• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 truth cannot be proved with science. so how can it be proved?

oahuoahu said:
soo are you saying if 15 special ops demolition crew members went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition" , that would not prove it was an inside job?

its a yes or no question
Click to expand...

It would be a piece of evidence towards it being an inside job. Investigation could then look for corroborating evidence, based on the new information received. If there was supporting evidence that matched the information given by these hypothetical demolition crew members, a case would be built. You know, like in any other investigation.
 
Your utterly asinine assumption is that 15 guys (or gals, we don't want to be sexist here) who are demolition experts are capable of planning, coordinating and pulling off a hoax that involved scores of agencies and people from around the globe.

You found Jupiter yet?
Click to expand...

15 highly credible special forces members saying they were ordered to help "do it" would be evidence that there was planning and coordination being done by other people. then investigations would have to be done to find out who those "other people" are.
is that correct or not?


also, those 15 people wouldn't be the only people rigging the building for demolition. they would just be the only people who decided to go public. notice i said they "helped rig the building" in my hypothetical situation, I never said they rigged the entire building by themselves in my hypothetical situation.
 
oahuoahu said:
so if my answer to that "yes or no question" is yes, does that make me stupid or crazy?
Click to expand...

I would have to say a little from column A, and a little from Column B. You don't seem to understand the implications of your scenario. They have clearly been illustrated to you. If you were attempting to present some sort of clever conundrum as a means of proving a point, you have failed miserably in doing so.

Beyond that, I really don't see the point of the "scenario" you've presented.
 
OOPS. after thinking about it. YOU ARE CORRECT.

IF YOU WANT TO BE 100% SURE SURE SURE SURE SURE ABOUT IT, THEN YES, IT WOULDN'T PROVE IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB

however, you got to admit, it would be evidence that could be used to help prove it in court if there was more evidence to go with it, right?
 
oahuoahu said:
15 highly credible special forces members saying they were ordered to help "do it" would be evidence that there was planning and coordination being done by other people.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It would be evidence of nothing more than the fact they confessed.

then investigations would have to be done to find out who those "other people" are.
is that correct or not?
Click to expand...
The first thing to be investigated is the confession itself. If the confession turns out to be credible, then further investigations of the type you speak of would be warranted.

And, no, the fact that the confession is from special forces members does not make it instantly credible.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Wrong. It would be evidence of nothing more than the fact they confessed.


The first thing to be investigated is the confession itself. If the confession turns out to be credible, then further investigations of the type you speak of would be warranted.

And, no, the fact that the confession is from special forces members does not make it instantly credible.
Click to expand...


I was automatically assuming that the confessions were found to be credible in my hypothetical situation. so basically you're saying yes, credible confessions would be evidence of planning and coordination by "other people" ?
 
Last edited:
oahuoahu said:
OOPS. after thinking about it. YOU ARE CORRECT.

IF YOU WANT TO BE 100% SURE SURE SURE SURE SURE ABOUT IT, THEN YES, IT WOULDN'T PROVE IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB

however, you got to admit, it would be evidence that could be used to help prove it in court if there was more evidence to go with it, right?
Click to expand...

Yyyeesss... Typically evidence is used to prove something in a court of law...
 
oahuoahu said:
I was automatically assuming that the confessions were found to be credible in my hypothetical situation. so basically you're saying yes, credible confessions would be evidence of planning and coordination be "other people" ?
Click to expand...
Why were you automatically assuming this?

Credible here does not just mean these 15 hypothetical people have honest faces and seem really, really sincere when they confess.
 
oahuoahu said:
the science obviously goes against 9/11 truth in all areas and completely proves that it was not a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Correct. not only does science go against it, but common sense also does.

however, there is still that 1 in a 10^trillion*10^trillion*10^trillion or whatever magnificently large number chance that it was controlled demo however a bunch of random calculations came out perfect on that day to eliminate all evidence of controlled demo.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Just like that there is some infinitessimally slight chance that pigs might fly.

So it has already been proven that 9/11 cannot be proven to be an inside job with science.
Click to expand...

Well, you cannot prove a negative, so the the correct wording would be that science has provided no support what so ever for an inside job.

So is there any other way to prove that 9/11 is an inside job or are twoofers like me screwed?
Click to expand...

Yes you are ;).


i guess the ONLY way would be if 10 or 15 people actually went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition". If that happened, and if those people were actually special ops demolition crew members, would you say that proves it? or would that not be enough evidence?
Click to expand...

In other words, could new evidence change the picture? Yes, new evidence could presumably change the picture. However, with all the evidence against, we have to say that in inside job is a rather extraordinary claim, so it will require rather extraordinary evidence.

So would confessions change the picture? Well, if George W Bush came out and confessed he had masterminded 911, that would certainly be food for thought.

But some unknown guy confessing he plated explosives? Not right away. You know, I shouldn't be surprised if somebody already did that. Do you know that in nearly all high-profile crimes, there are people showing up at police stations, "confessing"? The police always keep some details out of the media, so they can disclose these false confessions. It is a sort of mental disease.

A team of bona fide pro demolition agents coming clean and confessing having rigged the WTC? Well, that would certaily get some very awkward questions asked.

So, yes, that might do the job. But, please, please, don't hold your breath. Your health could be at risk.

You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and tastes like a duck, perhaps it's time to reconsider your opinion that it is not a duck.

Hans
 
So, have you a point?
Click to expand...

that 9/11 could be proved in court to be an inside job, even though all science goes against it.


the chance is small. very small. but at least you got to admit, there is an extremely small chance the twoofers are right.
 
Last edited:
Large coloured fonts is not going to increase your credibility around here, quite the contrary.

Hans
Click to expand...

the post was important because i was admitting i was wrong about something

i colored it so you could notice that it was an important post

i dont want to seem credible
 
oahuoahu said:
that 9/11 could be proved in court to be an inside job, even though all science goes against it.
Click to expand...
Well, then, you're simply wrong. Part of verifying the credibility of the confession would be making sure it stood up against the known facts*, facts which are in large part scientific.

I'll take your hypothetical to absurd extremes. If W, his entire cabinet, several high level members of Congress, the Joint Chiefs, Siegfried, Roy, and Monica Lewinsky all came forward detailing their plot to blow up the WTC on 9/11, but their confession did not match careful scientific investigation of what happened, I would not believe them. And I would hope no jury would, either (though putting one's faith in such things is inadvisable).

*ETA: Or showing those facts to be in error, leading to investigation (scientific investigation) to uncover what the facts really are.
 
Last edited:
oahuoahu said:
that 9/11 could be proved in court to be an inside job, even though all science goes against it.
Click to expand...

No, that is wrong. If new evidence is uncovered that is strong enough to hold in court, then all science no longer goes against it. In fact if compelling evidence shows up that 911 was an inside job, then science is for it.

the chance is small. very small. but at least you got to admit, there is an extremely small chance the twoofers are right.
Click to expand...

This is not a game of chance. It is a game of evidence. There is also a very small chance that Earth is really flat and that all our evidence to the contrary is due to random observational mistakes.

Hans
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
If W, his entire cabinet, several high level members of Congress, the Joint Chiefs, Siegfried, Roy, and Monica Lewinsky all came forward
Click to expand...

At least we know these people exist...

If fairies admitted to planting bombs in the World Trade Center, would you believe them, ouahouawhatever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom