Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

RedIbis said:
I'm sure that after all of their computer modeling, this was the one column, that if by some miracle is weakened just enough, could in some hypothetical scenario, cause the complete collapse of the building.

Not that they ever bothered to present this evidence. It's entirely hypothetical.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The basis for the simulation run by NIST is (as a number of people have pointed out) at least partly empirical. The properties of the various materials, the behavior of fires, the construction of WTC 7, the visible locations of damage and fires - all this is data collected, not hypothesized (with a few exceptions - the temperature dependence of properties of steels is still a bit uncertain). Just because you don't have the debris from the building doesn't mean you can't produce a valid collapse hypothesis.
 
RedIbis said:
We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Who has ever claimed otherwise? Even the NIST calls it a hypothesis. Even if the NIST had all the remnants of WTC 7 and they were clearly marked as to location they would still only be able to produce a collapse hypothesis.
 
RedIbis said:
We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Last time I heard nobody had actually been to the centre of the sun but it seems to be generally accepted the temperature is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

This is a hypothesis; it is almost impossible to prove. It is impossible because nobody can go to the centre of the sun armed with a thermostat and actually measure it, but given the fact that many guys, who are far cleverer than me and you came up with this, I see no reason not to accept it. I see no reason to question it; I see no reason to doubt it, because nobody has come up with a better hypothesis, nobody, to the best of my knowledge, as offered up a better theory. Therefore the theory that the centre of the sun is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit seems reasonable, it seems plausible, rational.

So if you have a problem with NIST hypothesis, then offer your own. For once stop avoiding the question that as been asked of you over and over again.Offer up your reasonable, plausible and rational theory.

What is your theory? What is your hypothesis?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Click to expand...


Surprise! duh. And guess what: any subsequent investigation would be...guess what...that's riiiiggghhht...a hypothesis. But I bet their hypothesis is better than yours.
 
stateofgrace said:
Last time I heard nobody had actually been to the centre of the sun but it seems to be generally accepted the temperature is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

This is a hypothesis; it is almost impossible to prove. It is impossible because nobody can go to the centre of the sun armed with a thermostat and actually measure it, but given the fact that many guys, who are far cleverer than me and you came up with this, I see no reason not to accept it. I see no reason to question it; I see no reason to doubt it, because nobody has come up with a better hypothesis, nobody, to the best of my knowledge, as offered up a better theory. Therefore the theory that the centre of the sun is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit seems reasonable, it seems plausible, rational.
Click to expand...

What happened to the pancake hypothesis?

What happened to the jet fuel fire melted steel hypothesis?

What happened to the 10 story gash hypothesis?

Is Pluto still considered a planet?

My hypothesis is that you aren't very smart. Hopefully for you someone will come along with a better hypothesis that's more reasonable, plausible, or rational. Keep your fingers crossed.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totovader said:
Since NIST isn't the topic of discussion, you have just proven why red herrings are your favorite scapegoat.

YOU were asked for YOUR best evidence. Whatever you think about NIST and it's "lack of evidence" is irrelevant at this point- the FACT that you have presented your "best piece of evidence" and then admitted that it does not exist, and that's your evidence means you have committed an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. And- completely off topic: NIST doesn't claim that is is- YOU DO. By claiming that NIST does- you are committing a strawman.

So I ask again- since you continually ignore it- is logic a proper method for understanding the world around you, or do conspiracy theories offer something more reliable than science and critical thinking, Red?
Click to expand...

Seriously, Red...
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
stateofgrace said:
Last time I heard nobody had actually been to the centre of the sun but it seems to be generally accepted the temperature is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

This is a hypothesis; it is almost impossible to prove. It is impossible because nobody can go to the centre of the sun armed with a thermostat and actually measure it, but given the fact that many guys, who are far cleverer than me and you came up with this, I see no reason not to accept it. I see no reason to question it; I see no reason to doubt it, because nobody has come up with a better hypothesis, nobody, to the best of my knowledge, as offered up a better theory. Therefore the theory that the centre of the sun is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit seems reasonable, it seems plausible, rational.

What happened to the pancake hypothesis?

What happened to the jet fuel fire melted steel hypothesis?

What happened to the 10 story gash hypothesis?

Is Pluto still considered a planet?

My hypothesis is that you aren't very smart. Hopefully for you someone will come along with a better hypothesis. Keep your fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

My hypothesis is I will report you. I will you report you for the flame baiting troll you are who inputs zero into any rational civil debate, oh wait, it's true I just did.
Click to expand...
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
So much for rational. Don't have an aneurism.
Click to expand...

HI- do you have an answer for the OP or not? I would think that if you are trying to represent yourself- or rather, your "side"- as the bastion of reason- that you would first at least try to address the topic.
 
Last edited:
Red- Was Column 79 beneath the portion of the roof seen to collapse first?
 
Red, how well has your presentation of evidence turned out?

failed.jpg
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
What makes you say that?
Click to expand...

You spend way too much energy avoiding relatively simple questions.

You post in other threads without first addressing these questions.

If you actually do respond to any posts which may be considered challenging to your fantasy, you usually plaster something like this instead of answering any relevant questions.

Your presence here is simply a mockery of anyone serious enough to call themselves inquisitive.
 
Totovader said:
You spend way too much energy avoiding relatively simple questions.

You post in other threads without first addressing these questions.

If you actually do respond to any posts which may be considered challenging to your fantasy, you usually plaster something like this instead of answering any relevant questions.

Your presence here is simply a mockery of anyone serious enough to call themselves inquisitive.
Click to expand...

For all of the incessant self referenced postings and disingenuous rhetorical questions, I've never seen you answer even the simplest question.

I've even seen you whine about not getting your questions answered when you didn't even ask a question.
 
Red- Was Column 79 beneath the portion of the roof seen to collapse first?
 
RedIbis said:
For all of the incessant self referenced postings and disingenuous rhetorical questions, I've never seen you answer even the simplest question.

I've even seen you whine about not getting your questions answered when you didn't even ask a question.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you waste a lot of energy dodging questions.

If you could name even one that I didn't respond to, I would be surprised. Rather than waste even more energy and derail this thread with your own personal little vendetta- why don't you actually answer the questions for once?
 
Totovader said:
Since NIST isn't the topic of discussion, you have just proven why red herrings are your favorite scapegoat.

YOU were asked for YOUR best evidence. Whatever you think about NIST and it's "lack of evidence" is irrelevant at this point- the FACT that you have presented your "best piece of evidence" and then admitted that it does not exist, and that's your evidence means you have committed an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. And- completely off topic: NIST doesn't claim that is is- YOU DO. By claiming that NIST does- you are committing a strawman.

So I ask again- since you continually ignore it- is logic a proper method for understanding the world around you, or do conspiracy theories offer something more reliable than science and critical thinking, Red?
Click to expand...

*bump again for Red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom