99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I asked this of PLB and he evaded so I will ask you too:

How would you PROVE that gravity exists.

Be careful now, don't propose an observation that fails to falsify the existence of gravity, you actually need to PROVE that it exists. A picture of gravity would be best but you can do itany way you want.

I'll wait.

You are the one who postulated the argument that a hypothesis should be proven true. Fallacy number, oh well, I lost count. Why don't you stop creating straw man arguments and start addressing what I am actually saying?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Other evidence that convinced me ............ I have also read more than enough alternative explanations on several internet forums

Literally LOL !!!!

After all the postulation about the use of the scientific method for proof???????

Thanks for the laffs PLB! I really mean that.

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


You asked me for evidence that is not considered within the scientific procedure and then you laugh because I give you evidence that is not considered within the scientific procedure. Isn't that a bit silly? But then again, you are a clown.

reply to post by -PLB-

You are the one who postulated the argument that a hypothesis should be proven true. Fallacy number, oh well, I lost count. Why don't you stop creating straw man arguments and start addressing what I am actually saying?

Wait just one second.

So now you agree that lack of falsification of reasonably falsifiable hypotheses is the only standard of proof in the scientific method?

Great, we are making progress then.

I don't require that you PROVE your ideas about the behavior of thermite in the rational sense, I mean it in the sense outlined above:

You have a theory that this stuff is not thermite. In terms of your theory x, y and z can be expected to be observed in experiment. x, y and z are not observed in experiment, therefore your theory is falsified. If the theory that this is not thermite is false the converse, in terms of the law of the excluded middle, must be true. This method of deduction is is called reductio ad absurdum.

There is not one consequence of your idea that this is not thermite that has not been falsified, yet you continue making random things up like you think no one would notice.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Wait just one second.

So now you agree that lack of falsification of reasonably falsifiable hypotheses is the only standard of proof in the scientific method?

Great, we are making progress then.

No. Lack of falsification alone is not enough. A hypothesis also needs confirmation. How many times have I wrote this by now? Are you blind or just a troll? You are doing your utmost best avoiding to react to that statement. I think you know it is correct, but acknowledging it completely undermines the scientific value of Jones paper.

I don't require that you PROVE your ideas about the behavior of thermite in the rational sense, I mean it in the sense outlined above:

You have a theory that this stuff is not thermite. In terms of your theory x, y and z can be expected to be observed in experiment. x, y and z are not observed in experiment, therefore your theory is falsified. If the theory that this is not thermite is false the converse, in terms of the law of the excluded middle, must be true. This method of deduction is is called reductio ad absurdum.

There is not one consequence of your idea that this is not thermite that has not been falsified, yet you continue making random things up like you think no one would notice.

So tell me, which of my ideas of which I claim proves that it is not thermite has been falsified?

I wonder why this has been passed by earlier in the thread as if it never existed:

"Preliminary Mark Basile reproduced Harrit et al findings and concluded in this presentation that these chips are thermitic."

reply to post by -PLB-

No. Lack of falsification alone is not enough. A hypothesis also needs confirmation. How many times have I wrote this by now? Are you blind or just a troll? You are doing your utmost best avoiding to react to that statement. I think you know it is correct, but acknowledging it completely undermines the scientific value of Jones paper.

So then can you confirm to me that gravity causes Newton's law to hold?

Meet my challenge.

Of course I know you can't, because Newton's law is false under your pathological conception of science. As is Darwin's.

So tell me, which of my ideas of which I claim proves that it is not thermite has been falsified?

You claimed that energetic materials react completely.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
So then can you confirm to me that gravity causes Newton's law to hold?

Meet my challenge.

Of course I know you can't, because Newton's law is false under your pathological conception of science. As is Darwin's.

You don't really understand what confirmation means do you? I explained it some posts ago. It means that the experiments that support a hypothesis are performed with positive outcome by other scientists. Do you understand what that means? If not, what exactly do you not understand?

So to get back on track, do you agree with me that for an hypothesis to be accepted it is required that experiments that support the hypothesis have to be performed by other scientists with a positive outcome? (This time I spelled it out for you, so no more avoiding the question). Do you understand why this is important?

You claimed that energetic materials react completely.

I didn't say it proves it and I haven't seen it falsified. What I do say is that I find it very unlikely that when you put a highly energetic material (not an explosive, at least not according to Jones) under a flame torch,you end up with a piece that is partly reacted and partly reacted. Of course you may think that completely different materials ignited under completely different conditions falsify this. But I do not.

reply to post by Darkwing01


and I can ask you to explain magnetic fields and forces. It is science. Like religion, it is something we are presented, we believe and we apply.

You can attempt to talk about how the laws of motion cannot be applied to 9/11 as this is a falsehood. You pick and choose certain aspects and compare laws that would not apply and say it could not have happened.

This is so simple it makes me laugh. You design a building to support, through distribution, the rest of the building. (this applies tio WTC 7 also with its retorfitted hybrid design that also failed eventually)If the support of the upper half of a building is compromised, sorry, but all design is out of the window. At this point you are hoping the structure last long enough to evacuate. This is usually a minimum of two hours, similar to the requirements of fire proofing and resistance.

Now, when the initial design is damaged, gravity starts to work on the upper floors. The loads become unbearable. How do you think weight is calculated???? You are always all complaining about how you cannot calculate the load but you think gravity had nothing to do with the collapse. It is the CORE of physics.

No wonder you believe Jones...you cannot understand where it is incorrect.

Originally posted by -PLB-
then you laugh because I give you evidence that is not considered within the scientific procedure.

Well, no you haven't. You haven't offered any proof at all. That is my point.

An anonymous discussion on the internet is hardly credible evidence.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

Now, when the initial design is damaged, gravity starts to work on the upper floors.

What does this mean?

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


The same could be said for a scientific paper like the one Jones posted. Non peer reviewed assumptions is all it is then, right?

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


If I have to explain this they you are in the wrong conversation. Nice star....

reply to post by esdad71


Sorry, during my engineering education and work experience I have never heard that phrase. Could you put it another way so I can get the gist of what you mean? I'm confused about this part:

gravity starts to work on the upper floors.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by esdad71

 

Sorry, during my engineering education and work experience I have never heard that phrase. Could you put it another way so I can get the gist of what you mean? I'm confused about this part:

gravity starts to work on the upper floors.

When the original design is in place, everything is distributed properly. When the columns are cut and others fail, it is the pull of gravity that is drawing them down. It was expressed earlier that gravity had nothing to do with the collapse.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Don't you know, gravity reached up through the mass of the floors bellow the impact, and grabbed that sucker sitting on top and yanked it down so fast that the bottom floors were taken completely by surprise, and simply jumped the hell out of the way...

That's how physics works, anyway you want it too!

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

There are no impossible physics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ANOK


Now you are simply being childish because it is becoming evident you are talking out of an orifice. Talking with you guys is like herding cats....

reply to post by esdad71

It was expressed earlier that gravity had nothing to do with the collapse.

By whom?

You still haven't provided proof of gravity, electromagnetism or evolution existing, you have merely said that we accept the results of non-falsified experiment (i.e. whatever science decides) as proof.

I asked specifically for proof outside of non-falsified experiments.

You can't just "because scientists say so". Scientists say so legitimately if and only if their experiments are not falsified in terms of the scientific method.

Science WAS done the way you describe during the Dark ages though, if that is any help. It is the escape from the technique that you seem to follow that identifies the Modern era.

Also:

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

Now you are simply being childish because it is becoming evident you are talking out of an orifice. Talking with you guys is like herding cats....

Because claiming it was simply 'gravity', or 'there are no impossible physics', is something a cat herder would say?

Why do you need to be so rude, I was just being humorous, you must realise the stupidity of your claim? Even talking out of an orifice I know far more about physics than you do. BTW what happened to that one on one you bluffed about? We can debate these two claims of yours if you like.

For once esdad answer this simple question that you keep ignoring without spin, and provide some kind of source for your claim...

How can gravity make a mass fall through another mass without being effected by resistance of that mass?
In other words, how did Ke increase to overcome increasing mass and resistance?

reply to post by ANOK

How can gravity make a mass fall through another mass without being effected by resistance of that mass?
In other words, how did Ke increase to overcome increasing mass and resistance?

Let me answer for him.

IT CAN'T! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

esdad71, do you understand what the word impossible means? It can never happen, there are no circumstances in which Newtons Laws of Motion can be violated. These are universal physics concepts we're talking about here, things you should have learned and paid attention to in High School. Newtons Laws of Motions are honestly the most basic physics concepts I can think of, but they are thrown out of the window when it comes to discussing the collapse of the twin towers.

You could spend your entire life running experiments, using all sorts of materials, marshmallows, styrofoam, cork, balsa wood, whatever, every single time the mass that is dropped hits the more massive body below, it will slow down. That will happen 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Over the years, scientists in just about every discipline have tested Newton's laws of motion and found them to be amazingly predictive and reliable. But there are two instances where Newtonian physics break down. The first involves objects traveling at or near the speed of light. The second problem comes when Newton's laws are applied to very small objects, such as atoms or subatomic particles that fall in the realm of quantum mechanics.

The towers weren't collapsing near the speed of light, but instead at about 6.6m/s^2. The towers also weren't the size of subatomic particles.

Source

Laws of Physics > NIST.

Laws of Physics > The Official Story.