It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 60
274
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Confirming is not proving.


thesaurus.com...


Main Entry: confirm
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: ratify, validate, prove


www.thefreedictionary.com...



confirm [kənˈfɜːm]
vb (tr)
1. (may take a clause as object) to prove to be true or valid; corroborate; verify
2. (may take a clause as object) to assert for a second or further time, so as to make more definite he confirmed that he would appear in court
3. to strengthen or make more firm his story confirmed my doubts
4. to make valid by a formal act or agreement; ratify
5. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) to administer the rite of confirmation to


dictionary.reference.com...



con·firm·ing·ly, adverb
non·con·firm·ing, adjective
EXPAND

—Synonyms
1. prove, substantiate, authenticate, validate. 4. fix.

—Antonyms
1. disprove. 3. invalidate. 4. shake.


www.ldoceonline.com...



con‧firm [transitive]
1 to show that something is definitely true, especially by providing more proof:
New evidence has confirmed the first witness's story.
To confirm my diagnosis I need to do some tests.
confirm that
Research has confirmed that the risk is higher for women.
confirm what
The new results confirm what most of us knew already.


www.etymonline.com...


confirm
mid-13c., confirmyn "to ratify," from O.Fr. confermer (13c., Mod.Fr. confirmer) "strengthen, establish, consolidate; affirm by proof or evidence; anoint (a king)," from L. confirmare "make firm, strengthen, establish," from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + firmare "to strengthen," from firmus (see firm (adj.)). Related: Confirmative; confirmatory.


www.etymonline.com...



proof
early 13c., preove "evidence to establish the fact of (something)," from O.Fr. prueve (early 13c.), from L.L. proba "a proof," a back-formation from L. probare "to prove" (see prove). Meaning "act of testing or making trial of anything" is from late 14c. Sense of "tested power" led to fireproof (early 17c.), waterproof (1736), foolproof (1902), etc. Meaning "standard of strength of distilled liquor" is from 1705. Typographical sense of "trial impression to test type" is from c.1600. Numismatic sense of "coin struck to test a die" is from 1762; now mostly in ref. to coins struck from highly polished dies, mainly for collectors.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: more

edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


You really are dense. I repeatedly explained what I meant with the term "confirm", and that is also generally the definition when it used in the context of science. You can even read this on Wikipedia. All you do is deliberately get stuck with definitions. It is clear to me that you are avoiding the issue at hand. I even rephrased my statement without the use of the term confirm, of course completely ignored by you. I know why you are disingenuously misinterpreting me, as when you have to address the actual issue at hand, you will have to agree to me. Somehow you think you can get away with it like this. Too bad for you, your disingenuous behavior is noted.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I wasn't misinterpreting you, I was quoting you directly.

You keep asking for proof but you don't even know what the word means:

From the page you cited:



1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]
This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4.[14] Galileo 1638 also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences.[15] One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have to go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.
Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[16] (This is what Einstein meant when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[17]) However, as pointed out by Carl Hempel (1905–1997) this simple view of scientific method is incomplete; the formulation of the conjecture might itself be the result of inductive reasoning. Thus the likelihood of the prior observation being true is statistical in nature[18] and would strictly require a Bayesian analysis. To overcome this uncertainty, experimental scientists must formulate a crucial experiment,[19] in order for it to corroborate a more likely hypothesis.


In case you missed it:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."


I used the example of gravity earlier because that is the example that Feynman used to illustrate the same point.
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


And you just continue with the charade. Bye.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





And you just continue with the charade. Bye.


Asking you to admit when you are proved wrong and prove your claims when you think someone else is wrong is not a charade.

It is the bare minimum of decency required to have an actual conversation and is NOT too much too ask.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




It means that the experiments that support a hypothesis are performed with positive outcome by other scientists.


Please go read the bit from the Wiki article on the scientific method you linked and I quoted again. Specifically the bit where it says this would be a logical fallacy.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Maybe there is still a small chance that you just don't know anything about science. I will quote the text I linked to. It is up to you to point out where it is wrong, where you disagree, or where you do not understand it.


Confirmation
Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by ball lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[70] To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research-granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, and science journals including Nature and Science, have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before. Scientific data archiving can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the World Data Center.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Oh for Pete's sake PLB.

