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 » 11 Sep 2009, 01:58

ProfWag wrote:
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?


Wow, again, you prove my point, but you don't accept it.

"How many people would have to be assisting in this cover-up?"

How can I know this answer for sure, in fact? I can't. I can come to an educated guess, however.

"How many government employees would have to be assisting in this cover-up?"

How can I know this answer for sure, in fact? I can't. I can come to an educated guess, however.

"When you say "people" do you mean civilians, i.e. non-governmental people?"

People, period; aka humans. This, I know, for a fact, since the government consists of people who operate it.

I'm beginning to believe there's no hope for you. :roll:
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, 02:01

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
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?


Wow, again, you prove my point, but you don't accept it.

"How many people would have to be assisting in this cover-up?"

How can I know this answer for sure, in fact? I can't. I can come to an educated guess, however.

"How many government employees would have to be assisting in this cover-up?"

How can I know this answer for sure, in fact? I can't. I can come to an educated guess, however.

"When you say "people" do you mean civilians, i.e. non-governmental people?"

People, period; aka humans. This, I know, for a fact, since the government consists of people who operate it.

So in your statement, you are saying empiracally that at least 2 people have assisted in a cover-up?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 02:09

ProfWag wrote:So in your statement, you are saying empiracally that at least 2 people have assisted in a cover-up?


:lol: No. Are you actually reading what I'm saying? That's not what I said. You are not reading my statements carefully. Here's what I said:

QP 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."


It's a simple statement and can be shown to be true empirically. How? Duh, people run the government and assist in cover-ups, so if they were involved in a cover-up, that cover-up would need people. This is obvious. Is the government made up of aliens? Are aliens assisting? :ugeek: Hell, perhaps it's possible aliens could have assisted in a government-led cover-up? You never know. Highly unlikely, but possible.

However, I never said said "at least 2 people have assisted." Where did you get that from? :lol: "Have" in this context is a past tense word. We don't know a cover-up has occurred.

I never said I could empirically show "at least 2 people have assisted in a cover-up." How could I do this when I don't know a cover-up actually occurred? How can I test my theory? I can't! Remember, we're dealing with a hypothetical/theory.

You really need to carefully and logically read statements.
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, 02:16

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:So in your statement, you are saying empiracally that at least 2 people have assisted in a cover-up?


:lol: No. Are you actually reading what I'm saying? That's not what I said. You are not reading my statements carefully. Here's what I said:

QP 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."


It's a simple statement and can be shown to be true empirically. How? Duh, people run the government, so if they were involved in a cover-up, that cover-up would need people. This is obvious. Is the government made up of aliens? :ugeek:

However, I never said said "at least 2 people have assisted." Where did you get that from? :lol:

I never said I could empirically show "at least 2 people have assisted in a cover-up." How could I do this when I don't know a cover-up actually occurred? How can I test my theory? I can't! Remember, we're dealing with a hypothetical/theory.

You really need to carefully and logical read statements.

Uhh, I really don't like name calling, so I'll try to refrain, but I believe it is you that needs to be a little more logical. The word "people" is plural for "person." Hence, I'm simply clarifying that you agree that at least two people would have to be assisting in this cover-up." You stated simply enough that:
QP 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."
Again, people is plural for person. Hence, at least two persons (people.)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 02:24

ProfWag wrote:The word "people" is plural for "person." Hence, I'm simply clarifying that you agree that at least two people would have to be assisting in this cover-up." You stated simply enough that:
QP 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."
Again, people is plural for person. Hence, at least two persons (people.)


Yes, you are correct. OK, so I'll admit that's true. I made a mistake. What I meant was humans in general. That was a semantic mistake more than it was a logical one. What I should have said was this:

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


Or this...

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


See, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

However, this doesn't demonstrate that you are correct about the following claim--you are still wrong about its truth:

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.
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, 02:32

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:The word "people" is plural for "person." Hence, I'm simply clarifying that you agree that at least two people would have to be assisting in this cover-up." You stated simply enough that:
QP 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."
Again, people is plural for person. Hence, at least two persons (people.)


Yes, you are correct. OK, so I'll admit that's true. I made a mistake. What I meant was humans in general. That was a semantic mistake more than it was a logical one. What I should have said was this:

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


Or this...

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


See, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

However, this doesn't demonstrate that you are correct about the following claim--you are still wrong about its truth:

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.

Just so you know, "humans" is plural for person.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 02:34

ProfWag wrote:Just so you know, "humans" is plural for person.


:lol: Yup, I'm wrong again. Again, it's a semantic mistake, not a logical one. However, see how easy it is to admit it? When you're wrong, you're wrong!

But yet again, you are still wrong about this (you just refuse to admit it):

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.
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, 02:45

QP, using your own words, I am going to add a clarifier within your sentence.

