Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[doobiedoright]

Take your own advice. I demand a link to support your ludicrous claim that the "MSM" (as if it were a single monolithic group) is bribed "billions" by "government agencies" to "influence their reporting".

Can you support your absurd claim with facts?

Yes I did screw up.
I was asking for links to the bribery!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Oh come on, you can't possibly be this stupid. http://www.instructables.com/id/First-Fire-Mix-The-Thermite-Ignitor/

Right from the anarchist cookbook. Of course, the actual ignition mechanism may have been a different one, but the problem of igniting it there is trivial compared to the problem of getting it there.

Edit: For chrissake, someone described earlier in this thread how you can ignite thermite with a MATCH HEAD (containing phosphorous, burning hot enough)

So how did the Potassium Nitrate, Aluminum, and Sulfur mixture not prematurely ignite in the building fires started by the jet fuel?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm still waiting.

How was the thermite ignited?

Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?

For a given combustion reaction, which is a fixed quantity, the heat released or the temperature?

Unimportant, trivial, uninteresting.

Is this like, a homework of yours for physics class?

No this is homework for you.

Since you claimed that office fires can not burn hotter than a given arbitrary temperature, it is important to see how well you understand the concepts involved here.


You get an F.

 

[Dabljuh]

No this is homework for you.

Since you claimed that office fires can not burn hotter than a given arbitrary temperature, it is important to see how well you understand the concepts involved here.


You get an F.

lol. You can't reject what I say so you "grade" me? Srsly, dude. Grow a pair.

So how did the Potassium Nitrate, Aluminum, and Sulfur mixture not prematurely ignite in the building fires started by the jet fuel?

It did. That's what we're seeing in the video where the towers are still standing. That's a thermate charge that ignited prematurely due to the heat of the fire. I suppose that the remaining charges weren't ignited before the immediate collapse.

 

[Dabljuh]

I read up on my black body radiation (had forgotten most of it since I haven't thought about them since physics classes). It still doesn't answer my and others questions about the method that was used to determine the temperature. An estimation just doesn't cut it in terms of hard science. I was looking back on previous posts and the claimed temperature was 1500C. Recently is has been 1300C, what happened to that 200C? Errors in estimation? Perhaps then the 1300C number is also too high........

You're right. Maybe the 1300°C number is still too high. Maybe it was only 1200°C or 1100°C but personally I wouldn't estimate below 1200°C. The point being - It's still way way hotter than the fire. And it's coming a long way (there is no immediate source of heat behind it) so it started out way hotter until it got to the place where we see it. Even ignoring that, an office fire can never heat anything to 1200°C.

Yes. And you'd think that if one did indeed decide to make a declaration based on this color estimation, one had better have some pretty strong corroborating evidence just in case.

So using your eyes and estimating the colour of something are a completely accurate and foolproof way of judging the temperature of something?

You seem blissfully unaware of the crucial importance in the role of colour calibration when it comes to judging the colour of something in a digital image. Clearly you do not work in the publishing field doing colour correction, or else you would have known just how much colour in an image is subject to a great many factors.

Look at the fire. The same that is true for steel is also true for the fire. The fire appears orange at best. The molten liquid is far brighter and obviously hotter than that. That means we have a substance - that regardless of the calibration of the video camera - is far, far hotter than the fire itself, and such, cannot have been heated by the fire.

Even with a calibrated camera and viewing it on a calibrated screen, estimating the temperature by the color would still be an inexact science. But it wouldn't even come close to change the fact that the molten liquid is far hotter than the fire.

 

[Dabljuh]

But I believe you HAVE been refuted. You just disagree. Which brings us back to my post in the first place.

Whether "I" get refuted doesn't matter, the fact is that the pure-thermate hypothesis hasn't been refuted yet, and due to its greater explanatory value and its greater probability (even though the probability is not zero, it is low, for the buildings to collapse merely due to a airliner crash, which it was designed to withhold)

Exactly. I can only defer to experts because I'm a layman. I rely heavily on a consensus of expert opinion.

We all do, it's a human behaviour. We're just that lazy that, when someone tells us something and it somehow rings true, we're going to believe it. And on the other hand, if someone (we don't trust) says something that intuitively doesn't ring true, we reject it - even without evidence.

But that's not what skepticism is about.

This is where you begin to falter in my mind. You are an abject minority. It doesn't totally mean you're wrong, of course, but by the way I must judge highly technical subjects it's one strike against you.

No. It's not even a budge. Not even a slight poke. That's a gigantic argument by authority fallacy and a gigantic ad hominem fallacy. I'm not an expert on space flight. If I say we landed on the moon, that doesn't make it less true than if the head of NASA says it. In fact, the head of NASA would have, in the case of a faked moon landing, a conflict of interest and as such his statement that we did land on the moon in fact has lesser weight than mine, who I do not have a conflict of interest.

Like I said. I wouldn't be capable of refuting them anyway. I MUST defer to those who know more about the subject than I.

No! I claim to know more about the WTC than you do, so you must defer to my opinion. See? It's not logical. Skepticism means YOU are in charge of what you believe.

You are making declarations about things that have demonstrable alternative, non nefarious explanations. You are outright dismissing the 'official story' even though the evidence to support it is strong enough to convince the majority of scientists. That is also not skepticism.

Oh my god. You've got so much to learn. If you research just a few simple topics, you'll find the case where the vast majority of scientists lie all throughout history. The opinion of the vast majority of scientists is rarely formed because of scientific truth - in fact, scientific truth is always debated with the utmost scrutiny.

Frankly, it's hard to say "that's possible" for something that has such a lack of evidence for its existence.

You may simply not be aware of the evidence. There is virtually no evidence for the official story other than a few obviously planted bits. Still, you believe it, don't you?

I don't see you saying "that's possible" concerning the 'official story', because you may not be aware but the evidence STRONGLY supports the generally accepted account of that day for the most part, at least in general terms.

Of course the official story is theoretically possible. Even in a world where secret services bomb their own populace to blame the enemy for it (And that has happened. The nazis did it. The NATO did it in Italy. Hell, Israel even created the Hezbollah) even then there's the occasional freak accident. Sometimes it is just a random freak doing something apparently insane. Or even a small group. What about the mass suiciding cults in france? Were they orchestrated by the CIA? No. Freak things happen without the secret agencies having their hands in it.

But whenever something like this happens, a critical mind should consider the possibility that this was a freak accident, or that this was orchestrated by the powers that be. Unfortunately, the overwhelming mass of the evidence points towards 9/11 being orchestrated by the DOD.

Besides, if something cannot be refuted without a doubt, ones only choice is to go with the explanation that is supported by the most evidence. Of course, then we get into a debate on the very nature of evidence, I suppose. For example, it is my opinion that simply looking at some lossy video of a stream of something melted without any control whatsoever and declaring that by its color you can determine not only what the material is, but announce it is most likely a result of thermite job is NOT skepticism. You don't really even know what the real color was.

No one knows what the material was for sure. But we can rule out what it wasn't. And even though we don't know its accurate temperature remains unknown, we can point out that it's temperature is still vastly higher than whatever the fire could have produced.

[qutoe]But, I'm no expert. I just think you are being quite arrogant and condescending in a debate where your position is hardly tenable. There have been hundreds of threads on this and other forums of people debating crazy theories with little or no real evidence for hundreds of pages and declaring themselves winners because they weren't refuted.[/quote]If people call themselves winners because they weren't refuted, then you might have to consider the possibility that those 'crazy theories' may actually have been superior theories to whatever you're using right now. Granted, there is always the chance that simply no one smart enough was there who could have refuted the wrong theory. But what are the chances of the smartest person in the room being the only one with the wrong theory?

This brings us back to my original post. Skepticism takes one on the path of most evidence. You've got a long way to go to convince me what you're doing is skepticism and what I am is not.

The path of the most evidence? But you're a hypocrite. You don't even know any of the evidence. You're simply believing whatever other people are telling you, people you trust even though they may have actual and compelling conflicts of interests!

 

[Dabljuh]

Explain how the equivalent of thousands of cutting torches going off at the same time could be completely missed by everyone and every camera?