How is something confirmed in science? By proving it.

How do you prove something in science? By performing an experiment that may falsify it.

Just answer this PLB, what would you consider as proof that this is thermite? Would the experiment in a vacuum prove it to you?

As far as I can tell there is nothing that can prove it to you because you have already made up your mind that it is not, so whatever Jones does is a priori wrong.

Can you prove ME wrong by stating once and for all what you would consider as proof?


Do you still not understand the problem with confirmation as scientific standard as you propose it?

www.thefreedictionary.com...

ver·i·fi·ca·tion (vr-f-kshn) n. 1. The act of verifying or the state of being verified. 2. a. A confirmation of truth or authority. b. The evidence for such a confirmation. c. A formal assertion of validity.


from here: en.wikipedia.org...


The verification principle is most associated with the logical positivist movement which had its roots in inter-war Vienna.


and hence to here: en.wikipedia.org...

from which this:



Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." [17] By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own main proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in a interview: "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false."


So I ask you again.

State what you will accept as proof and demonstrate that you will accept empirical refutations of ideas that (if true) would falsify Jones' theory that this was thermite.

Besides, the confirmation referred to in the extract you quoted refers to the confirmation by replication of experiments, not confirmation of theories by experiment, hence the reference to experimental and theoretical results.


edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Again, confirmation is not about proving. Proving something true in science does not happen. Experiments are reproduced, and with each time it is reproduced successfully the hypothesis is confirmed, not proven. And with each time it is confirmed, it is more accepted in the scientific community until it reached the status of theory. That is how science works. And that is the process that Jones work is lacking.

For some odd reason you do not like the term confirmed, so come with your own term that described the successful reproduction of an experiment. Then we will use that term from now on so we can move on. I don't care what you call it, just pick a term. Toilet paper, chiwawa, donut, anything.

What I require to accept Jones work is two things. Firstly, Jones should do the experiments that critics have suggested. And true, I do not trust Jones. I think he is biased and incompetent. So just those additional experiments would probably not completely convince me, though it would help a lot. To fully convince me that his samples contain thermite, I also require that Jones work is confirmed (or toilet papered, or chiwawad, or donutted, whatever you wish to call it), meaning his experiments are reproduced by other scientists, with a positive outcome. Since it is probably hard to get other scientists to do this, Jones should take the initiative and send his samples to independent labs.

That would make a convincing case. The fact he does not do this tells me he is full of it. If he does this in the near future (like he promised), then chapeau.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



That is how science works.
Speaking of how science works......you must have missed this post:

ver 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.
howstuffworks.com

Tell me, in your opinion, were the twin towers traveling near the speed of light?

Also, do you think the towers were the size of atoms or subatomic particles?

If the answer for those two questions is "no", that would mean that Newtons Laws of Motion are applicable, meaning that the official story of the towers collapse if impossible.

So, since it's scientifically established that the official story of the collapse is impossible, what could have caused the bottom section to begin moving downwards before the top section collided with it? Hmmm.....what would be consistent with the towers collapse and the physical evidence found in the dust.....oh I know, a controlled demolition!
edit on 25-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I am not really interested in your ignorance. If you have any specific example where the laws of motion were broken in the official explanation, then show the physics. I also am not interested in baseless assertions.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I am not really interested in your ignorance. If you have any specific example where the laws of motion were broken in the official explanation, then show the physics. I also am not interested in baseless assertions.
Come on PLB, I've been pushing that video for probably 50 posts in this thread alone, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

From this thread:
What I'm referring to is the collapse of the twin towers, the top section colliding with the more massive bottom section and accelerating through the path of greatest resistance when it should be decelerating.



