The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Thunder]

I think it was a covert op. The three WTC buildings were rigged with explosives.

that's not a scientific theory.

its an untested hypothesis. please someday learn the difference.

 

[twinstead]

I think it was a covert op. The three WTC buildings were rigged with explosives.

That isn't a theory. It's a conclusion you would come to after formulating a theory and showing it is supported by the evidence.


Besides--I think mothra with help from giant pink unicorns did it.

 

[tempesta29]

that's not a scientific theory.

its an untested hypothesis. please someday learn the difference.

I was asked for a theory. I gave one.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[GlennB]

I think it was a covert op. The three WTC buildings were rigged with explosives.

So, sticking with WTC7 for now -

1. Why would they want to blow up WTC7?
2. When was it rigged?
3. How was such a busy building rigged without the activity being noticed?
4. What would the excuse for its collapse have been had WTC1 debris not hit it and started fires?

(and we're off ... on the outside Destroying Secret Files takes an early lead ... but wait Shredders Are Also Good is coming up on the rails ... aaaaaaaaand Control Bunker is gaining grooouuund ..... but looooook Shock And Awe is coming late and wide ..... will Target of Flt 93 make it from the back of the field folks????....
And at the line The Man Can Do Anything He Wants Just To Screw You Over is the winnneeeeeeeerr by a length. )

 

[Thunder]

I was asked for a theory. I gave one.

No, you did NOT provide a theory.

What you did provide, was a hypothesis. An untested one.

Do you know the difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis"?

 

[tempesta29]

No, you did NOT provide a theory.

What you did provide, was a hypothesis. An untested one.

Do you know the difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis"?

Yes, I did provide a theory. How long would you like to go back and forth on this one?

 

[triforcharity]

I think it was a covert op. The three WTC buildings were rigged with explosives.

Wonderful.

How were these explosives silent?

How were these explosives not detected by any of the bomb sniffing dogs?

How are there no signs of an explosive on any of the steel?

 

[Thunder]

Yes, I did provide a theory.

Ok fine. You now admit that you do not know the difference between a theory and an untested hypothesis.

thanks for clearing that up.

 

[tempesta29]

Ok fine. You now admit that you do not know the difference between a theory and an untested hypothesis.

Yet you haven't proven that the above is true. I've noticed that people who have little to say often enjoy semantics. I think you fall into this category.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I think it was a covert op. The three WTC buildings were rigged with explosives.

100% impossible.

Which is why you keep ducking the OP.

 

[tempesta29]

Wonderful.

How were these explosives silent?

I can't confirm that they were. We know at least some of them were not, according to evidence.

How were these explosives not detected by any of the bomb sniffing dogs?

An odd, possibly unanswerable question. Is it possible that there are explosives that are undetectable by dogs? I see no evidence to the contrary.

How are there no signs of an explosive on any of the steel?

What steel? Where is this steel? I'm willing to bet that rigorous analysis of all of the steel would have yielded results consistent with my theory. For now, we have no more steel.

 

[tempesta29]

100% impossible.

Which is why you keep ducking the OP.

I directly addressed the OP in my first post in this thread. You failed to rebut. That was your choice. I won't continue to hear you whine about it.

 

[Thunder]

What steel? Where is this steel? I'm willing to bet that rigorous analysis of all of the steel would have yielded results consistent with my theory. For now, we have no more steel.

wrong. this steel from the WTC is viewable to anyone at the Staten Island Botanical Garden. Hell you can even touch it if you like (and maybe even do some quick scraping to get samples).

 

[Thunder]

Yet you haven't proven that the above is true. I've noticed that people who have little to say often enjoy semantics. I think you fall into this category.

I provided links to articles on "theory" and "hypothesis".

Its not my fault if you chose not to read them.

But, since I don't like being called a liar, I shall provide you with the definitions:

Theory: The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it.

Hypothesis: A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Dude, we can't even test your hypothesis, because you have ZERO evidence to back it up. So it may not even be a true hypothesis, and may simply just be a guess.

So unless proven otherwise with actual evidence that can be tested, you have a guess.

Not a theory....not a hypothesis...but a guess.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I directly addressed the OP in my first post in this thread. You failed to rebut. That was your choice. I won't continue to hear you whine about it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6726846#post6726846

Tell me, do you ever get tired of being wrong? Sore? Achy?

 

[tempesta29]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6726846#post6726846

Tell me, do you ever get tired of being wrong? Sore? Achy?

That's ironic considering you just linked to a post where you admit you're wrong.

 

[tempesta29]

Dude, we can't even test your hypothesis, because you have ZERO evidence to back it up.

Yes, I do, and I've been over it repeatedly in this thread alone. Capitalizing the word zero does not make it more true.

So it may not even be a true hypothesis, and may simply just be a guess.

No, it's a theory based on an analysis of available facts. That analysis I've made, both over the course of this thread and others. That's exactly what a theory is: an analysis of facts.

 

[Thunder]

Yes, I do, and I've been over it repeatedly in this thread alone. Capitalizing the word zero does not make it more true.

oh yeah? please show us your evidence of molten steel in GZ. or molten iron, your choice. once we see the evidence we can evaluate it to see if it holds up.

No, it's a theory based on an analysis of available facts. That analysis I've made, both over the course of this thread and others. That's exactly what a theory is: an analysis of facts.

no, my friend.....no.

a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has evidence that has been tested numerous times, and many scientists agree with the findings.

NO such test have been done on your evidence. You have provided NO evidence to independent scientists to confirm or deny your results.

In fact, you have NO physical evidence at all....that can be tested by you or anyone else.

 

[TJM]

No, it's a theory based on an analysis of available facts. That analysis I've made, both over the course of this thread and others. That's exactly what a theory is: an analysis of facts.

So far, all you have is a theory without basis in fact and a failure to communicate.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, I do, and I've been over it repeatedly in this thread alone. Capitalizing the word zero does not make it more true.



No, it's a theory based on an analysis of available facts. That analysis I've made, both over the course of this thread and others. That's exactly what a theory is: an analysis of facts.

You have not presented any facts yet.