"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person in the Bush Administration 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, at least one person in the New York Police Department would have to be assisting in this cover-up." (although common sense says this would have to be more than one)
"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person in the New York Fire Department would have to be assisting in this cover-up." (although common sense says this would have to be more than one)
"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person from the New York Port Authority would have to be assisting in this cover-up." (although common sense says this would have to be more than one)
"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person in the media would have to be assisting in this cover-up." (although common sense says this would have to be more than one)
"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person from the Pennsylvania rescue crew would have to be assisting in this cover-up." (although common sense says this would have to be more than one)
"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person at the scene of the Pentagon would have to be assisting in this cover-up." (although common sense says this would have to be several more than one)
"If conspiracy theorists are correct that the government is covering up the events of 9/11, at least one person piloting Flight 93 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, at least one person piloting Flight 11 would have to be assisting in this cover-up."

Having said all of that, perhaps the word “thousands” is not factual after all as my addition from these statements doesn't quite get into the 3 figures, much less 4, however likely it would have to be. If I changed the word “thousands” to “several” and admit I was wrong about the word "thousands," would that put a smile on your face?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 02:53

ProfWag wrote:Having said all of that, perhaps the word “thousands” is not factual after all as my addition from these statements doesn't quite get into the 3 figures, much less 4, however likely it would have to be. If I changed the word “thousands” to “several” would that put a smile on your face?


:shock: Oh my God... I think I'm gonna have a heart attack!

Yes, “thousands” is not the right word if you include the words "fact" or "reality." For a claim to be a "fact" or "reality," you need to be able to demonstrate it via empirical data. Facts and realities can be shown, without a doubt, to be true via empirical evidence (i.e., "Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory"), and unless you have such evidence, you can't use those words deductively.

It would've been OK just to say...

ProfWag wrote:One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is that if those buildings came down via a government coverup 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.


Or this...

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 at least 1 person who has knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.
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, 02:57

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Having said all of that, perhaps the word “thousands” is not factual after all as my addition from these statements doesn't quite get into the 3 figures, much less 4, however likely it would have to be. If I changed the word “thousands” to “several” would that put a smile on your face?


:shock: Oh my God... I think I'm gonna have a heart attack!

Yes, “thousands” is not the right word if you include the words "fact" or "reality." For a claim to be a "fact" or "reality," you need to be able to demonstrate it via empirical data. Facts and realities can be shown, without a doubt, to be true via empirical evidence (i.e., "Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory"), and unless you have such evidence, you can't use those words deductively.

It would've been OK just to say...

ProfWag wrote:One thing they didn't get a chance to dispute is that if those buildings came down via a government coverup 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.


Or this...

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 at least 1 person who has knowledge of it and willing to cover it up.

Now, If I could continue with my statements with empiracle data and the number of people in my statements total at least two thousand, then my original statement would be correct. If I'm reading your lecture correctly.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 03:10

ProfWag wrote:Now, If I could continue with my statements with empiracle data and the number of people in my statements total at least two thousand, then my original statement would be correct. If I'm reading your lecture correctly.


Correct, but remember that empirical means "Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory." This would be a daunting task for you, or for anybody for that matter.

For example, if a cover-up did occur, how could you empirically demonstrate the following:

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

How can you demonstrate from experiment and observation that at least one person piloting Flight 11 would have to be assisting in this cover-up? Unless you can conduct a test to determine if this is the case, how can you observe it? Do you have a time machine? Can you obtain written statements from the pilots involved that they indeed would have to have been involved in a 9/11 cover-up? Oh, wait, they're dead. Never mind. How do you know what the pilots would have done? How do you know they would have to be involved? Where's this empirical evidence they would have to be involved?

Is it impossible that a government official could have contracted terrorists, and they could have simply hijacked the planes, having nothing to do with the pilots being involved in a possible cover-up?
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, 03:12

QP, I need to tell you why I'm so hell-bent on this. I completely know and understand what you have been trying to say all along. I know that a fact can't be stated unless it can be backed up. It's really as simple as that. No need to go into Harvard-level physics to understand that.
Fact, George Bush was President on 9/11/01. (Correct)
Fact, George Bush was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy cover-up. (Not-correct - no empirical data to support)

Next, (and the real reason behind my madness) my English Professor at the University of Maryland told me flatly that I should never use terms such as "I think," "I believe," "possibly," "may," or "maybe" when making statements. These terms show that one is not certain in their statement and that their statements are weak. "Possibly as many as a thousand people would have to be involved in a cover up." That statement does not sound very solid regardless of how correct it may be. At least not to me. This simple "pet-peeve" of mine also prevents me from believing anything Dean Radin says. In his own words, he admits that his experiments "may" show evidence of psi. If he's got evidence, then he should not use "may."

Finally, could I come up with empirical data to support my statement of "thousands" as fact? I believe I can. I just have run out of time and energy. Sorry.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 11 Sep 2009, 03:13

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Now, If I could continue with my statements with empiracle data and the number of people in my statements total at least two thousand, then my original statement would be correct. If I'm reading your lecture correctly.


Correct, but remember that empirical means "Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory." This would be a daunting task for you, or for anybody for that matter.

