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

[Marquis de Carabas]

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?

What other kind of evidence would this be, then?

 

[oahuoahu]

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

I think there is a sensible motive.

If the NWO truly believed they could "get away with it" doing 9/11 would obviously let them get many things like a war time economy that lasts for 100 years.

What other kind of evidence would this be, then?

im not sure.

if someone makes a confession, isn't that "evidence" ? but it's not scientific. or is it not evidence at all?

 

[Hokulele]

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.

No, Pardalis' answer to your original question is still "No". You went and edited it again, so therefor what you are trying to answer here is not your original question.

 

[Pardalis]

which question are you talking about?

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

The question you posted in your original post. You keep editing it even two hours after. You have been reported for doing so.

Stop editing your past posts.

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

No you didn't.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

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

Those 15 guys going public would only be useful evidence if other evidence corroborated their story. Until and unless that happens, their confessions are just words.

Here. I'll confess.

I helped plant explosives in the North Tower.

That confession adds nothing useful to the discussion in absence of corroboration. Belief comes last, always.

 

[Pardalis]

I think there is a sensible motive.

If the NWO truly believed they could "get away with it" doing 9/11 would obviously let them get many things like a war time economy that lasts for 100 years.

There is no evidence of the existence of the New World Order.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

im not sure.

if someone makes a confession, isn't that "evidence" ? but it's not scientific. or is it not evidence at all?

See above.

 

[oahuoahu]

No, Pardalis' answer to your original question is still "No". You went and edited it again, so therefor what you are trying to answer here is not your original question.

I never said Pardalis' answer to my question was yes.

I said MY answer to my question was yes.

So that means my statement was correct. Because my statement was that my answer was yes...

The question you posted in your original post. You keep editing it even two hours after. You have been reported for doing so.

Stop editing your past posts.

I only edited my question 5 times, and all 5 of those edits were done before this thread hit page 2.

my question on the first page is


if 15 special ops demolition crew members went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition" and it was found out that those confessions were credible, would that be evidence that could be used in court to prove it was an inside job assuming more evidence of "other people being involved" was found and used with it too?

No you didn't.

I said, "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."

which is explaining how if the special ops confessions were found to be credible, and if thousands of people were found to be "in on it too", then the special ops confessions would be evidence that could be used in court....


that logically explains how the answer to my original question is yes... how does it not?

 

[Pardalis]

I said, "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."

That's not what you wrote when I read it.

which is explaining how if the special ops confessions were found to be credible, and if thousands of people were found to be "in on it too", then the special ops confessions would be evidence that could be used in court....

that logically explains how the answer to my original question is yes... how does it not?

Not.

 

[oahuoahu]

That's not what you wrote when I read it.

im pretty sure i didn't edit it, however i may have changed the word "is" to "if" (because it was typo)


my final updated version of the original question is:

if 15 special ops demolition crew members went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition" and it was found out that those confessions were credible, would that be evidence that could be used in court to prove it was an inside job assuming more evidence of "other people being involved" was found and used with it too?


yes, i apologize to you sir. it was edited and you were probably commenting on my previous version.

do you want to explain how the answer to that question is yes or no?

 

[Jaguar]

Oahuoahu, you are wasting your time with this, but the answers are revealing.

A video could be uncovered of the demo crew rigging the building and these OCT fantasists would still find a way to cling to their unfasifiable belief in the official fairytale.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

im pretty sure i didn't edit it, however i may have changed the word "is" to "if" (because it was typo)


my final updated version of the original question is:

if 15 special ops demolition crew members went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition" and it was found out that those confessions were credible, would that be evidence that could be used in court to prove it was an inside job assuming more evidence of "other people being involved" was found and used with it too?

Jesus Chiclet-shilling Christ you're a slippery bugger.

When you first posted this, it read "my original question is:" so I returned to page one, where, luckily, I had quoted your original question, to c&p here. And I return to find that you've now edited this post to "final updated version".

Anyway, for anyone who's wondering what the actual original question was...

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?

 

[Pardalis]

yes, i apologize to you sir. it was edited and you were probably commenting on my previous version.

do you want to explain how the answer to that question is yes or no?

If you don't mind, I'll wait for your final final edit of the question before I answer.

Oahuoahu, you are wasting your time with this, but the answers are revealing.

A video could be uncovered of the demo crew rigging the building and these OCT fantasists would still find a way to cling to their unfasifiable belief in the official fairytale.

It's usually common courtesy to introduce one's self when joining a discussion group.

 

[oahuoahu]

If you don't mind, I'll wait for your final final edit of the question before I answer.

this is the final version!

if 15 special ops demolition crew members went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition" and it was found out that those confessions were credible, would that be evidence that could be used in court to prove it was an inside job assuming more evidence of "other people being involved" was found and used with it too?


if i edit it again the mods can launch thunder at me

 

[Pardalis]

edited:

On second thought, I decide not to answer the question. It is dishonest.

 

[oahuoahu]

ok im going to sleep now. i cant post anymore for like 12 hours....

i have to wake up early so i can trade stocks! muahahahaha

cya

 

[Mr.D]

Oahuoahu, you are wasting your time with this, but the answers are revealing.

If we seem to be overly pedantic in our definitions and clarifications it's because conspiracy theorists in general and 9/11 "truthers" often cherry pick quotes and take them out of context. They willfully choose limited, precise or common usage definitions of words and gleefully switch between them at thier convenience.

I am not accusing oahuoahu of doing this or attempting to do this, merely explaining that the others on this thread are pointing out in various ways the logical flaws, insufficient detail and vague language in the posed questions.

A video could be uncovered of the demo crew rigging the building and these OCT fantasists would still find a way to cling to their unfasifiable belief in the official fairytale.

That word ('unfalsifiable') doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Yes, it could be used as evidence. but.... reality check: Those 15 guys don't exist, remember?

If we had found traces of explosives in the wreckage of the buildings, it would have been evidence, but we didn't.

You know, what you are really asking is this: Is the official conclusion falsifiable?

And the answer is: Yes it is indeed falsifiable. But it has not been falsified-

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

this is the final version!

if 15 special ops demolition crew members went public and said "I helped rig the buildings for demolition" and it was found out that those confessions were credible, would that be evidence that could be used in court to prove it was an inside job assuming more evidence of "other people being involved" was found and used with it too?

Yes, if things were different, then things would be different. Let me turn your idea a bit on its head: If 911 was an inside job, then evidence would exist to prove that it was an inside job. Only, we haven't found any.

But remember this: It is the event that creates the evidence, not the other way around.

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

If the senior al-Qaeda operative who planned the operation actually appeared on al-Jazeera TV and said, "I planned and organised the operation". If that happened, and if this person were actually a senior al-Qaeda operative, would you say that proves it? or would that not be enough evidence?

Dave