are HERE any non-american 9/11 Official Story Believers?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by hooper

 

I would love to "reproduce" some of Dr. Jones' results - think I can get some of his dust samples? Can't reproduce his experiments without his material. If not, well then - no science.

Last I checked Jones wasn't stopping you from getting access to samples of WTC dust, which is all you need. You don't need HIS samples.

If you want samples either go find them yourself or ask U.S. government, they are the ones not releasing data.

Really? And where do I get WTC dust?

Sorry, this is basic science. Jones, et al are testing one-off samples and therefore nobody is able to reproduce their findings. So what they have produced is not a science report but an essay based on their unique experiences and personal bias.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Yeah, again. Reproducible refers to things in the physical universe, not drawings.

You have a physical example of the stuff coming out of the tower? Or do you just have a video?

If what came out of the side of the building was molten iron the only reasonable source was thermite right?

Quite a big if.

If there was thermite it must have been put there deliberately beforehand right (please don't tell me you think plane + steel beams = thermite).

If thermite was placed there deliberately the only people who had the required access, time and technical ability were not the however many hijackers were actually on the planes, n'est-ce pas?

So that stuff coming out the side of the building is prima facie enough to establish the conspiracy version.

Um, no. You haven't established that it was molten iron. So by your own logic you haven't established the conspiracy version.

Unless you can "please explain" WITH A PHYSICAL REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENT what else it may have been.

It doesn't mean that thetruther version is true, it just means that it is the only story that is scientifically supported at this time.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: part two

So you have established, WITH A PHYSICAL REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENT, that it's molten iron?

I live in the uk and also believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were both false flag attacks!! aka inside jobs


Peace

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Did aircraft impact the towers, they are not question they are STATEMENTS OF FACT!!!!

So what?

Thermite cutting vertical columns is also a STATEMENT OF FACT!!!!

What is not a statement of fact is that there is any PURELY scientific reason to believe the OS, and there are many PURELY scientific reasons (i.e. excluding everything that cannot be reproduced in PHYSICAL experiment) that support assistance.

edit on 29-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: second

The thing is MY statement of FACT we saw!!!!!!!

reply to post by hooper

Really? And where do I get WTC dust?

His claim is that this stuff is in ALL the WTC dust, not only his sample. He did send his sample off to independent labs though, independent enough for one to disagree with the substance of his argument.

Reproducible doesn't mean pandering to your every whim, are you even qualified to do this research, why should he give it to YOU as opposed to just about anybody else?

Ask your government for samples, it is better to test independent samples anyway, since OS'ers argue he tampered with his batch.

The thing is MY statement of FACT we saw!!!!!!!

Logic has nothing to do with facts. Logic doesn't allow you to deduce what you what to deduce from the facts you state.

Yes they are facts, but they are also completely irrelevant to the question we want to answer

So you have established, WITH A PHYSICAL REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENT, that it's molten iron?

Molten Iron ALWAYS looks and behaves this way in air. Go look at any number of videos featuring molten iron and you will see that this is what molten iron looks like. You can melt iron in your backyard and it will look this.

It does not look like any of the other candidates.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

So you have established, WITH A PHYSICAL REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENT, that it's molten iron?

Molten Iron ALWAYS looks and behaves this way in air. Go look at any number of videos featuring molten iron and you will see that this is what molten iron looks like. You can melt iron in your backyard and it will look this.

It does not look like any of the other candidates.

So because you can't think of something else that it might be, it automatically becomes molten iron?

No wonder the Truth Movement's narrative is suffering.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

So because you can't think of something else that it might be, it automatically becomes molten iron?

No.

It becomes the most reasonable assumption because:

A) It looks and behave the way that molten iron is expected to behave. Refer to Occam's razor, one should not resort assuming it is something else when the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is molten iron.

B) The heat residue and molten material afterward suggests that whatever this was got really hot and so must have been a fairly good conductor of heat.

C) The iron micro-sphere's as reported by Fema and others indicate that there was molten iron present one way or another.

You can argue B and C, but the burden of proof is you, since the most reasonable assumption given the evidence is iron. The only reason you want to exclude iron because it conflicts with your narrative, hardly a sound way of approaching a scientific question.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Occam's razor is not about the simplest explanation being the most likely one, but about the explanation that requires the least assumptions being the most likely one. And it is more of a rule of thumb, something to go by when we do not have enough information. Making as little assumptions as possible does not include assuming one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of mankind in my book. Aluminum seems much more likely as explanation.

reply to post by -PLB-

Occam's razor is not about the simplest explanation being the most likely one, but about the explanation that requires the least assumptions being the most likely one.

There are many formulations of Occam's razor, use whichever you prefer.

But do note NB!!!!

Occam's razor is NOT about accepting the explanation that requires the least assumptions. It IS about accepting the explanation that requires the least assumptions AND explains all the known facts.

To accept that this is iron the ONLY new assumption we need to make is that the U.S. government is capable of committing war crimes and atrocities. Oh wait, that's not a new assumption, we only have to assume they acted this way towards Americans, no wait, on American soil... no wait.

We only have to assume that the American government acted as they usually do, which is not exactly a new assumption.

To accept an alternative explanation we have to assume whole new properties of nature with heretofore undescribed properties. I don't know about you but it is a rather simple equation to me.

And it is more of a rule of thumb, something to go by when we do not have enough information.

We never have enough information in science. Yes it is a rule of them, but it is an extraordinarily useful one.

Aluminum seems much more likely as explanation.

Aluminium explains nothing at all, how can it be more likely.

Yes assuming it is aluminium means you have to make fewer FURTHER assumptions, but that is not what the razor OR the scientific method asks for.

It asks that you make the fewest assumption to REACH the conclusion AND that the conclusion explains all the known facts.

You make no new assumption to say this is iron or steel and saying it is iron or steel explains everything we know about this substance, except how it got there, which is irrelevant for this purpose because once we know what it is is how it got there is already answered one way or another.

So no, you are wrong.

You can think it is aluminium, but you cannot think that that assumption is scientifically justified in any way.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
We only have to assume that the American government acted as they usually do, which is not exactly a new assumption.

Problem with assuming that is that the conspiracy would have come out within a week after the event.

We never have enough information in science. Yes it is a rule of them, but it is an extraordinarily useful one.

Depends on your goal. You can easily have enough information to disprove a certain hypothesis. You can also have enough information to accept a theory as fact.

Aluminium explains nothing at all, how can it be more likely.

Yes assuming it is aluminium means you have to make fewer FURTHER assumptions, but that is not what the razor OR the scientific method asks for.

It asks that you make the fewest assumption to REACH the conclusion AND that the conclusion explains all the known facts.

You make no new assumption to say this is iron or steel and saying it is iron or steel explains everything we know about this substance, except how it got there, which is irrelevant for this purpose because once we know what it is is how it got there is already answered one way or another.

So no, you are wrong.

You can think it is aluminium, but you cannot think that that assumption is scientifically justified in any way.

You aren't making that much sense here. For aluminum I do not need to make the assumption that the temperature got above the temperature found in office fires. For the rest aluminum fits the profile as well as iron. So it requires at least one less assumption.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

So because you can't think of something else that it might be, it automatically becomes molten iron?

No.

It becomes the most reasonable assumption because:

A) It looks and behave the way that molten iron is expected to behave. Refer to Occam's razor, one should not resort assuming it is something else when the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is molten iron.

B) The heat residue and molten material afterward suggests that whatever this was got really hot and so must have been a fairly good conductor of heat.

C) The iron micro-sphere's as reported by Fema and others indicate that there was molten iron present one way or another.

You can argue B and C, but the burden of proof is you, since the most reasonable assumption given the evidence is iron. The only reason you want to exclude iron because it conflicts with your narrative, hardly a sound way of approaching a scientific question.

Earlier you seemed to be demanding physical, reproducible experiments before any assumptions were made. You are now apparently happy to assume this is molten iron because

- it looks like molten iron
- um...
- that's it.

This is not a sound basis for alleging a conspiracy. Especially not for someone who seems so taken with the scientfic method. I'm glad you bring up Occam's razor, because to make the leap from something looking a bit like molten iron, to CD, to the gubmint murdered 3500 people, does not look like a very effective application if it to me.

And the microspheres are not "iron", but rather iron-rich.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

- it looks like molten iron - um... - that's it.

..and there are other independent lines of evidence which also strongly suggested that that is what it was, which I listed earlier.

But rewind:

1) Why do you think it is NOT molten iron and on what basis do you come to that conclusion?

2) What part about this stuff looking like and behaving like molten iron and not looking like and behaving anything else is NOT reproducible in physical experiment?

Originally posted by Darkwing01

..and there are other independent lines of evidence which also strongly suggested that that is what it was, which I listed earlier.

No there aren't. Anytime you've been asked to say why you think it's molten iron you've challenged the other person to prove it isn't. Your only evidence appears to be that you think it looks like molten iron.

You have no basis for this beyond resemblance, despite your repeated - and ironic - demands for experimental evidence from others.

But rewind:

1) Why do you think it is NOT molten iron and on what basis do you come to that conclusion?

2) What part about this stuff looking like and behaving like molten iron and not looking like and behaving anything else is NOT reproducible in physical experiment?

1) It could be lots of other things. I think it's probably aluminium mixed with all kinds of other stuff from the towers. The colour is plausible.

If it's evidence of steel being cut then why is the building not falling down? And why is it the only example?

2) What value would there be in such an experiment? The fact that something can be made to look like something else proves nothing. It just shows that it could be molten oiron. But that doesn't really help you.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

1) It could be lots of other things. I think it's probably aluminium mixed with all kinds of other stuff from the towers. The colour is plausible. If it's evidence of steel being cut then why is the building not falling down? And why is it the only example?

Same reason you can't prove it was NOT iron.

Don't play your silly games with me, this is the oldest bait and switch in the book. You can't prove that PHYSICAL REALITY is not a fiction planted in your mind by an evil demon either, are you going to believe that that is the case too now?

Why is it the only example? Because maybe it wasn't intended to be so obvious Sherlock.

Jeez you ARE reaching now aren't you?

2) What value would there be in such an experiment? The fact that something can be made to look like something else proves nothing. It just shows that it could be molten oiron. But that doesn't really help you.

Except you haven't showed that anything but molten iron can be made to look like that that had a better reason for being there than molten iron.

Of course it doesn't help me, it would disprove my claim. I am telling you what you need to do to falsify my hypothesis that this is molten iron and instead of attempting to falsify it you are sitting here yapping inanities.

Oh, yes I forget...

Others have tried vigorously to reproduce your claims and thus far have failed miserably.

Please state what you think this is, express the reasons why you believe it to be that and provide the means for reproducible experimental falsification of your claim and your attempts to falsify it. If you can't even do that how can you possibly claim that your ideas have any scientific validity to them whatsoever?

You may as well be claiming it was a cockroach infestation and the stuff falling out are roaches, it would have exactly the same scientific standing as your claims of aluminium.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

1) It could be lots of other things. I think it's probably aluminium mixed with all kinds of other stuff from the towers. The colour is plausible. If it's evidence of steel being cut then why is the building not falling down? And why is it the only example?

Same reason you can't prove it was NOT iron.

That doesn't even make sense. I ask why, if the steel is being cut, the building doesn't immediately fall own, and why it's the only example, and your answer is "Same reason you can't prove it was NOT iron".

What does that even mean?

Don't play your silly games with me, this is the oldest bait and switch in the book. You can't prove that PHYSICAL REALITY is not a fiction planted in your mind by an evil demon either, are you going to believe that that is the case too now?

This applies equally - in fact more pertinently - to you. You're asking us to assume something you can't prove just because you say so.

Why is it the only example? Because maybe it wasn't intended to be so obvious Sherlock.

Jeez you ARE reaching now aren't you?

Convenient that there's only one example. Presumably hundreds of cutter charges where spraying molten iron around, and we see only one? Possible I suppose, but hardly likely.

Except you haven't showed that anything but molten iron can be made to look like that that had a better reason for being there than molten iron.

Except the plane's aluminium, which was definitely there. Mixed with all kinds of oxidised materials from the towers internal fixtures and furniture.

Of course it doesn't help me, it would disprove my claim. I am telling you what you need to do to falsify my hypothesis that this is molten iron and instead of attempting to falsify it you are sitting here yapping inanities.

I don't have to falsify it at all. Indeed I can't. But then neither can you prove that it was molten iron. And equally you can't falsify my hypothesis.

I'm not sure how much science you've actually done, but your hypothesis remains unproven. You haven't found molten iron and you can't do anything more than make an assumption. One which isn't even that persuasive, based as it is on simple resemblance (and, in my opinion, your biased desire to see some sort of accelerant at work).

Oh, yes I forget...

Others have tried vigorously to reproduce your claims and thus far have failed miserably.

Please state what you think this is, express the reasons why you believe it to be that and provide the means for reproducible experimental falsification of your claim and your attempts to falsify it. If you can't even do that how can you possibly claim that your ideas have any scientific validity to them whatsoever?

I should do this, but you - who have apparently discovered evidence of a major government conspiracy - don't have to?

Why would I bother? My view of 9/11 is ascendant. You're the one who has to do some work, change some minds, or remain an irrelevance.

You may as well be claiming it was a cockroach infestation and the stuff falling out are roaches, it would have exactly the same scientific standing as your claims of aluminium.

edit on 6-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: 2

And exactly the same standing as yours of iron.

That doesn't even make sense. I ask why, if the steel is being cut, the building doesn't immediately fall own, and why it's the only example, and your answer is "Same reason you can't prove it was NOT iron".

What does that even mean?

Go back and read your own question, you will notice it consists of two parts.

You have forgotten what you asked.

This applies equally - in fact more pertinently - to you. You're asking us to assume something you can't prove just because you say so.

How so, I am not asking you to assume anything but the scientific method. All your knowledge of physical reality is based on the same principles: Observation, theorizing, attempted falsification, reproduction and external verification.

I am not asking you to assume anything that you don't assume every moment of your life.

Convenient that there's only one example. Presumably hundreds of cutter charges where spraying molten iron around, and we see only one? Possible I suppose, but hardly likely.

So how many would satisfy you?

OS'ers ask how the charges at the plane impact site avoided being damaged, well maybe they didn't. Maybe what you are looking at is a damaged charge just like the OS'ers predict.

Except the plane's aluminium, which was definitely there. Mixed with all kinds of oxidised materials from the towers internal fixtures and furniture.

It doesn't matter what the plane was made of or what was in the tower if you cannot show that what you claim it is looks and behaves the way that the stuff observed in that video looked and behaved.

The whole building could have been made of Aluminium and the stuff pouring out the would still not be Aluminium, because it doesn't look or behave like Aluminium.

Claims of mixes with organic material are all fine and dandy, but you are making a positive claim that such a mix could be made to look and behave in this fashion. You have not as yet stated any reason for holding this belief apart from your political views.

It could have been gooey Martian cheese crackers too by that sort of reasoning, provided you had some political reason to prove it was the Martians.

I don't have to falsify it at all. Indeed I can't. But then neither can you prove that it was molten iron. And equally you can't falsify my hypothesis.

I'm not sure how much science you've actually done, but your hypothesis remains unproven. You haven't found molten iron and you can't do anything more than make an assumption. One which isn't even that persuasive, based as it is on simple resemblance (and, in my opinion, your biased desire to see some sort of accelerant at work).

How dare you speak of science if you think that proof has anything to with it?

Science is about failure to falsify, not proof.

Basic stuff mate.

I should do this, but you - who have apparently discovered evidence of a major government conspiracy - don't have to?

Why would I bother? My view of 9/11 is ascendant. You're the one who has to do some work, change some minds, or remain an irrelevance.

Because I am not asking you about your political views, I am asking you about objective physical reality.

And exactly the same standing as yours of iron.

Has no relation, the fact that I am typing at a computer is not changed by the fact that getting that computer on my desk involved a vast conspiracy stretching back millenia, spanning continents and vast swathes of the population.

I am either sitting here typing at my computer or I am not.

Science has provided us with a great tool for determining such things: Observation, Theory-Creation, Attempted Falsification and third party Validation by Replication. Make it into a rhyme so you can remember it.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Go back and read your own question, you will notice it consists of two parts.

You have forgotten what you asked.

No I haven't. You've ignored one part and given a non-sequiter answer to the other.

Why didn't the building fall down immediately if this is an example of the steel being cut?

How so, I am not asking you to assume anything but the scientific method. All your knowledge of physical reality is based on the same principles: Observation, theorizing, attempted falsification, reproduction and external verification.

Very little of which you have done. That's why I say this applies more pertinently to you.

So how many would satisfy you?

OS'ers ask how the charges at the plane impact site avoided being damaged, well maybe they didn't. Maybe what you are looking at is a damaged charge just like the OS'ers predict.

So the plane crash only damaged one charge? Given that hundreds of charges would be required I find it odd that we only see one.

I also find it strange that the planes didn't set off any of the explosive charges that Steven Jones says were there as well.

It doesn't matter what the plane was made of or what was in the tower if you cannot show that what you claim it is looks and behaves the way that the stuff observed in that video looked and behaved.

The whole building could have been made of Aluminium and the stuff pouring out the would still not be Aluminium, because it doesn't look or behave like Aluminium.

Actually it does. Aluminium mixed with oxidised material can look like this. It's also possible that it's source is the UPS batteries from that floor. Perhaps you could falsify those claims.

Claims of mixes with organic material are all fine and dandy, but you are making a positive claim that such a mix could be made to look and behave in this fashion. You have not as yet stated any reason for holding this belief apart from your political views.

I haven't mentioned my political views. You have no idea what they are, so you're making yet another assumption.

My belief is based on the same reasoning that you use: that it resembles things other than the product of thermite reactions. Given that there is little supporting evidence for thermite, and that it requires a series of subsequent assumptions of which there is very little likelihood, I'm asking you to provide something a little better evidenced than "I think it looks like the product of a thermitic reaction therefore it's the product of a thermitic reaction."

How dare you speak of science if you think that proof has anything to with it?

Science is about failure to falsify, not proof.

Basic stuff mate.

I can see I'm in the presence of a regular Karl Popper.

What you have to come to terms with is that this is not a scientific discussion. No experiment is possible, so neither proof nor falsification are available. What is possible is a conclusion based on likelihood, given the available information. Nothing you have shown suggests that this is most likely to be the product of a thermite reaction.

Because I am not asking you about your political views, I am asking you about objective physical reality.

Fine. But you miss the point. Why should I bother trying to reproduce what happened here? You're the one trying to change the status quo. Demanding I do experiments to satisfy you is getting you nowhere. I'm satisfied - the majority is satisfied. My understanding of 9/11 is largely accepted; yours is not.

If you want that to change you have to do better.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

No I haven't. You've ignored one part and given a non-sequiter answer to the other. Why didn't the building fall down immediately if this is an example of the steel being cut?

My statement was an answer to a question you asked in response to my request for you to prove that this was NOT molten iron.

The fact that YOUR answer failed to address this point was taken by yours truly to be an indication that you can't, hence my reply.

Very little of which you have done. That's why I say this applies more pertinently to you.

Comparing e-peens now? How much "science" have you done?

In any event this is the natural way in which the brain works to learn about the physical world, so I like you have done a fair bit, as have you. The only difference is that I am aware of it while you are in a slumber.

So the plane crash only damaged one charge? Given that hundreds of charges would be required I find it odd that we only see one. I also find it strange that the planes didn't set off any of the explosive charges that Steven Jones says were there as well.

The world is full of wonderful things that will forever remain mysterious.

What is not mysterious is that you have failed to furnish an example of the magical material you purport looks and behaves like the stuff coming out the window and is not iron.

Actually it does. Aluminium mixed with oxidised material can look like this. It's also possible that it's source is the UPS batteries from that floor. Perhaps you could falsify those claims.

If it does then you can demonstrate it empirically and we can all go home.

My belief is based on the same reasoning that you use: that it resembles things other than the product of thermite reactions. Given that there is little supporting evidence for thermite, and that it requires a series of subsequent assumptions of which there is very little likelihood, I'm asking you to provide something a little better evidenced than "I think it looks like the product of a thermitic reaction therefore it's the product of a thermitic reaction."

Except it doesn't resemble anything other than molten iron or steel except in your imagination.

I can see I'm in the presence of a regular Karl Popper. What you have to come to terms with is that this is not a scientific discussion. No experiment is possible, so neither proof nor falsification are available. What is possible is a conclusion based on likelihood, given the available information. Nothing you have shown suggests that this is most likely to be the product of a thermite reaction.

So this is NOT a scientific discussion eh?

The problem for you is that there are plenty of possible experiments we could do, except you know as well as I do that they all falsify your position.

ALL the information points that there is for all intents and purposes zero percent likelihood that it was anything BUT molten iron, yet you cling to your 100% certainty that it was not.

The only possible reason is your political views so we can infer them inductively right there.

Fine. But you miss the point. Why should I bother trying to reproduce what happened here? You're the one trying to change the status quo. Demanding I do experiments to satisfy you is getting you nowhere. I'm satisfied - the majority is satisfied. My understanding of 9/11 is largely accepted; yours is not. If you want that to change you have to do better.

I am not trying to change anything, I don't base my concept of reality on what is accepted or who it is accepted by.

Why are you here if you are so sure of your position, why are you trying to convince. WHO are you trying convince?

I'm from Greece and no i don't believe the OS.

I believe that it's an inside job.Apart from the usual suspects(CIA,NSA etc) i believe that they had outside help from Mossad and the reasons for all these was
a)to justify a few wars
b)to justify the removal of liberties of the Western people.

I don't have proof for that,but it's my opinion based to what i have read all these years.

Hi people,

I'm from Turkey and I definetly don't and can't believe in the official story. However the majority of the people around here believe it because it is the only story that got coverage in the media here. I believe the percentage of the "truthers" would be much lower than the US because in US people care about the event and read about it, watch the documentaries, the discussion is out in the open. But here it's just an event which happened in US, media reported what happened and that's the end of the story. People over here just don't have an incentive to probe deeper and figure out the discrepencies.

I have asked the exact same question to several friends and relatives over the past years and the reaction I got was very surprising. "Why wouldn't I believe in the story, is there another version of it?" And I was like

I have some American relatives, their reaction was even more puzzling though. They just laughed at the "conspiracy nutjobs"! I couldn't push the question further because they were quite patriotic and would take it as an offense and an anti-american stance. I don't believe in religions still people would treat me as "anti-american middleeastern muslim" guy when I speak about 9/11 conspiracies. The power of propaganda is beyond imagination..