to pull off a government-led 9/11 conspiracy?" Where is this data, this evidence?

Was 9/11 a government-led cover-up? Let's assume the answer is no. Therefore, how can we know as a fact American Airlines would have to be involved if we have nothing to base that on other than speculation based on probability? We can't. We can infer that it's most likely they would have to be involved, but probabilities are not facts. This has never happened before (a 9/11 cover-up). We have no past data upon which to rely. There are so many variables involved. Considering all of these variables leads to probabilities, assumptions, but they don't substantiate factual claims. We can empirically test what has ALREADY happened. We cannot empirically test a hypothetical/theoretical situation because it hasn't HAPPENED YET! I'm not sure why this isn't getting through to you. It's not that complicated.
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, 08:13

quantumparanormal wrote:We cannot empirically test a hypothetical/theoretical situation because it hasn't HAPPENED YET! I'm not sure why this isn't getting through to you. It's not that complicated.


Put another way, we cannot know for a "fact that American Airlines would have to involved in order to pull off a government-led 9/11 cover-up" unless we TEST that hypothesis and see what happens. In other words, to know for sure what would happen, a 9/11 cover-up would have to occur, and we'd have to be able to observe and think of, as much as possible, every variable involved in that cover-up (which is probably a lot of variables). Once we test the hypothesis (which is not a practical or moral thing to do!), we can then come to some inductive conclusions based on the empirically obtained data.

However, if we don't TEST that hypothesis (we haven't and we won't for obvious reasons!), all we can do is infer as a probability what would happen, which variables would be involved, how many, when, where, what outcomes would most likely occur, etc. For example, we can say, "Based on this and that and this, it would be highly likely that American Airlines would have to be involved in a government-led 9/11 conspiracy."

Again, unless you know for certain what and how many variables it takes to pull off a government-led 9/11 conspiracy and how each of those variables would work with other variables, at certain times, etc, you can only guess, but you don't know these things for sure. It's never happened before, so how could you know for sure!

I sure hope that helps you understand it! *crosses fingers stubbornness doesn't prevail*
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, 08:33

Definition of "fact" according to WordWeb:

WordWeb wrote:1. A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
2. A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
3. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed


Since it cannot be substantiated empirically that a government-led 9/11 conspiracy neither exists, has occurred, has been verified, is the case, has happened, is known to have happened, nor is known to have existed, you cannot say with certainty, as a fact, who would have to be involved in it in order to pull it off.
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, 10:14

X → Y
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 11:12

ProfWag wrote:X → Y


Correct. You just proved my point, so why can't you accept it?

In propositional logic, X is the antecedent and Y is the consequence. In other words, if X then Y.

What you are saying is that it's a "fact" that if X is true then Y must also be true.

X = "If those buildings came down via a government coverup and a controlled demolition,"
Y = "there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up."

In deduction, X and Y must be true for the entire claim to be true. Since we don't for sure X has occurred, how can Y logically follow from it?

Is X true? No. We don't know empirically it's a fact a government coverup and a controlled demolition has occurred. Facts are things that have indeed occurred. Since a cover-up and demolition have not been known to have occurred, X must be false. You cannot empirically demonstrate X is true.

Is Y true? No. We don't know empirically it's a fact there would have to be literally THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up. Facts are things that have indeed occurred. Since THOUSANDS of people who have knowledge of it and willing to cover it up have not been known to have done such a thing, Y is also false. You cannot empirically demonstrate Y is true.

Therefore, X and Y are false.

Therefore, "it's 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" is also false.

Your fact-based claim is so fundamentally flawed because neither X nor Y can be empirically proven to be true.

See how easy that was?

The crux of your problem is with the word "fact," which deals with things that exist, have occurred, have been verified, are the case, have happened, are known to have happened, or are known to have existed. None of these things apply to your claim.
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 ciscop » 10 Sep 2009, 14:12

oooh man...
really???

quantum
please instruct me in psi and esp research
you know your stuff
over here
you are taking the side of the uberskeptic
this is getting so philosophical that now is idiotic... even for a paranormal site

¨this isnt a fact¨ ¨this isnt real¨ ¨take the blue pill and you get out of the matrix¨

so friking boring
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 10 Sep 2009, 18:39

Quantum,
I agree with your educational information. I disagree with how you are using it with my original statement. However, consider this: statement: "If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, the reality is that thousands of people would have to be assisting in this cover-up." Would that make you happy? And please, don't waste too much of your time writing a lecture. A simple yes or no would suffice.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby soldiergirl » 10 Sep 2009, 20:19

If you want to blame the government for any of it then at least blame them for what they are guilty of which was dropping the ball on the intel they received and didn't look into or had a 100% correct analysis for. However, I still don't fault them for that either because with the amount of intel that comes in you do have to prioritize cause unfortunately there are not enough analysts to quickly analyze and check into every traffic message. Not to mention us intel analysts are not psychic and can only come up with an assessment based on the traffic messages we receive. Even though we call our answers assessments it still boils down to being a guess based on the info we have. So some intel on some middle eastern guys taking flight lessons at a podunk flight school but not wanting to learn how to land a plane can be assessed in many ways prior to 911.
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 10 Sep 2009, 21:31

ProfWag wrote:Quantum,
I agree with your educational information. I disagree with how you are using it with my original statement. However, consider this: statement: "If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, the reality is that thousands of people would have to be assisting in this cover-up." Would that make you happy? And please, don't waste too much of your time writing a lecture. A simple yes or no would suffice.