This defies Newtons Third Law of Motion, the equal and opposite law, because an equal force exerted on the top block would result in it's destruction as well, and at the very least a deceleration when it makes contact, but neither of those things occur.


edit on 25-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I think already explained that to you. The "missing jolt", or the constant acceleration as they call it here is very easily explained by the slight tilt of the top section. When a diagonal plain hits a horizontal plain, the force is local and can far exceed the average force. Although there are probably also alternative explanations available. This is just one I either thought of my self or read somewhere and remembered. Either way it debunks the whole premise completely.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: spell error



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I think already explained that to you. The "missing jolt", or the constant acceleration as they call it here is very easily explained by the slight tilt of the top section. When a diagonal plane hits a horizontal plane, the force is local and can far exceed the average force. Although there are probably also alternative explanations available. This is just one I either thought of my self or read somewhere and remembered. Either way it debunks the whole premise completely.
You can't debunk Newtonian Physics with some pseudoscientific perception of how the towers fell and defied the Laws of Motion. Why am I being called ignorant when I'm using scientific concepts to analyze a situation, and you're the enlightened one who thinks that the collapse of the twin towers are outside of the realm of universal physics concepts?


Although there are probably also alternative explanations available
So you're saying Newtons Laws of Motion can be defied not just in one way, but several ways?

Read this again and try to understand exactly what it's saying:

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.


Now I'd like if you answered these questions:
1) Do you believe that the twin towers were traveling near the speed of light during their collapse?

2) Do you believe that the twin towers were the size of an atomic particle during their collapse?

If the answer to those questions is "no", then there is no explanation for how Newtons Laws of Motion were defied. The angle that the top section was falling at is irrelavent, because the universal physics concepts would apply to the top section of the tower in every single possible orientation that it could take. It doesn't matter what angle the top section is falling at, because the laws of physics apply to everything (that's not traveling near light speed or the size of an atom).



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


When you take the tilt in consideration, a constant acceleration is what you expect. So no laws of physics are broken, everything happens as it should.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


When you take the tilt in consideration, a constant acceleration is what you expect. So no laws of physics are broken, everything happens as it should.
You are wrong. A tilt cannot alter the laws of physics. Every single possible angle that the tower could collide with the bottom section would result in it decelerating.

Arguing against the laws of physics really shows your true colors. You can't be convinced, there is absolutely nothing that would convince you that the official story is a lie and that it's an inside job.

If even the most basic scientific concepts can't get through your thick skull, then you're about as shut out and delusional as they come.

High school physics tells you that the official story is impossible, so instead of using the knowledge of a 15 year old, you challenge Isaac Newtons theories which have stood the test of time and been consistenly reliable in predicting the outcomes in situations (other than with objects traveling at light speed or objects the size of atoms), and conjure up some BS explanation that the angle the tower struck the bottom section at makes the laws of physics irrelavent.

You are the ignorant one, not me buddy.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
You are wrong. A tilt cannot alter the laws of physics. Every single possible angle that the tower could collide with the bottom section would result in it decelerating.


No, it can simply result in a decrease in acceleration. Which is what happened.


Arguing against the laws of physics really shows your true colors. You can't be convinced, there is absolutely nothing that would convince you that the official story is a lie and that it's an inside job.

If even the most basic scientific concepts can't get through your thick skull, then you're about as shut out and delusional as they come.

High school physics tells you that the official story is impossible, so instead of using the knowledge of a 15 year old, you challenge Isaac Newtons theories which have stood the test of time and been consistenly reliable in predicting the outcomes in situations (other than with objects traveling at light speed or objects the size of atoms), and conjure up some BS explanation that the angle the tower struck the bottom section at makes the laws of physics irrelavent.

You are the ignorant one, not me buddy.



Whatever you say.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




No, it can simply result in a decrease in acceleration. Which is what happened.
A decrease in acceleration, combine the de- prefix with the word acceleration, and what do you have? Deceleration!


That didn't happen, because it's not measured in the distance vs. time graph. The acceleration remains constant rather than decelerating, or as you put it, decreasing in acceleration.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
A decrease in acceleration, combine the de- prefix with the word acceleration, and what do you have? Deceleration!


Not really. When at one point the acceleration is 10m/s2 and at another point the acceleration is 6m/s2 the acceleration is decreased by 4m/s2. But there is still acceleration.


That didn't happen, because it's not measured in the distance vs. time graph. The acceleration remains constant rather than decelerating, or as you put it, decreasing in acceleration.


The falling mass is constantly decelerated by resistance and accelerated by gravity. The net result is a constant acceleration.

By the way, the 3 modes of collapse are described in one of Bazants papers: acceleration, constant speed, and deceleration. The conditions for each are explained there. All three are possible under the right conditions. There is no need to break any laws of physics.


edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
274
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join