Explain how they would have been visible from the outside if they only burned for brief times inside the core, shielded from sight by drywall and steel.

You have yet to demonstrate any phenomena related to the collapses that are in any way indicative of thermite.

Um. No. I did. We're now at the point where the evidence stands uncontested and everyone is bitching and protesting because they can't refute it, whereas I could refute all their counterarguments.

Certainly, it may be that I'm the smartest person in here and that I could promote a wrong conclusion by cleverly being able to reject all objections and only a smarter man could actually figure out the holes in my argument.

But then again - Isn't your current theory about what happened on the WTC because you believe in people that are smarter than you? Why not believe me then?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

*yawn* now Dabljuh's idiotic rants that have no scientific backing or logic are getting really boring. You can say its temperature was vastly higher than the fier all you want little kid, but that don't make it so. using incorrect methods to determine this doesn't help you either kiddo.

Why don't you write up a white paper for discussion instead of presenting this completely incorrect assumptions? What's the matter kid? No balls?

Off you go now...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Um, No you did NOT. You haven't presented evidence and there is nothing to even stand uncontested. you simply have made a bunch of bad assumptions using more assumptions and a lack of understanding. There's nothing to refute because you have yet to present a legitimate argument. While I am sure you have impressed yourelf, you've really done nothing but act like a clown.

Certainly, it may be that I'm the smartest person in here and that I could promote a wrong conclusion by cleverly being able to reject all objections and only a smarter man could actually figure out the holes in my argument.

You are definitely anything but smart. you're just simply making statements and pretending they are true even though they aren't. Then you are making claims based on those inocrrect statements and pretending everyone that points them out to be incorrect doesn't exist. You're a fraud kid. And what's worse is that you seem to be oblivious to everyone pointing this out.

But then again - Isn't your current theory about what happened on the WTC because you believe in people that are smarter than you? Why not believe me then?

This is a perfect example of your argument kid. It's not really an argument. You're simply putting on an idiotic show and pretending it's an argument. It would help if you had a basic understanding of what you were talking about, but you don't. So you put on your little show and pull out incorrect facts to pretend they are true.

You're really getting old and boring. Are you going to present an argument yet or not?

 

[Dabljuh]

Yes, and one of those limits is that the phenomena that the theory purports to explain must actually exist,

Wrong. Theories are meant to describe existing phenomena. If we explain phenomenas that don't exist, that means we cannot test for the viability of the theory, negating its status as a theory and turning it into fiction.

and if they do, are not already explained by other better-supported theories.

Wrong: Not better-supported theories, but better theories. Theories that explain more, explain more more accurately, can make more accurate predictions.

could create a theory of why the moon gets shy and hides itself every month, which you wouldn't be able to refute. (No one has expertise in the moon's feelings, so any reason I give for why the moon gets shy would be irrefutable.) But you wouldn't need to refute it; you need only show that the disappearance of the moon on a monthly cycle is already adequately explained as the expected consequence of well-understood and thoroughly documented processes affecting the relative positions of earth, moon, and sun.

Your logic is flawed, as you're already assuming a much better theory is dominating the science. If we don't know the "well understood and thoroughly documented processes" how would you reject the "Moon is shy" theory? How would intelligent cavemen do it? We note the moon goes up and down every day. And we note he gets thicker and thinner throughout the month. Now you propose the "moon is shy" theory - Could I assess it, could I reject it knowing only the most basic of lunar observations?

Yes I could. For the simple reason that the "Moon is shy" theory does not have an explanatory or predictive value. As a consequence, it cannot be falsified with evidence, and thus does not even qualify as a scientific theory.

Similarly, it's irrelevant whether your thermite theory is refutable or not, because it is not necessary to explain any of the phenomena it purports to explain.

I've still not found a better explanation for the hot liquid that can be seen on the notorious video. So it IS necessary to explain all of the phenomena it purports to explain.

The observed phenomena are already adequately explained as the expected consequence of well-understood and thoroughly documented processes affecting a steel structure and its contents exposed to collision damage and fire.

No, it's not. Office fires don't melt steel. Office fires physically cannot heat anything to a higher temperature than their own.

That is why, to make it appear relevant, you had to start out with an unsupported and non-credible assertion in your very first post in this thread: that the cores of the towers were each capable of supporting six times the weight of an entire tower. To anyone with the slightest knowledge of structural engineering (or of the most basic economics of building construction), that's as silly as if I introduced my embarrassed-moon theory by first asserting that the moon doesn't actually orbit the earth, in order to make it seem like there were phenomena that my theory was needed to explain.

Granted, I've revised the original claim. While it is not entirely impossible for a structure like the WTC to collapse due to fire and airplane impact, it is still sufficiently unlikely to consider alternatives.

And that, in turn, is why once you have satisfied yourself that your unnecessary theory has survived the JREF forum's most desperate attempts to refute it, there is no next step after that. The press, the courts, academia, corporate interests, professional societies, and political organizations will all readily perceive that your theory is useless and so it's "irrefutability" is of no import.

But that's the world we live in. Irrefutable proof is not relevant if you have enough people (and the right ones) shouting all the same thing. But that's another discussion.

An unnecessary theory, unsupported by evidence, not even well-formulated enough to be refutable, doesn't come close.

The theory is not irrefutable in the sense of infallibilism, that no evidence on earth could refute it. It simply HASNT been refuted. Making it by a wide margin the best theory about the collapse of the WTC on 9/11.

Or consider the negation - "Thermite was not used on 9/11" can be refuted easily by showing that there's nothing that can explain certain phenomena.

Just face it. The WTC was brought down with thermite, and I can say that with scientific certainty. All you can do about it is protest but you can't show any evidence to the contrary.

 

[1337m4n]

Wrong. Theories are meant to describe existing phenomena. If we explain phenomenas that don't exist, that means we cannot test for the viability of the theory, negating its status as a theory and turning it into fiction.Wrong: Not better-supported theories, but better theories. Theories that explain more, explain more more accurately, can make more accurate predictions.

Your logic is flawed, as you're already assuming a much better theory is dominating the science. If we don't know the "well understood and thoroughly documented processes" how would you reject the "Moon is shy" theory? How would intelligent cavemen do it? We note the moon goes up and down every day. And we note he gets thicker and thinner throughout the month. Now you propose the "moon is shy" theory - Could I assess it, could I reject it knowing only the most basic of lunar observations?

Yes I could. For the simple reason that the "Moon is shy" theory does not have an explanatory or predictive value. As a consequence, it cannot be falsified with evidence, and thus does not even qualify as a scientific theory.


I've still not found a better explanation for the hot liquid that can be seen on the notorious video. So it IS necessary to explain all of the phenomena it purports to explain.

No, it's not. Office fires don't melt steel. Office fires physically cannot heat anything to a higher temperature than their own.

Granted, I've revised the original claim. While it is not entirely impossible for a structure like the WTC to collapse due to fire and airplane impact, it is still sufficiently unlikely to consider alternatives.

But that's the world we live in. Irrefutable proof is not relevant if you have enough people (and the right ones) shouting all the same thing. But that's another discussion.

The theory is not irrefutable in the sense of infallibilism, that no evidence on earth could refute it. It simply HASNT been refuted. Making it by a wide margin the best theory about the collapse of the WTC on 9/11.

Or consider the negation - "Thermite was not used on 9/11" can be refuted easily by showing that there's nothing that can explain certain phenomena.

Just face it. The WTC was brought down with thermite, and I can say that with scientific certainty. All you can do about it is protest but you can't show any evidence to the contrary.

Three words: Flying Spaghetti Monster.


(or Invisible Pink Unicorn, if you prefer)

 

[twinstead]

Whether "I" get refuted doesn't matter, the fact is that the pure-thermate hypothesis hasn't been refuted yet, and due to its greater explanatory value and its greater probability (even though the probability is not zero, it is low, for the buildings to collapse merely due to a airliner crash, which it was designed to withhold)

I submit that you have indeed been refuted; you just either don't know it or refuse to admit it.

We all do, it's a human behaviour. We're just that lazy that, when someone tells us something and it somehow rings true, we're going to believe it. And on the other hand, if someone (we don't trust) says something that intuitively doesn't ring true, we reject it - even without evidence.
But that's not what skepticism is about.

Skepticism is also not about claiming to win a debate without offering any evidence. Sometimes we reject something for a reason.

No. It's not even a budge. Not even a slight poke. That's a gigantic argument by authority fallacy and a gigantic ad hominem fallacy. I'm not an expert on space flight. If I say we landed on the moon, that doesn't make it less true than if the head of NASA says it. In fact, the head of NASA would have, in the case of a faked moon landing, a conflict of interest and as such his statement that we did land on the moon in fact has lesser weight than mine, who I do not have a conflict of interest.

But then of course if the head of NASA had evidence to back up his denial of a faked moon landing, then his statement would stand on its own. As others have pointed out to you, you have nothing but flawed observations, boundless conjecture, and a tad too much misplaced arrogance masquerading as 'evidence'. I'm not relying on anybody to show me this; I can see that much with my own eyes.

No! I claim to know more about the WTC than you do, so you must defer to my opinion. See? It's not logical. Skepticism means YOU are in charge of what you believe. Oh my god. You've got so much to learn. If you research just a few simple topics, you'll find the case where the vast majority of scientists lie all throughout history. The opinion of the vast majority of scientists is rarely formed because of scientific truth - in fact, scientific truth is always debated with the utmost scrutiny.

Now some kid lecturing me on this is funny. I have researched this subject as much as you. I am every bit as world-aware and intelligent as you. I just don't spout out mindless bits of pseudo evidence and internet bravado. I would KILL to see you in a court of law arguing your 'evidence'. You would be annihilated, and you know it!

You may simply not be aware of the evidence. There is virtually no evidence for the official story other than a few obviously planted bits. Still, you believe it, don't you?

You're kidding, right? The body of evidence to support the official story is VAST. Just a few obviously planted bits? Now I suspect you are just pulling our legs. Perhaps a little taste of your own medicine is in order; if you did ANY real research you would know that. You have so much to learn.

Of course the official story is theoretically possible. Even in a world where secret services bomb their own populace to blame the enemy for it (And that has happened. The nazis did it. The NATO did it in Italy. Hell, Israel even created the Hezbollah) even then there's the occasional freak accident. Sometimes it is just a random freak doing something apparently insane. Or even a small group. What about the mass suiciding cults in france? Were they orchestrated by the CIA? No. Freak things happen without the secret agencies having their hands in it.

But whenever something like this happens, a critical mind should consider the possibility that this was a freak accident, or that this was orchestrated by the powers that be. Unfortunately, the overwhelming mass of the evidence points towards 9/11 being orchestrated by the DOD.

No, a critical mind should consider the story with the most evidence behind it to be the tentative truth until something else comes along. I suspect that you would find a way to deal with ANY evidence that supports the official story with a wave of your hand. Just a few obviously planted bits indeed.

No one knows what the material was for sure. But we can rule out what it wasn't. And even though we don't know its accurate temperature remains unknown, we can point out that it's temperature is still vastly higher than whatever the fire could have produced.

This is not a scientific conclusion.

The path of the most evidence? But you're a hypocrite. You don't even know any of the evidence. You're simply believing whatever other people are telling you, people you trust even though they may have actual and compelling conflicts of interests!

I am aware of ALL the evidence. This was the largest investigation in US history, and the findings are in the public domain for all to see. The fact that experts from around the world support my position is just icing on the cake. To suggest that ALL of them have 'actual and compelling conflicts of interests' is another bit of this arrogance that you are so good at.

 

[A W Smith]

and the alleged thermite charges that were dislodged by the plane impacts went where? they sure as hell dint find any evidence of them in the rubble.

 

[Dabljuh]

I submit that you have indeed been refuted; you just either don't know it or refuse to admit it.

I must have overlooked that part. Where did my latest theory get refuted?

But then of course if the head of NASA had evidence to back up his denial of a faked moon landing, then his statement would stand on its own. As others have pointed out to you, you have nothing but flawed observations, boundless conjecture, and a tad too much misplaced arrogance masquerading as 'evidence'. I'm not relying on anybody to show me this; I can see that much with my own eyes.

There is no such thing as "evidence" - All there is repeatable observation. The head of NASA cannot 'own' repeatable observation. I could bring exactly the same evidence. You seem to be somehow under the delusion that if the head of NASA said something and I disagreed, it would necessarily be me who would be wrong, purely for me not being the head of NASA. You're committing to gigantic fallacies by authority there. It's such a habit for you, you don't even seem to notice it anymore!

Now some kid lecturing me on this is funny. I have researched this subject as much as you. I am every bit as world-aware and intelligent as you. I just don't spout out mindless bits of pseudo evidence and internet bravado. I would KILL to see you in a court of law arguing your 'evidence'. You would be annihilated, and you know it!

I'd like to see me annihilated as well. Of course the possibility is there, it's not like courts don't make mistakes.

You're kidding, right? The body of evidence to support the official story is VAST.

Who were the 19 hijackers? If BBC found 6 of them and they turned up alive... Well who then flew the planes? Apparently the official story hasn't even figured out who flew the planes. And then, Osama. We have a semi-credible denial and we have an obviously fake confession. So we have no proof Osama did it. What? - the official story doesn't even have proof to demonstrate who flew the planes or who orchestrated the whole thing?

Who did it then, official theory man? Was it Aquaman? The Silver Surfer? Who are you going to suspect next?

 

[Dabljuh]

Yes I did screw up.
I was asking for links to the bribery!

Last link in my sig, duh

And yeah, that's the whitewashed, CIA controlled Wikipedia article on the subject. Do you believe they've stopped this practice?

 

[pomeroo]

Explain how they would have been visible from the outside if they only burned for brief times inside the core, shielded from sight by drywall and steel.

Um. No. I did. We're now at the point where the evidence stands uncontested and everyone is bitching and protesting because they can't refute it, whereas I could refute all their counterarguments.

Certainly, it may be that I'm the smartest person in here and that I could promote a wrong conclusion by cleverly being able to reject all objections and only a smarter man could actually figure out the holes in my argument.

But then again - Isn't your current theory about what happened on the WTC because you believe in people that are smarter than you? Why not believe me then?

The evidence for your thermate fantasy is nonexistent. You understand nothing about the collapses of the Towers. You still haven't figured out how the English language works: if many people, all of them smarter and more knowledegeable than you, contest your bogus evidence, then that evidence cannot be termed "uncontested." Although this concept is very hard for you, it is simple enough for most of us.

Next!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Good Lord, you think your inductions are scientific?

You cannot say that thermite hypotheses are scientific, not when you cannot demonstrate their effect on the steel members. Jones's microspheres do not rise to that level (and by the way, you've still dodged the issue of what you called the "nanostructure"). All the evidence you've presented have been shown to have mundane origins.

On top of that, the proposal that thermite was necessary entails a belief that the towers would not have collapsed of their own accord, even with the impact damage and fires. Analyses by NIST, Arup, the University of Edinburgh, and others contradict that possibility, clearly establishing that impact damage plus fires were sufficient to bring the towers down. If that's the case, why would thermite be needed? And if that's not, if the towers would have indeed remained standing without intervention, how are those groups wrong? I place particular emphasis on the Edinburgh/Arup researchers, as conspiracy peddlers tend to ignore them in their arguments.

Also, the hypothesis fails on the predictive level. If thermite was used, then preparations for the emplacement of such would be noticeable, as access to the structural supports of the towers would be necessary. Also, if thermite was used, then the temperature analysis of the steel should have shown temperatures not in the 600 to 800 degree C range NIST and FEMA note, nor in the "approaching 1000 degree" C range Biederman and Sisson note, but the over-2000 degree C temperatures that thermite works at. The fact that the Worcester Polytechnic analysis doesn't show that, and in fact shows eutectic effects which by necessity would have happened at lower temperatures, contradicts the prediction thermite use would show clear effects.

Jones analysis of the spheres, plus his terrible interpretations of various phenomena from the towes (I again point at his silly conclusion regarding 1,3-DPP in the face of the numerous plastics in the towers, plus the fact that EPA sampling showed it being generated months after the event), plus his known dishonesty in presenting his evidence (his misrepresentation of the tower fires in his letter to Bentham being a prime example) render us unable to take any of his conclusions seriously. And your descriptions of his work implying more substance to them than what actually exists (again, "nanostructure") renders your conclusions devoid of the thought necessary to take them seriously as well.

Inductive conclusions based on false premises and acceptance of misrepresented phenomena is hardly science.

 

[pomeroo]

I must have overlooked that part. Where did my latest theory get refuted?

There is no such thing as "evidence" - All there is repeatable observation. The head of NASA cannot 'own' repeatable observation. I could bring exactly the same evidence. You seem to be somehow under the delusion that if the head of NASA said something and I disagreed, it would necessarily be me who would be wrong, purely for me not being the head of NASA. You're committing to gigantic fallacies by authority there. It's such a habit for you, you don't even seem to notice it anymore!

I'd like to see me annihilated as well. Of course the possibility is there, it's not like courts don't make mistakes.

Who were the 19 hijackers? If BBC found 6 of them and they turned up alive... Well who then flew the planes? Apparently the official story hasn't even figured out who flew the planes. And then, Osama. We have a semi-credible denial and we have an obviously fake confession. So we have no proof Osama did it. What? - the official story doesn't even have proof to demonstrate who flew the planes or who orchestrated the whole thing?

Who did it then, official theory man? Was it Aquaman? The Silver Surfer? Who are you going to suspect next?

Seriously, are you campaigning for the title of Most Obtuse Conspiracy Liar? The competition is fierce, but trotting out these ancient chestnuts should help your cause.

You really want to peddle the hoary, thoroughly debunked rubbish about the BBC and the six live hijackers? Almost all of your fellow liars have thrown in the towel on that canard. Ed Haas, a fantasist himself, showed that the so-called Osama confession video was authentic.

You desperately need some new material, but so does your entire evil movement.

 

[pomeroo]

Wrong. Theories are meant to describe existing phenomena. If we explain phenomenas that don't exist, that means we cannot test for the viability of the theory, negating its status as a theory and turning it into fiction.Wrong: Not better-supported theories, but better theories. Theories that explain more, explain more more accurately, can make more accurate predictions.

Your logic is flawed, as you're already assuming a much better theory is dominating the science. If we don't know the "well understood and thoroughly documented processes" how would you reject the "Moon is shy" theory? How would intelligent cavemen do it? We note the moon goes up and down every day. And we note he gets thicker and thinner throughout the month. Now you propose the "moon is shy" theory - Could I assess it, could I reject it knowing only the most basic of lunar observations?

Yes I could. For the simple reason that the "Moon is shy" theory does not have an explanatory or predictive value. As a consequence, it cannot be falsified with evidence, and thus does not even qualify as a scientific theory.


I've still not found a better explanation for the hot liquid that can be seen on the notorious video. So it IS necessary to explain all of the phenomena it purports to explain.

No, it's not. Office fires don't melt steel. Office fires physically cannot heat anything to a higher temperature than their own.

Granted, I've revised the original claim. While it is not entirely impossible for a structure like the WTC to collapse due to fire and airplane impact, it is still sufficiently unlikely to consider alternatives.

But that's the world we live in. Irrefutable proof is not relevant if you have enough people (and the right ones) shouting all the same thing. But that's another discussion.

The theory is not irrefutable in the sense of infallibilism, that no evidence on earth could refute it. It simply HASNT been refuted. Making it by a wide margin the best theory about the collapse of the WTC on 9/11.

Or consider the negation - "Thermite was not used on 9/11" can be refuted easily by showing that there's nothing that can explain certain phenomena.

Just face it. The WTC was brought down with thermite, and I can say that with scientific certainty. All you can do about it is protest but you can't show any evidence to the contrary.

Demolition experts dismiss your thermite/thermate fantasies. They know a great deal about the subject.

You are an agenda-driven know-nothing who doesn't understand that thermite is not used in demolition. Why should anyone be persuaded by your falsehoods?

 

[Par]

Who were the 19 hijackers? If BBC found 6 of them and they turned up alive...

Six of the hijackers survived? Laughable. They all died in the flames. How could they not have?