Science, The Scientific Method & Their Application to September 11th, 2001

Originally posted by Kevin R Brown
I was not beng condescending - I was correcting your error.

...

So explain how the "official story" and any given conspiracy are equal in all other respects.

Just seeing if you're still alive. This must really be tough for you.

*Yawn*

Tiresome.


You see, to understand the error in the simplicity of the question you just asked, you'd need to understand probability theory based on Bayesian models and contemporary understanding of 'Objective' and 'Subjective' Razor, as defined by Turing Machine analysis. Since you don't, it would be rather difficult to discuss it with you.

('Equal in all other areas' does not mean, as you suggest, that a theory with less empirical evidence (such as a 9/11 fringe science conspiracy theory) cannot be demonstrated as weak from an argumentative perspective using Occam's Razor).


As you have not demonstrated knowledge in the areas you claim to have it, at any rate, and apparently refuse to put your own theory up for scrutiny, I think it's safe to assume at this junction that my interlocuter is a fraud. Given that attempting to argue with frauds is typically a fruitless endeavor, I also think it's time to excercize this forum's 'ignore' function.

reply to post by Kevin R Brown


Before blindly applying the official story to your scientific method, in which your conclusions fall short of any applied evidence, try (just try) to intuitively think about what happened that day and why. Attempt to think about the most logical explanations to the events of 9/11.

What has history taught us? Please apply the official story to history, rationally valid arguments, and most of all, common sense.

Wow
too many ideas running through my feeble excuse for a brain, but just a few thoughts re the official story on why the towers fell.

1 For the "Official story" to be true the damage from the planes and the weakening of the steel from the fire in the WTC must have been symetrical.

2 At least for the 2nd tower that was hit (the first to fall) the plane certainly did not hit the building squarely, therefore the damage was more to one side than the other. The top of this tower should have toppled towards the weak side. Just like a tree falls toward the wedge cut.

In addition I have never seen the stump of a tree collapse.

Think it through and you will realize that the structure below the damaged areas was not heated due to fire, nor was it damaged due to impact, yet it collapsed also. The structure below the damaged areas was operating at full strength, the top of the tower should have tipped towards the damage and twisted as it fell.
3 The idea that the fire severely weakened the steel does not persuade me either. If that was the case we have some very serious problems. The brakes in our cars, the BBQ you cook on, the internal components of jet engines these should be failing every day.

This building and all the others were helped down. I don't know by who, I
have a few suspects, but what is truly needed is a fair open and thorough investigation, conducted in public, with the ability to subpoena and charge those found to be negligent or worse.