For example, if a cover-up did occur, how could you empirically demonstrate the following:

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

How can you demonstrate from experiment and observation that at least one person piloting Flight 11 would have to be assisting in this cover-up? Unless you can conduct a test to determine if this is the case, how can you observe it? Do you have a time machine? Can you obtain written statements from the pilots involved that they indeed would have to have been involved in a 9/11 cover-up? Oh, wait, they're dead. Never mind. How do you know what the pilots would have done? How do you know they would have to be involved? Where's this empirical evidence they would have to be involved?

Is it impossible that a government official could have contracted terrorists, and they could have simply hijacked the planes, having nothing to do with the pilots being involved in a possible cover-up?

I agree with you on this 100%. I was trying to think fast, but you're absolutely correct, I would not be able to prove the pilot thing.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 03:24

ProfWag wrote:QP, I need to tell you why I'm so hell-bent on this. I completely know and understand what you have been trying to say all along. I know that a fact can't be stated unless it can be backed up. It's really as simple as that. No need to go into Harvard-level physics to understand that.
Fact, George Bush was President on 9/11/01. (Correct)
Fact, George Bush was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy cover-up. (Not-correct - no empirical data to support)


Correct. That wasn't so hard.

ProfWag wrote:Next, (and the real reason behind my madness) my English Professor at the University of Maryland told me flatly that I should never use terms such as "I think," "I believe," "possibly," "may," or "maybe" when making statements. These terms show that one is not certain in their statement and that their statements are weak.


Jeesh, so this is all about being a "man?" :lol: It's OK if you're not certain. Hell, I'm not certain about a lot of things. However, saying it's "most likely" thousands would be required for a cover-up is a logically true statement, whether it's "weak" sounding or not. Who cares? I sure don't.

ProfWag wrote:"Possibly as many as a thousand people would have to be involved in a cover up." That statement does not sound very solid regardless of how correct it may be. At least not to me.


It doesn't matter how it sounds. It's true. You simply do NOT know thousands are required in fact. Like I said before, there are too many variables to assess, and since we're dealing with something that has supposedly not occurred, how can you prove your point? You can't!

ProfWag wrote:This simple "pet-peeve" of mine also prevents me from believing anything Dean Radin says. In his own words, he admits that his experiments "may" show evidence of psi. If he's got evidence, then he should not use "may."


This has more to do with bias than it does logic. Radin is correct: experiments may show psi is real. That's a logically valid statement. For example, we cannot say psi is a fact because we cannot observe psi occurring per se. In other words, when a person tries to influence an REG to become less non-random, we cannot see a "magical force field" emanating from his head and on over to the REG device. Psi is an invisible process. We can only observe its effects, much like gravity. We cannot see the field that makes gravity possible, but we infer from its empirical effects that it exists. Is it a field? Who knows? We don't know! All we have are correlations: we tell a person to concentrate on the REG, then the REG produces non-randomness. That doesn't show causation. It shows correlation. We can infer from this evidence that psi is occurring. Is it a fact, no, but it's highly probable psi is what's occurring.

ProfWag wrote:Finally, could I come up with empirical data to support my statement of "thousands" as fact? I believe I can. I just have run out of time and energy. Sorry.


I doubt this. I would like to see this empirical data. If you can demonstrate it, they might as well award you a Nobel prize. I would actually contact the media if you could provide such evidence. Remember, though, it has to be data obtained via "experiment and observation rather than theory." Also remember that the word "fact" deals with things that exist. A cover-up is not known to exist, so how can you prove your claim? Yikes....here we go again. :lol:

Good luck!
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 11 Sep 2009, 04:05, 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 » 11 Sep 2009, 03:28

ProfWag wrote:I agree with you on this 100%. I was trying to think fast, but you're absolutely correct, I would not be able to prove the pilot thing.


My point really was that there are too many POSSIBILITIES for you to be able to empirically demonstrate your claim is THE true fact or reality.

Again: Fact: "A concept whose truth can be proved;" Reality: "The state of being actual or real."

It's not at all IMPOSSIBLE that the government could have possibly contracted, let's say, 100 terrorists, and all of those terrorists could have simply hijacked the airplanes and been involved in the process, having nothing at all to do with the cover-up assistance of police, firemen, FBI agents, etc. Why is this NOT a possibility? Since a cover-up is NOT known to have occurred, how can we demonstrate empirically my claim is NOT possible? Can I empirically demonstrate the possibility is a fact/reality? No. How can I? That event didn't actually occur (to my knowledge). It's a hypothetical/theoretical event. I have no empirical data to back this up, but then again, I never used the words "fact" nor "reality." I'm only saying it's a possibility, however quite a small one it might be.

Because we're dealing with a hypothetical cover-up, something that's not known to have yet occurred, we are not dealing with fact or reality.

The very use of the word "if" in your claim demonstrates a hypothetical/theoretical claim, not a fact/reality-based one. To make it fact or reality, it HAS to occur or HAVE occurred.
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