99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Originally posted by -PLB-
I can show evidence it is not accepted

If its credible evidence I will accept it. So show it. You have provided no evidence at all so far.

but so far thruthers only accept it when it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Isn't that the argument why Dr Jones article is questioned in the first place????

The notion that his paper never reached a status where anyone thought it was worth writing an official rebuttal is rejected.

By who? Show the evidence.

That is pure speculation and opinion, with no basis on evidence.

Of course I write my own rules concerning how I form my oppinion. I do not need similar academic credentials in order to reject a conclusion.

And therein lies the downfall in your argument. And I mean this in no way as a personal attack. There is an established and accepted method of arguing an academic hypothesis, but you are rejecting it by saying it doesn't matter, it only matters what you think.

I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusions, nor that I disagree with them, but you have not presented ANY evidence to back up your claims, this does not help you prove your hypothesis. Dr Jones and his colleagues did.

If you present any evidence to back your claims then lets examine it.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

And therein lies the downfall in your argument. And I mean this in no way as a personal attack. There is an established and accepted method of arguing an academic hypothesis, but you are rejecting it by saying it doesn't matter, it only matters what you think.

I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusions, nor that I disagree with them, but you have not presented ANY evidence to back up your claims, this does not help you prove your hypothesis. Dr Jones and his colleagues did.

If you present any evidence to back your claims then lets examine it.

The thing I am rejecting is that any paper that is ever published without a formal rebuttal contains valid or even likely conclusions. If you think that is part of the established and accepted method of arguing an academic hypothesis, then you are wrong. I already showed you how that line of reasoning forces you to accept reincarnation, I am sure there are plenty of other examples of papers that makes extraordinary claims that never received a formal rebuttal.

What I require in addition to the mere existence of a paper is a clear support for it in the scientific community, especially when the claim is of such great significance. There should be public debate about it, there should be articles written about it, the experiments should be repeated and confirmed by others. None of this ever happened.

reply to post by -PLB-

You problem is that you think that Jones work is accepted in the scientific community.

Science is not "the scientific community". The whole purpose of the scientific method is to allow a process for circumventing appeals to the "scientific community".

The only valid appeal in science is to empirically falsifiable fact, you have failed not only to show how your ideas can be falsified but have failed to modify your ideas when faced with falsification by experiment.

That is the only standard that can be used to judge scientific "truth" and by that standard you are full of horse manure.

What I require in addition to the mere existence of a paper is a clear support for it in the scientific community, especially when the claim is of such great significance.

So your new theory is that if their is ANOTHER paper on the same matter then it it is true and if not it is false?

Are you not aware that most journals will not publish papers which merely reproduce another papers findings? Do you think journals have infinite space and print papers for the greater good?

They are profit making outfits PLB, no journal will publish a paper that presents no new findings, that is why it is up to debunkers to publish something scientifically that disproves the Jones paper somehow, shouldn't be hard if there is any merit to your ideas. Except there isn't, because there is no empirical validity to any of your objections, they are all easily falsifiable by experiment and known properties of things in real life.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Maybe it is your only standard, but like I demonstrated above the implications are that you should accept reincarnation too. The whole idea that something should be accepted as true until formally proven false is just complete nonsense and has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is basically the definition of an argument from ignorance. An important aspect for an hypothesis to be accepted is confirmation. That is something Jones work is severely lacking.

And please read my posts a bit better. I nowhere say that I require another paper to confirm Jones results. Still it would gain him a lot of credibility, especially when it is published in a more respected journal.

reply to post by -PLB-

Maybe it is your only standard, but like I demonstrated above the implications are that you should accept reincarnation too. The whole idea that something should be accepted as true until formally proven false

You don't get it PLB.

The difference between reincarnation and Jones' study is that reincarnation is not FALSIFIABLE, whereas Jones' study is.

Let us say your claim that an energetic/explosive material will always react completely were true, then Jones' hypothesis that this is thermite would be false. But if your claim that explosive materials always react is true then no explosive material will fail to react completely.

In fact experiments show that the opposite is the case: No explosive material ever reacts completely.

So if your claim is falsifiable it has been falsified.

The standard, dear PLB, of science, since time immemorial (explicitly or implicitly), is falsifiability. It is not that you accept as true something that has not been proven false, you accept as true (for scientific purposes) things which can be reasonably proven false by experiment and which said experiment has repeatedly failed to be falsified.

There is a solid practical and logical basis for this approach and it is specifically to avoid the nonsense you are trying to come up with.