Again, you're logically incorrect because you cannot empirically demonstrate it would indeed be a reality. In other words, you cannot predict what would have actually happened with any degree of certainty. A cover-up hasn't happened, correct? Therefore, how could you ever prove your point? It's not testable. It's theoretical, sure, but not a "reality!" :roll:

Here are examples of realities/facts:

I just drank some coffee. - Fact/reality; I can empirically show this to be true

I just typed some letters. - Fact/reality; I can empirically show this to be true

If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, the reality is that some people would have to be assisting in this cover-up. Fact/reality; I can empirically show this to be true; without people, there is no event!

If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, the reality is that airplanes would have to be involved. Fact/reality; I can empirically show this to be true; there is TV coverage and thousands of eyewitnesses

Here are examples of probabilities:

I will drink more coffee later. - Probability/possibility; What if I have a heart attack or get into an accident and die?

I will type some letters later. - Probability/possibility; What if I have a heart attack or get into an accident and die?

If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, the reality is that thousands of people would have to be assisting in this cover-up. - Probability/possibility; since this event has not yet occurred, it not a "state of being actual or real" (reality); is it impossible, for example, someone in the government could have contracted some terrorists over seas to pull this all off (hijacking the planes), not involving thousands in government to cover it up?

Come on. This isn't complicated.

These are realities:

"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, most likely thousands of people would have to be assisting in this cover-up."

"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, people would have to be assisting in this cover-up."

"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, government employees would have to be assisting in this cover-up."
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 11 Sep 2009, 01:34, edited 4 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, 21:32

ciscop wrote:oooh man...
really???

quantum
please instruct me in psi and esp research
you know your stuff
over here
you are taking the side of the uberskeptic
this is getting so philosophical that now is idiotic... even for a paranormal site

¨this isnt a fact¨ ¨this isnt real¨ ¨take the blue pill and you get out of the matrix¨

so friking boring


This is not philosophy. This is logic. Boring or not, logic is logic. It's not rocket science.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 10 Sep 2009, 23:30, 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, 21:33

soldiergirl wrote:If you want to blame the government for any of it then at least blame them for what they are guilty of which was dropping the ball on the intel they received and didn't look into or had a 100% correct analysis for. However, I still don't fault them for that either because with the amount of intel that comes in you do have to prioritize cause unfortunately there are not enough analysts to quickly analyze and check into every traffic message. Not to mention us intel analysts are not psychic and can only come up with an assessment based on the traffic messages we receive. Even though we call our answers assessments it still boils down to being a guess based on the info we have. So some intel on some middle eastern guys taking flight lessons at a podunk flight school but not wanting to learn how to land a plane can be assessed in many ways prior to 911.


Who's "blaming the government?" Not me. Are you even reading what we're discussing? :lol:
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 10 Sep 2009, 23:30, 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, 21:43

soldiergirl wrote:Even though we call our answers assessments it still boils down to being a guess based on the info we have. So some intel on some middle eastern guys taking flight lessons at a podunk flight school but not wanting to learn how to land a plane can be assessed in many ways prior to 911.


Bingo! We can make educated guesses, yes, based on the information we have. What empirical data does ProfWag have that demonstrates it's a "fact" or "reality", say, "7,000+" FBI agents would have to be involved and aid in a government-led cover-up and controlled demolition? We can probably calculate with a great degree of accuracy who would be required to cover-up a government-led 9/11 cover-up, but we cannot know for sure. We cannot know for a fact that thousands would be required. It's not a reality that thousands would be required. It's a probability that thousands would be required. Again, he doesn't have the benefit of empiricism to test his claims.

How difficult is it to use 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 quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 01:50

Please note the following regarding the claim:

Cover-up: 1) the government is the initial mover, or cause, of the events of 9/11/01 and 2) aims to hide evidence that implicates its members as participants in such a scheme.

Fact: 1) A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; 2) A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; 3) An event known to have happened or something known to have existed; 4) A concept whose truth can be proved.

Reality: 1) The state of being actual or real; 2) The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be; 3) The quality possessed by something that is real (i.e., "Capable of being treated as fact").
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 » 11 Sep 2009, 01:56

quantumparanormal wrote:"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, people would have to be assisting in this cover-up."

"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, government employees would have to be assisting in this cover-up."

Yea? How many people would have to be assisting in this cover-up?
How many government employees would have to be assisting in this cover-up?
When you say "people" do you mean civilians, i.e. non-governmental people?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron