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

[MRC_Hans]

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

That was certainly a good thin. Keep up the good work!

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

No need to. If you post sensible posts, people will read them. If you want to make some emphasis, we have an extensive colection of useful smilies.

i dont want to seem credible

Oh? Well not to worry then, you have not seriously detracted from that goal.

Hans

 

[oahuoahu]

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).

but there is a 1 in 10^trillion*10^trillion etc etc extremely large number chance that all of the evidence in the controlled demolition was vaporized by a chain reaction that has a next to nothing chance of occurring, but is still possible, while at the same time something with a next to nothing chance of occurring caused no explosions to be heard.

So even if everyone involved in the conspiracy came forward and admitted to it, you wouldn't believe them?





*THE FOLLOWING IS NOT PART OF MY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION*
maybe they used new advanced technology, secret military demolitions technology, that could bring down the buildings without explosions and this technology is so advanced you need very little of it to cut the steel.

i dont know. theres several ways that it could be an inside job even though all science goes against it.

 

[Mr.D]

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?

You're getting there.

If a group of people whose credibility can be independantly checked came forward and confessed with details that matched the observed consequences, provided a realistic and achievable timeline and helped uncover corroborating physical evidence and accounted for the current lack of apparent evidence ...

that would be very strong evidence indeed for an inside job.

(Before you wrote the quoted post I was going to ask if you remember John Mark Karr, who confessed to a horiffic crime with enough believablility to briefly make him a suspect to law enforcement, before further investigation revealed - among other things - a lack of corroborating physical evidence and eyewitnesses that placed him too far away at the time of the crime to have comitted it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

but there is a 1 in 10^trillion*10^trillion etc etc extremely large number chance that all of the evidence in the controlled demolition was vaporized by a chain reaction that has a next to nothing chance of occurring, but is still possible, while at the same time something with a next to nothing chance of occurring caused no explosions to be heard.

Yes, there is that vanishingly small chance. That chance is far smaller than a bunch of people lying.

So even if everyone involved in the conspiracy came forward and admitted to it, you wouldn't believe them?

In the absence of corroborating evidence, I would not.

 

[Hokulele]

but there is a 1 in 10^trillion*10^trillion etc etc extremely large number chance that all of the evidence in the controlled demolition was vaporized by a chain reaction that has a next to nothing chance of occurring, but is still possible, while at the same time something with a next to nothing chance of occurring caused no explosions to be heard.

So even if everyone involved in the conspiracy came forward and admitted to it, you wouldn't believe them?

And what if there was a very, very, very, very (very * 10^trillion) good chance planes hit the towers? What if there was an enormous amount of evidence, both scientific, as well as eyewitness accounts? Would you believe any of this?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Ok, for a serious answer:

It wouldn't be enough if they just said "We did 9/11. No, really we did!"
For anyone to take them seriously, they would also have to answer all those questions people here have often pose to the truthers, e.g:
* What type and amount of explosives were used?
* Where did they get them?
* When and where did they plant the explosives?
* How did they escape detection?
* How did they shield the trigger mechanism and explosives from being destroyed by the impact?
* How did they shield the trigger mechanism from being set off prematurely?
... and so on and so forth.

Because in the real world, this question is determined by the preponderance of the evidence - a counter-theory to the currently accepted one must explain not only all the evidence gathered so far, but also why there hasn't been anything found to support the new theory before. (Trigger mechanisms can often be found and reconstructed after the fact, just for starters).

A valid explanation usually has all sorts of cross-connections that help to reinforce the conclusions. Let's say the IRS starts investigating one of these guys since he seems to have a lot more money than he's signed for. Or one of the policemen at the site picked up a piece of unexploded detonation cord, shows it to his collegues and then turns it in to his superior. A conspiracy of this magnitude simply has zero chance to escape all these possibilities of being revealed unless you include every single government employee in the plot.

What I'm saying is that if there was a real conspiracy, the odds are firmly on it getting blown sky-wide within months. There frankly isn't any good, patriotic reason why people would want to support something like this, unless you're a card-carrying member of the Illuminati. What that means is that anyone who started nosing around in the wrong corner would have to 1) be detected in time before they chat with their coworkers/family/friends/news and 2) be bought off or intimidated into keeping mum. Frankly, any action under 2 carries a pretty outrageous risk with it - not everyone is greedy and corrupt enough to be controlled by money, and dissappearing or killing doesn't work except for people who know *noone*, since the aforementioned coworkers/family/friends would start digging around in turn. It never ends.

 

[oahuoahu]

If fairies admitted to planting bombs in the World Trade Center, would you believe them, ouahouawhatever?

I wouldn't consider them credible under any circumstances. but special forces members can be proven to be alot more credible IMO

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.

there is a 1 in 10^trillion*10^trillion etc etc extremely large number chance that all of the evidence in the controlled demolition was vaporized by a chain reaction that has a next to nothing chance of occurring, but is still possible, while at the same time something with a next to nothing chance of occurring caused no explosions to be heard.

and there is a chance that THAT happened, along with everyone lying until they came forward.

it would be a disgustingly small chance that all science would point towards it not being an inside job, while at the same time it was and they lied about it then came forward at a later time. It would be a small chance, but it's still possible.

So that means the 9/11 truth movements theories are a possibility and could be true! theres just no evidence to support them right now

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I wouldn't consider them credible under any circumstances. but special forces members can be proven to be alot more credible IMO

Why do you hold specil forces members to be ipso facto credible?

So that means the 9/11 truth movements theories are a possibility and could be true! theres just no evidence to support them right now

There is a chance that the WTC never existed, and last night while we slept, advanced alien neurosurgeons rewired all our brains so that we have false memories of the buildings and of the supposed event that destroyed them.

 

[oahuoahu]

Why do you hold specil forces members to be ipso facto credible?

I think they are more credible than me because they are in the military
I think they are more credible than fairies because I just don't think fairies are credible! lol. I may be wrong about fairies though

There is a chance that the WTC never existed, and last night while we slept, advanced alien neurosurgeons rewired all our brains so that we have false memories of the buildings and of the supposed event that destroyed them.

True. You are correct. That is possible.

 

[Pardalis]

but there is a 1 in 10^trillion*10^trillion etc etc extremely large number chance that all of the evidence in the controlled demolition was vaporized by a chain reaction that has a next to nothing chance of occurring, but is still possible, while at the same time something with a next to nothing chance of occurring caused no explosions to be heard.

So even if everyone involved in the conspiracy came forward and admitted to it, you wouldn't believe them?

You're looking at it backwards.

Someone died. We know with all the physical evidence that this person died of natural causes. But now someone comes in and admits for the murder of the deceased.

You want to prove his guilt by saying that there's an infinitesimal chance that the victim died from murder?

It doesn't work that way. If all the evidence point to a natural death, then you would need strong evidence to the contrary to even take into consideration the "admission".

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think they are more credible than me because they are in the military

Have you ever actually met anyone in the military?

True. You are correct. That is possible.

So if 15 special forces members came forward and confessed to working as bodyguards for these aliens while they did their work, you would believe them?

 

[oahuoahu]

You're looking at it backwards.

Someone died. We know with all the physical evidence that this person died of natural causes. But now someone comes in and admits for the murder of the deceased.

You want to prove his guilt by saying that there's an infinitesimal chance that the victim died from murder?

It doesn't work that way. If all the evidence point to a natural death, then you would need strong evidence to the contrary to even take into consideration the "admition".

I agree with you on your example.

but it's different from what i'm talking about. if ~3000 people died in less than 24 hours in a single incident in a city and 15 people with the power to help do it came forward and confessed, i would see those 15 peoples confession as evidence if it was found to be credible.

then with those 15 people it would be grounds to start new investigations and find out who else was "in on it". and if you found 4000 other people who were found to be "in on it" then yes I would consider that evidence that could prove in court that they did it.

So if 15 special forces members came forward and confessed to working as bodyguards for these aliens while they did their work, you would believe them?

if those 15 peoples confessions were found to be credible, then that would imo be grounds for investigations to find out if their telling the truth about the aliens. and then if we found the aliens, sure aliens did it

 

[Hokulele]

I think they are more credible than me because they are in the military.

Which is highly ironic considering the opinion of most members of the truth movement regarding the military.

 

[Pardalis]

but it's different from what i'm talking about. if ~3000 people died in less than 24 hours in a single incident in a city and 15 people with the power to help do it came forward and confessed, i would see those 15 peoples confession as evidence if it was found to be credible.

The number of people is irrelevant.

 

[oahuoahu]

The number of people is irrelevant.

you are right. i was wrong. i just looked over your example again.


if a old person died and it showed the person died from natural causes, if a guy came forward and confessed i do believe that would be grounds for a new investigation to see if he's telling the truth.


for 9/11, for the special ops guys to be telling the truth, thousands of people would have to be "in on the conspiracy". so if the investigation found thousands of people, then yes, the special ops guys would be telling the truth.

however, im not sure how we could prove that the other guy killed the old person.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

if those 15 peoples confessions were found to be credible, then that would imo be grounds for investigations to find out if their telling the truth about the aliens. and then if we found the aliens, sure aliens did it

This is the right line of thinking. If the confessions are credible, we investigate. If the investigations turn up enough evidence in support of the story, then we believe. Belief comes last, always.

 

[oahuoahu]

This is the right line of thinking. If the confessions are credible, we investigate. If the investigations turn up enough evidence in support of the story, then we believe. Belief comes last, always.

correct. yeah i've been following this train of thought for my last few posts

however, i believe the evidence found could prove the confessions true even if it wasn't "scientific evidence" . meaning it could be proven true without any scientific evidence needed.

well, I don't consider discovery that someone was part of a conspiracy to be "scientific evidence"... am I wrong?

 

[Pardalis]

if a old person died and it showed the person died from natural causes, if a guy came forward and confessed i do believe that would be grounds for a new investigation to see if he's telling the truth.

for 9/11, for the special ops guys to be telling the truth, thousands of people would have to be "in on the conspiracy". so if the investigation found thousands of people, then yes, the special ops guys would be telling the truth.

So the answer to your original question is NO (unless you've edited it again).

 

[MRC_Hans]

but there is a 1 in 10^trillion*10^trillion etc etc extremely large number chance that all of the evidence in the controlled demolition was vaporized by a chain reaction that has a next to nothing chance of occurring, but is still possible, while at the same time something with a next to nothing chance of occurring caused no explosions to be heard.

Listen, you don't even know what that chance is. Nobody knows.

So even if everyone involved in the conspiracy came forward and admitted to it, you wouldn't believe them?

Nobody said that. If everybody came put and confessed, they would prresumably also explain how they did it, and maybe it would make sense.

*THE FOLLOWING IS NOT PART OF MY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION*
maybe they used new advanced technology, secret military demolitions technology, that could bring down the buildings without explosions and this technology is so advanced you need very little of it to cut the steel.

And maybe alien shapechangers did it by magic. Maybe you are dreaming it all, and in a moment you'll wake up and it will be 9/12 early in the morning and there will be nothing interesting on the news. Maybe ... maybe ... maybe you should consider getting a life.

i dont know. theres several ways that it could be an inside job even though all science goes against it.

That is not the point. There is no reason 911 should be an inside job. There are nothing in the observations, no sensible motive, no reasons at all. There is just a bunch of people clinging desperately to a silly idea.

Hans

 

[oahuoahu]

So the answer to your original question is NO (unless you've edited it again).

which question are you talking about?

if you're talking about mine, then the answer is still yes


I just explained how those 15 guys going public could be used as evidence. which means the answer to my original question is yes.