Here are some random Google search results to help you clarify the concept:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.experiment-resources.com...
rationalwiki.org...
www.theresilientearth.com.../cherry-picking-black-swans-and-falsifiability
conservapedia.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Enough. One question. Why does Jones not approach a reputable school, 4 even, send them each a sample. You know how much the truth would cost? Less than 100 dollars and it could be put to rest. Why dont a few of you forward this...I will even buy the domain for you....

go Daddy domain name - www.JonesWTCthermiteproof.com 12.00 dollars

Send samples registered to MIT, Cal-Tech, Stanford and UCal... USPS - 87.93

Look on everyones face when I give the evidence.....PRICELESS


When there is evidence, there is always Mastercard...

reply to post by Darkwing01


Clearly you didn't see the paper about reincarnation. It is about birthmarks and you can falsify that. My argument still stands rock solid. Lack of falsification is in no way evidence that a hypothesis is correct. A hypothesis only becomes theory when it is confirmed. Jones work is not confirmed at all, it is ignored altogether.

As for your "No explosive material ever reacts completely", the generalization you make from completely different situations and completely different materials is just another fallacy we can add to your already very long list. Prove that when you put a blowtorch on nanothermite you will get pieces that are both partly reacted and unreacted.

reply to post by -PLB-


OK PLB so it wasn't thermite, then what did cause 47 core columns to telescope themselves down through a mass of increasing most resistance?



wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

None of your excuses explains that.

reply to post by -PLB-

Clearly you didn't see the paper about reincarnation. It is about birthmarks and you can falsify that. My argument still stands rock solid. Lack of falsification is in no way evidence that a hypothesis is correct. A hypothesis only becomes theory when it is confirmed. Jones work is not confirmed at all, it is ignored altogether.

Just how exactly do you propose falsifying that reincarnation paper?

Please outline for me the steps that you would take, that paper is a classic case of verificationism.

Here is an extract form the wiki article on verificationism which should illustrate to you the danger of of the approach and how you fall headfirst into this exact hole:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is frequently argued that the verification principle is self-refuting, in that it is neither empirically verifiable nor tautologous. However, broader criticisms of verificationism are normally based on the impossibility of verifying specific instances of entities. The first problem faced is vagueness--in trying to verify that something is a tree, the term tree is too vague to present any conclusive answer in some cases. The second is that of open texture--even if it appears to be conclusively verified that something is not made of gold, the definition of "gold" could change as to allow said object into the category. These criticisms were first presented by Friedrich Waismann.

The problem with verificationism is that you cannot distinguish types from tokens using this technique, exactly the problem you fall into.

Your entire thesis is a warning against the folly of verificationist positivism.

I don't know what on earth made you think that the reincarnation article is evidence against the falsificationist approach.

reply to post by ANOK


Gravity...next question.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I wonder, are you just searching random Wikipedea pages until you find something appealing? I am not going to discuss how you can falsify the hypothesis in that reincarnation paper. It is off-topic and besides the point. Are you claiming that every paper ever written that is falsifiable but was not falsified automatically contains a correct hypothesis? If you answer yes, you are clueless. If you answer is no, then this also counts for Jones paper.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

Gravity...next question.

Wrong Answer.

How can you be so dense, and say that in the face of all the information we have posted showing you that gravity is not going to overcome resistance?

You are ignoring, on purpose I believe, the laws of motion, and common sense.

Gravity can not make a steel column collapse through a path of increasing RESISTANCE. If gravity could cause the core to collapse through an increasing mass, it would never have stood in the first place.

Seriously you need to educate yourself other than 911myths. Why can't you make a serious reply that addresses the laws of motion and conservation of momentum as I keep asking you to? If you can't do that you have no argument, only excuses that keep changing to fit the post you're replying to.

You are the poster who claimed there are no impossible physics esdad.

Originally posted by -PLB-
The thing I am rejecting is that any paper that is ever published without a formal rebuttal contains valid or even likely conclusions. If you think that is part of the established and accepted method of arguing an academic hypothesis, then you are wrong.

That is the exact definition of the academic/scientific method. It is you who are mistaken.

The rebuttal must be conclusive.

I already showed you how that line of reasoning forces you to accept reincarnation, I am sure there are plenty of other examples of papers that makes extraordinary claims that never received a formal rebuttal.

If the reasoning and methodology is sound in the reincarnation paper and no-one can rebut it there may actually be something substantial there.

The fact that you have rejected it without investigation proves my point.

What I require in addition to the mere existence of a paper is a clear support for it in the scientific community, especially when the claim is of such great significance.

Its possible you are mistaking apathy from the scientific community for acceptance. You are assuming rejection.

There should be public debate about it, there should be articles written about it, the experiments should be repeated and confirmed by others.

I agree wholeheartedly.

None of this ever happened.

