SCEPCOP Forum

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?

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.