is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

so what does that mean when "science" proves the 19 islamo fascist conspiracy?

 

Yep, happens all the time. That's what makes it science.

 

If there was any evidence, scientific or otherwise, you would present it.

Clutching at straws is not evidence.

 

That the attacks of September 11th 2001 were carried out by Al Qaeda suicide plotters, using hijacked commercial airliners, was not a matter for "science" to prove or to disprove.

It was a matter for the thousands who witnessed the attacks, (and had to live with the aftermath) to learn to live with.
It was a matter for hundreds of criminal investigators who conducted the investigation (and who came to one undeniable conclusion) to report on.

And so now it's a matter of historical record.

 

If one wishes to use the scientific method, yes, "science" proves it was 19 members of Al Qaeda. Now, if one were to apply those same scientific principals to your retarded and ignorant claims, "science" proves your claims are exactly what I said they are. After all, science works off of known evidence. Truthers have no evidence. Even your retarded claims that nothing happened the way the government claims and the evidence proves are shown to be pure nonsense because your claims ignore the evidence and have nothing to back it up. Science proves truthers are a bunch of silly, ignorant people.

 

For this question to fit in your thread, you'd also have to have some science that proves one of the various 9/11 denier theories... Do you?

 

You have to love how easy it is to spot fallacy in the arguments of truthers. I see three just in this one question.

 

i love how...before 9/11 came up in this thread... everybody was saying science cannot prove anything.. and science can prove and disprove something.... the minute 9/11 get brought up.. then yea,the science proves the 19 islamo theory.

 

You must have missed the "using the scientific method" part and how science was in double quotes. Truthers have got to be the most dishonest people ever.

So why can't you address that by using the scientific method, every single truther theory is disproven as there is no evidence to back up the truther claims and plenty of evidence to disprove the truther claims?

 

I apologize if this has been covered, I didn't read the whole thread.

There's actually a peer review process that scientific theories\hypothesis have to go through in order to be considered valid. That means that those scientists you believe are willing to alter their findings to please the people that sign the paychecks is just not valid.

They post their findings in a scientific journal where members at large are able to evaluate the results. Those reviewers may take the time to replicate the studies, and provide addendums or challenge the theory outright. The process is, generally, time consuming and ensures that scientific theories are valid. It's also the reason why the Bentham paper was publish in a "pay to play scientific" journal. It had no peer review, but was accepted to that "journal".

I assure you that there are scientists, actually, countries that would jump at the opportunity to show American scientists wrong. It would be their dream come true, get them noticed, and certainly a bigger paycheck themselves.

 

The science in regards to 9/11 has little to do with the "theory" behind what happened. Science\Physics play a HUGE role in, attempting, to explain why the buildings collapsed once the plane hit the building. However, science doesn't prove that 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 planes, flying 3 into our buildings, and one crash landing. The investigation into the events leading up to 9/11 prove that the people behind it were UBL and co.

Science explains why the buildings collapsed after having aircrafit and\or other buildings fall\fly into them. Which is completely separate than what I believe you think the science is explaining.

If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll retract my statement.

ETA: I forgot to state that under no circumstances is the NIST considered to be an exact explanation of why the buildings collapsed. It is a best guess scenario, and a best guess explanation as to what happened. The events that transpired on that day are completely specific to that day. It has never happened before and will never happen again. The explanation put forth by NIST are what they theorized happened given all of the photographic, video, and eyewitness testimony they had at their disposal. There is absolutely no way to be 100% positive on every minute detail.

 

I think this is relevant to the discussion.

Listen to what this scientist says about scientific journals. She starts talking at the 00:16 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA

 

So your claim is everyone wants to get their scientific stuff published, but nobody will publish it because it is controversial? Can you present one of these papers? Surely they would still post their scientific papers on their own sites for people to look at in awe and wonder, right?

 

Of course people can post their stuff on their own websites. My point was that, if evidence for something goes against the official government position, they can't get it published in science journals where many more people will see it. A popular argument that pro-official version posters use is, "If this were true, it would have been published in a science journal a long time ago".

There's a lot of clear proof that the Apollo footage that NASA makes public was faked in a studio. Here's a classic example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
(watch what happens at the 2:35 time mark)

Do you think you'll ever see this particular anomaly analyzed in a science journal? You never will because it's too clear for their sophists to obfuscate.

 

A popular argument that the truther use is that EVERYTHING is controlled and that'a why we can get the "truth" out. Yet you post countless vidoes and linke to threads containing "information" that apparently proves your argument wrong. The reason they can't get published in scientific journals is that their articles are rubbish.

Actually you'll never see it in a science journal because it is a ridiculous notion that only a minute tiny percentage of the population believe and no actual scientist would think it necessary to prove what all thinking people know to be true.

But I guess the rest of us are the crazy ones and the handful of people who make up the tinfoil hat brigade are the ones who really have it right, eh?

 

You seem to be ignoring post #37.

Sorry, but that anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate. Once people have seen it, they'll know the government lied and no amount of sophistry will have any effect.

Watch this video. NIST says one thing, and a few hundred architects and engineers say another.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/2011/08/RememberBuilding7.php

NIST says it didn't even look for evidence of explosives. Watch the video at the 10:20 time mark. The government can find scientists and engineers willing to sell out and lie.

 

So point me to scientific papers on people's web sites. If you can actually find a truther stupid enough to actually try and prove their claim on paper, I will show you all the things wrong with it.

That isn't proof of anything other than the gullibility and idiocy of the hoaxers.

Your point is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded. Your "anomaly" has been gone over by numerous people and credible explanations have been given. Hoaxers have never been able to even come close to proving the flag absolutely could not move in a vacuum and the only thing that can make it move is atmosphere, thus proving we never went to the moon. Why? Because that is just their opinion, not fact. Do you have your scientific paper ready to go along with the rejection notices from any of the scientific journals out there? No? Wow. Color me surprised.

The truth of the matter is truthers and hoaxers are way too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid to be able to actually come up with a compelling scientific argument to back up their claims. Of course, the biggest hurdle they face is that they're trying to prove a lie they KNOW is a lie.

 

He isn't ignoring it. It was pointless as I pointed out. What he IS doing is parroting your own stance back at you. Anyone else surprised Scott couldn't address it?

Yet here you are still spouting the same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Can you point to a single person who has been convinced? If your crap claim was true, just about everyone would agree with you because every person who agreed with you would tell their friends and they would become convinced and so on. Yet truthers have a hard time even scrape together a couple dozen people anymore. There should be hundreds of millions of truthers out there, not hundreds. Your own claims expose the lie, and this is yet another fact you will run from.

Gee. So who should we listen to? A world respected organization that used hundreds of external engineers to help figure out what happened? Or a bunch of degenerates led by an architect that couldn't engineer his way out of a paper bag. Remember his box demonstration of the towers? Man, you pick some real winners to try and pretend they are credible.

As for the explosives, there was ZERO EVIDENCE of explosives. See, normal people understand that a specific kind of event is going to have telltale signs of that event going on. If the most obvious of those signs are not present, that kind of event didn't happen.

There was no seismic evidence of high explosives going off. Controlled demolitions have very distinct seismic signatures.

There were no loud explosions heard prior to or during the collapse of WTC 7. This is proven on audio recordings from numerous sources. One of the defining characteristics of high explosives is a loud bang. After all, high explosives cut with a pressure wave. Do you deny this? A pressure wave is heard as an explosion. You also had 13 people survive the collapse of the North tower in the very area truthers like to pretend the explosives were planted. They didn't hear any explosives going off, and much more importatnly, they're alive which they wouldn't be if they were next to high explosives going off.

You also have the various paraphanalia associated with controlled demolition. Wiring. Blasting caps. Predrilled holes. Windows removed because they would be blown to kingdom come by the pressure wave. Was ANY of this found? No.

You also have the fact none of the steel showed evidence of being cut by high explosives. How do you cut steel with high explosives and leave the steel whole? Even for a truther you should see that there should be steel showing signs of being cut by explosive charges.

So NO evidence existed for high explosives having gone off. Yet your "proof" that the NIST is lying is that they didn't test for high explosives. Now, let's follow your retarded logic through to its obvious conclusion. The proof of a conspiracy at the NIST is that the NIST didn't test for explosives and admitted they didn't test for explosives. Um. IF the NIST was in on the conspiracy, wouldn't they just FAKE testing for high explosives and then tell everyone they tested and found nothing? Of course they would. I know it. You know it. Yet I can already sense your denial and excuses coming on.

 

Proofs exist in mathematics. Very often in reality we are only dealing with probability not proof. When action must be taken someone has to decide when the probability is high enough for the evidence to be conclusive but the possibility of being wrong is sometimes still not totally eliminated.

Weather is something with significant variability anyway so there is a certain amount of statistical uncertainty. But the climate thing has gone on way too long. Some scientists are dumb asses. They just have degrees. Just because someone has a PhD in physics does not mean they are as intelligent as Isaac Newton.

psik

 

You seem to be ignoring reality and the fact that speculation and opinion is not the same as evidence.

Oh my God. That was freaking hilarious!! I can't decide which is more stupid. The box demo or the paper loop washer model.

The scary part is Gage should certainly know better.

 

Just be careful when talking about "proved" when it comes to science.

Many things we've been convinced about and thought we proved wound up being not true after all, and vice versa.

 

And your model that can completely collapse IS WHERE?

Curious how physics is incapable of giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anybody's ego or laughter.

psik

 

what completly collapsed?

 

This entire statement is false, because you are stating that the U.S. government controls the entire internet. There are several countries outside of the US that do research on 9/11, and have posted findings. I've seen theories from truthers posted all over the place, so the "the gubbmint controls information" meme is long gone.

If someone has something to say, they have a ton of avenues to say it. If there is something that proves a conspiracy, China\Russia, etc would jump at the chance to expose it. They paid millions of dollars for the helicopter that crashed in the Usama raid, in order to get our technology, yet they turn a blind eye to 9/11? How much sense does that make?

 

I will tolerate 10% of the height still standing. That would have been about 11 stories of the WTC.

3 of my paper loops. I had more than 16 left after two drops.

psik