Correct and the same goes for the reincarnation article. Using Occams Razor the most obvious reason would be that no academic wants to risk tenure, their reputation, their paypacket and their career by being involved with such a hot potato.

Just like Dr Jones is experiencing now from anonymous posters on the WWW.

You are not factoring this into your thought processes.

Originally posted by esdad71
Enough. One question. Why does Jones not approach a reputable school, 4 even, send them each a sample. You know how much the truth would cost? Less than 100 dollars and it could be put to rest. Why dont a few of you forward this...I will even buy the domain for you....

It's quite possible he actually has, how do you know he hasn't?

Like I said using Occam's Razor do you think that the governing body of that institution is going to put their funding and reputation at risk without a reasonable payoff in return????

Look what happened to Dr Jones.

Fairly simple when you think about it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I wonder, are you just searching random Wikipedea pages until you find something appealing? I am not going to discuss how you can falsify the hypothesis in that reincarnation paper. It is off-topic and besides the point. Are you claiming that every paper ever written that is falsifiable but was not falsified automatically contains a correct hypothesis? If you answer yes, you are clueless. If you answer is no, then this also counts for Jones paper.

A flaw with your line of thinking here is that if you doubt one academic article, then you must accordingly doubt them all, even the confirmations and rebuttals.

Therefore the whole academic process is questionable.

Then why have we achieved so much with it?????

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


This is simply not how science works. Any hypothesis in any paper is not true until there is a formal rebuttal. That is just nonsense. I reject the paper about reincarnation because it there is no confirmation and because it is not accepted in the scientific community. I base my opinion on scientific consensus, because I am not an expert on the subjects. It doesn't make any sense to pick and choose a paper and say "I believe this paper because I could not find a formal rebuttal".

I also reject the notion that scientists are afraid to put their careers on the line. You portray scientists as weak, afraid, egoistic, apathetic persons without morals. If a scientists really believed Jones is right, I have no doubt that most would support it openly.

A flaw with your line of thinking here is that if you doubt one academic article, then you must accordingly doubt them all, even the confirmations and rebuttals. Therefore the whole academic process is questionable. Then why have we achieved so much with it?????

What you describe here is in fact the reason science is so successful. The constant questioning and doubting of hypothesis and theories. The constant strive to prove a theory wrong.

reply to post by -PLB-

I wonder, are you just searching random Wikipedea pages until you find something appealing?

Unlike certain people here I knew the difference between verificationism and falsificationism long before this discussion started.

I am not going to discuss how you can falsify the hypothesis in that reincarnation paper. It is off-topic and besides the point.

How typical.

YOU cited the paper.
YOU harped on about it is several posts.
YOU claimed it was falsifiable

Yet when I ask you to stipulate how one could go about falsify it it is suddenly off-topic.

Do you even take yourself seriously at this point?

Are you claiming that every paper ever written that is falsifiable but was not falsified automatically contains a correct hypothesis?

No, science is not concerned with correct hypothesis. Such an idea is antithetical to the whole concept of science.

A theory which makes risky predictions which can be falsified by reasonable experiment and is not falsified by such experiment is accepted as true for all intents and purposes from a scientific perspective.

The theory of gravity is not "true", it simply repeatedly fails to be falsified.

If you answer yes, you are clueless.

Do try to have at least a rudimentary grasp of epistemology before going about randomly poisoning wells.

If you answer is no, then this also counts for Jones paper.

Jones' paper makes risky predictions which may be falsified by reasonable experiments but are not.

Most notably Jones predicted on the basis of finding thermite that thermite can produce some of the effects seen on 9/11, the claims that it could not have themselves been falsified.

There are lots of experiments you could do to attempt to falsify Jones' hypothesis, but every one of them you have proposed so far have failed to do so in the most abysmal fashion.

That is as close to truth in terms of the scientific method as it gets.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Thank god you agree that Jones hypothesis is not correct just because it has not been formally falsified. The next step is to acknowledge is that the fact that a paper is not formally falsified says absolutely nothing about the likeliness the hypothesis. Only when a hypothesis is confirmed, over and over, the likeliness of it increases. As it currently is, Jones hypothesis has not been confirmed even once, so falls in the category of least likely.

C'mon PLB, after all this hyperbole to refute what I have put forward and that of Darkwing....

You still have not put forward any proof or evidence to back up your claims......

What is your evidence to debunk Dr Jones work or that of the OP?

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


Other evidence that convinced me (beside lack of response and support in the scientific community) are the discussions between the authors and Dr.Greening and Denis Rancourt. I have also read more than enough alternative explanations on several internet forums (for example ATS and Randi). But strictly, lack of response and support in the scientific community is already enough for me to reject Jones conclusion.