You forgot gravity.
Happy Patriot Day!
I guess you have enough love for Big Brother to believe that 2+2=5. Good for you.
I don't disagree that the twin towers were hit by planes, but there is a lot more to the story than that. However, as pointed out by MikeD, none of us here are really qualified to work through the science, and it is well understood that we haven't been told the whole story, so all that needs to happen is for me to come to accept that 2+2=5 and this matter can be put to rest for me personally.
Actually there's just the BS you either soak up or make up.
Yeah, I'm much more inclined to believe the 2+2=83 that is the alternative offered up by unqualified internet yahoos.
I thought we determined that you were unqualified to call BS on the matter.
Also, I find the "make up" comment insulting. All I have ever done is raised questions and presented hypotheses. Please provide evidence of where I stated I knew what happened. All I ever did was said "this doesn't make sense to me." Glad it makes sense to you.
But surely you don't accept the 9/11 Commission Report as gospel. Even some of the commissioners have said it is inaccurate.
Rick, you stated you lost loved ones that day. Any chance this is your grieving mechanism, refusing to accept that something just this bad could strike just this close to you. Always seeking the final, final, final true answer. Would you know even if you got the "real" answer? Will it bring anyone back or undo what has been done?
Reasonable questioning is healthy, sooner or later, in the face of evidence, it becomes paranoia..
I don't think so. I am a science guy, and there is much available evidence that cannot be explained by the official theory.
I'm not sure if I would know the real answer on sight, but I know it would be one that would withstand scientific testing. No, it wouldn't bring anyone back, but it might help us recognize how we were misled into an unnecessary war so that future generations might not have to go through the same waste of money and lives we are experiencing today.
I'm still waiting for this evidence. The official story does not provide a reasonable explanation. There are too many holes and inconsistencies to be accepted as truth. Even if I accept that everything man does is imperfect, it's tough to believe they did the best job they could at telling the truth when 9-11 commissioners and senators and and many, many more state that 9-11 commission report is a cover-up and/or a lie.
What a joke. You say you're a science guy, and that you simply "presented hypotheses," but what you're presenting is clearly pseudo-science, since you're obviously operating under the assumption that there's this grand cover-up, and that the blatantly obvious, simply cannot be. Wasting your time trying to disprove reality is not science pal. Science involves DATA.
Science is methodical, principled and controlled. You don't just use the shotgun approach to try and pick holes witness testimony, or act like you're a demolitions or metals expert only to have your ass handed to you by people with only a passing knowledge on the subject (which HAS happened to you here). Scientists actually know WTF they're talking about, or they learn that they don't quickly...and you've exhibited neither characteristic.
You don't just get to present completely unfounded hypotheses and expect people to take you seriously... there's this issue of credibility. Maybe the highly credible Charlie Sheen will lend you some of his.
Last edited:
Nor should you present ridiculous statements such as "the hijackers weren't on the manifest" as fact when, in fact, they were on the manifests...only manipulative parsing of the fact that the hijackers didn't appear in a media-presented list of victims makes it seem to the gerbil-brained that they were not.
You're clearly incapable of even filtering information, much less analyzing it.
Like Burly said, despite the occasional reasonable-sounding apology (meant in the Greek sense), you just dig into a giant pile of Internet ****, sling it against the wall, and hope something sticks.
You're more of a wannabe alchemist than any kind of scientist, my man. You KNOW you can turn lead into gold...it's just a matter of HOW, dammit! HOW??!
You're clearly incapable of even filtering information, much less analyzing it.
Like Burly said, despite the occasional reasonable-sounding apology (meant in the Greek sense), you just dig into a giant pile of Internet ****, sling it against the wall, and hope something sticks.
You're more of a wannabe alchemist than any kind of scientist, my man. You KNOW you can turn lead into gold...it's just a matter of HOW, dammit! HOW??!
As a chemist, I appreciate your proper understanding of that term.
And as someone who doesn't live with my head in place where I am in constant sight of my current prostate condition, I appreciate laughing at RR's attempt to sound well versed in things he's not so well versed in.
This whole thing should not be personal, so please don't take this statement as such.
A hypothesis is no more than a theory. It is not a conclusion. To reach a conclusion requires an experiment. It requires a test and a control. I have never presented conclusions. All I have said is that there are things that should be tested. That there are things that the official story doesn't appear to explain.
This is where your complete lack of understanding of scientific methodology shows.
A hypothesis is no more than a theory. It is not a conclusion. To reach a conclusion requires an experiment. It requires a test and a control. I have never presented conclusions. All I have said is that there are things that should be tested. That there are things that the official story doesn't appear to explain.
fixed it for ya.
Credibility has nothing to do with it. Scientific conclusions are based on repeatable observations and it doesn't matter who does the testing. Something becomes scientific fact when ANYONE can repeat the test and get the same results. It does not matter who they are.
And I believe you capably countered this statement. I accept your position. It does make sense that the perps would not be listed as victims. If I were to bring up this issue again (and I will not), please feel free to state that this has already been disproven.
I do lots of reading on this topic and I know not everything is true. I appreciate your common sense and factual corrections. It helps me better understand what happened.
Wanna hear something really crazy? This is possible. All any element is made from is protons, neutrons, and electrons. Get the right number of each to bond together and you can create any element you want. It's that dammned how part that is so tricky.
Buddy, you've got a lot to learn before you tell me I dont understand scientific methodology... I mean "a hypothesis is no more than a theory" is about the most retarded statement I've ever heard. Honestly, you couldn't've demonstrated a lack of knowing WTF you're talking about any way better than by actually typing that.
hypothesis
Rick, a "hypothesis" is really nothing more than an educated guess. It is not equivalent to a theory. In your case, we're really talking about pure "conjecture" rather than hypothesis because (a) you aren't educated enough to speak from a position of authority on these matters (at least that Ive seen) and (b) you present this stuff under an illogical, premature assumption rather than as an objective observer.
And the credibility issue comes in when you, in the past, have presented information in such manner as to appear an expert, only to quickly be discredited. You steadfastly defend whatever BS you put forward until you're utterly humiliated, and then say "Im learning." Then you pick another topic on the perifery of this whole disaster and start the same thing over again.
And the credibility issue comes in when you, in the past, have presented information in such manner as to appear an expert, only to quickly be discredited. You steadfastly defend whatever BS you put forward until you're utterly humiliated, and then say "Im learning." Then you pick another topic on the perifery of this whole disaster and start the same thing over again.
Last edited:
Edit: Sorry for the insult.
You should actually follow that link though, and learn a little about the scientific method.
Last edited:
Evolution is a theory. The big bang is a theory. They are not facts. A hypothesis really is equivalent to a theory. Hypotheses must be tested and only when repeatable results are obtained do they become accepted as fact.
I don't recall ever claiming to be an expert.
My personal value is not tied into my understanding of the matter. When I learn that something I believed is incorrect, I am in no way humiliated. I do learn from it. I become better and stronger as a result.
On 9/11 3 buildings collapsed but only 2 were hit by planes. That is unusual. When looking at this event in the context of the fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before or since, one must ask, why is what happened on this day not repeatable? What is different about this situation that caused these unrepeatable results?
What I do know is that I don't know why. I've yet to hear an acceptable explanation, and the people in charge of providing the explanation we are supposed to believe have stated themselves that it is incorrect. As such, it seems crazy to me to accept this as fact.
I also know that asking people who also don't know is a pretty poor way to find the answers. Maybe if I were smarter I would stop doing it, but all I really want is to encourage others to take a look at the evidence for themselves, but since the people I encourage are not scientists and maybe even have their own reasons to not do so, I guess that is a pretty dumb idea too.
While the two are very similar, they are most definitely NOT equivalent.
A hypothesis is an educated guess about the outcome of something that can be tested. It is speculation as what the outcome will be of a certain event or series of events with a certain set of parameters.
A theory is fundamentally a conclusion reached by compiling observations, test results, and other known facts. Its kinda like a conclusion, but it is a compilation of facts and evidence from a large number of tests and observations.
Again you attempt to argue authoritatively when you couldn't be more incorrect. Follow your own link and learn something, Im done correcting you.
It's funny how as a "science guy" you have a complete misunderstanding of the most basic tenets of the scientific method. You should actually be embarrassed right now.
Uh, RR, did you take ANY science classes in college that talked about scientific theory?
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
I think your article does a great job of explaining it:
So please don't claim I have presented my questions as facts.
Nobody said a theory was a fact ass eyes.
We said a hypothesis is NOT EQUIVALENT to a theory. Quit moving the goalposts.
We said a hypothesis is NOT EQUIVALENT to a theory. Quit moving the goalposts.
Are you missing the last line of the piece?
Theory does NOT equal Hypothesis. You've listed hypotheses and claimed it's as good as scientific theory, and it's not.
No. I did not miss that. Did you miss this?
My personal discipline is none. I am not a scientist. I am not a science major. I am a layperson. By saying I am a sciencey kind of guy I mean that I believe in scientific methodologies.
My point of all of this is that a hypothesis and a theory are similar in that they not a facts. Perhaps the official definition of the two terms is a bit more stringent, but in either case, they are no more than unproven ideas.
You're serious. This is the funny part. How many other skyscrapers have been rammed by jet aircraft?? Repeatable?!
gwb would be proud in his ability...
Does it have to be a jet?
The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building
Plane Crash Kills 115 In Iran
Rick, you might what to reread what I stated...
Fundamentally the same as a conclusion... in that they are both reached in nearly identical ways: by thorough analysis of scientific data, whether it is test results or observations.
Generally, theories concern top level subjects - like evolution and the big bang, both of which you mentioned. Whereas a hypothesis concerns events on a smaller scale - in regards to one particular event, reaction, or circumstance.
The other example you posted, in regarding a "theory" as to who broke in to the school, is a perfect example... of how the term is misused.
Also, seeing as how I am someone who works in the field of science, and you admittedly are not, I think that makes me more of an authority on this subject than you. Not trying to come off as cocky, but more than half my job involves testing things in a controlled environment subject to the scientific method, to prove whether or not they perform acceptably.
Last edited:
Here are some other things that also aren't facts:
Lies
Conjecture
Hallucinations
But I guess they're similar to heavily-tested theories too, in that they're also not facts.
Again, you're not kidding. That's why it's so sad, but so, so funny.
The jets hitting the WTC had approximately 100 times the kinetic energy of a B-25. To put it in other term the B-25 hitting the Empire state building was like a motorcycle hitting your house at 40 MPH compared to a Ford Explorer hitting your house at 80 MPH.
That's just a theory.
Last edited: