BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week

[harris7]

Here is a pretty good video, Don’t assume that I base my opinion on this as I don’t. I acutely only found it a few weeks ago.

I ask that you try not to automatically dismiss what is said, please think about it.

Why did WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapse?: Were there explosives planted? - Google Video

[Breukelen advocaat]

Unfortunately I am not a New Yorker so I donâ??t really understand why youâ??ve placed their opinion on such a high pedestal.

It's not a "pedestal" - thousands died, many thousands more were severly injured and/or traumatized, and the whole area was like a DMZ zone for a year.

Most importantly I will note that I do not form my beliefs based on how many people share them.
Do you know how many new Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the fall of the towers?

No, I don't know how many New Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the towers. Do you?
Most people think Muslim terrorists did it. Even most Muslims agree with this.

I am also not an architect but lucky for me I have a high level education in physics and chemistry and can understand very high level scientific discussions. Maybe this is the reason the problems with the official story are so obvious, maybe not.

Many architects and engineers, professionals and educators from MIT to Columbia University and more, have issued various theories on it, and certainly can, at the very least, "understand very high level scientific discussions"

As well I do not primarily bring my concerns with the official story to the twin towers. I donâ??t believe that I am in the position to discredit what has been put forth.

I primarily am interested and am informed on the pentagon crashes and tower 7 because they have the most obviously flawed stories. Obvious to anyone willing to look.

There wasn't much left to look at.

I have personally done the calculations proving the official story wrong in a few areas, if your interested I could share. I suspect you are not.

I'd appreciate it - but cannot guarantee that I'd understand it.


It is humorous that your argument seems mainly to be based on the fact that you havenâ??t seen new Yorkers on a Cannabis message board. As if the opinions of these people dictate truth, or that these people are some how more critical and educated than the rest of the world. Cute

If the twin towers were destroyed by the planes, but somebody had enough prior knowledge of it to put explosives in Building 7, people would be very interested - especially then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Pataki, the FBI, the District Attorney of NYC, and many other people. The only explanation that the conspiracy people seem to come up with is that they are all part of the "plot". I do not think so. I also repeat my assertion that very few New Yorkers believe that the government was responsible for 9/11 - and that is the crux of the statement, not now many of them post their opinion, one way or the other, on Cannabis.com.

[eg420ne]

LoL the "I was there" excuse.....................I think we just have to PULL IT

[harris7]

â??It's not a "pedestal" - thousands died, many thousands more were severly injured and/or traumatized, and the whole area was like a DMZ zone for a year.â?�

-??? And that makes their opinion the dictator of fact? If every new Yorker believe the world was flat it wouldnâ??t make it flat. Do you understand what Iâ??m saying?

â??No, I don't know how many New Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the towers. Do you?â?�

actually a lot their belief is based on the protocols of Zion, theres acctualy a movie about it. All Iâ??m saying is that new Yorkers believe many things, it doesnâ??t matter.

â??Many architects and engineers, professionals and educators from MIT to Columbia University and more, have issued various theories on it, and certainly can, at the very least, "understand very high level scientific discussions"â?�

yes? thus their discussions on the topic are at a high level. A level most people cannot understand well. Luckily I have the education and can understand it and personally interpret it and their arguments. You on the other hand (as said) are educated on the subject and will have a lower comprehension level if you bothered to read their articles. Because of this you accept the â??expertsâ?� opinion because you donâ??t understand enough of it to even look for errors (not an insult, 90% of people arenâ??t educated to this level in this highly specific direction).

â??There wasn't much left to look at.â?�

?

The only explanation that the conspiracy people seem to come up with is that they are all part of the "plot". I do not think so. .

So, you group all conspiracy theorists together then assume we all have the same beliefs for the same reasons. easier that confronting what I say?

[Breukelen advocaat]

â??It's not a "pedestal" - thousands died, many thousands more were severly injured and/or traumatized, and the whole area was like a DMZ zone for a year.â?�
-??? And that makes their opinion the dictator of fact? If every new Yorker believe the world was flat it wouldnâ??t make it flat. Do you understand what Iâ??m saying?
â??No, I don't know how many New Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the towers. Do you?â?�
actually a lot their belief is based on the protocols of Zion, theres acctualy a movie about it. All Iâ??m saying is that new Yorkers believe many things, it doesnâ??t matter.
â??Many architects and engineers, professionals and educators from MIT to Columbia University and more, have issued various theories on it, and certainly can, at the very least, "understand very high level scientific discussions"â?�

yes? thus their discussions on the topic are at a high level. A level most people cannot understand well. Luckily I have the education and can understand it and personally interpret it and their arguments. You on the other hand (as said) are educated on the subject and will have a lower comprehension level if you bothered to read their articles. Because of this you accept the â??expertsâ?� opinion because you donâ??t understand enough of it to even look for errors (not an insult, 90% of people arenâ??t educated to this level in this highly specific direction).

â??There wasn't much left to look at.â?�
?
So, you group all conspiracy theorists together then assume we all have the same beliefs for the same reasons. easier that confronting what I say?

You have not provided one original thought to this topic - you claim to have extraordinary knowledge of this subject, but you have yet to show anything that demonstrates it. Is this because nobody here is qualified to understand your reasoning? I don't even know what to "confront" about what you say. The parts you wrote about building Seven are not new.

The part about the Jews isn't clear, either. If you've got something to say, why not just say it?

I think it's becoming very clear what we're dealing with here. Stay tuned. :thumbsup:

[harris7]

You have not provided one original thought to this topic - you claim to have extraordinary knowledge of this subject, but you have yet to show anything that demonstrates it. Is this because nobody here is qualified to understand your reasoning? I don't even know what to "confront" about what you say. The parts you wrote about building Seven are not new.

The part about the Jews isn't clear, either. If you've got something to say, why not just say it?

I think it's becoming very clear what we're dealing with here. Stay tuned. :thumbsup:

oh i have nothing to say about the jew causing it. i said that because a significant number of new Yorkers believe the jews planned it. They are wrong.

The reason i said that is because you keep citing the opinions of new yorkers to be of some value or significance when it is not.

It doesnâ??t matter if anyone in new york believes the government had involvement or not.

That is what Iâ??m saying.

I havenâ??t brought up any new information because we arenâ??t talking about the specific events. Would you like to talk about one of the specific events?

How about the pentagonâ?¦
The official story is that the plane hit the building and vaporized.
This is impossible

For several reasons
1) jet fuel doesnâ??t burn not enough
2) the amount of jet fuel in the plane did not contain enough energy to vaporize that much metal
3) if the plane vaporized the metal wouldnâ??t disappear. It would be a vapor while under the hot conditions then would precipitate out of the air once cooled. It would cool only a few feed away. Yet there are no â??puddlesâ?� of metal. Were did it go?
4) it is impossible for an uncontrolled fire to vaporize metal because it has too much surface area exposed to the cold air and couldnâ??t get hot enough

If you would like to have a civil conversation donâ??t change the topic, speak to the points I just mentioned

With love

[Breukelen advocaat]

oh i have nothing to say about the jew causing it. i said that because a significant number of new Yorkers believe the jews planned it. They are wrong.
Where did you come up with this idea? Is this documented, or hearsay?

The reason i said that is because you keep citing the opinions of new yorkers to be of some value or significance when it is not.
Why is your opinon any better than 20 million people in the Greater New York area, many of whom lived through it.

It doesnâ??t matter if anyone in new york believes the government had involvement or not.
That is what Iâ??m saying.

I havenâ??t brought up any new information because we arenâ??t talking about the specific events. Would you like to talk about one of the specific events?

How about the pentagonâ?¦
The official story is that the plane hit the building and vaporized.
This is impossible

For several reasons
1) jet fuel doesnâ??t burn not enough
2) the amount of jet fuel in the plane did not contain enough energy to vaporize that much metal
3) if the plane vaporized the metal wouldnâ??t disappear. It would be a vapor while under the hot conditions then would precipitate out of the air once cooled. It would cool only a few feed away. Yet there are no â??puddlesâ?� of metal. Were did it go?
4) it is impossible for an uncontrolled fire to vaporize metal because it has too much surface area exposed to the cold air and couldnâ??t get hot enough

If you would like to have a civil conversation donâ??t change the topic, speak to the points I just mentioned

With love

I didn't change the topic. I do not know anything much about the details of the Pentagon crash, but my instincts and intelligence do not sway me to believe that a rocket was used. You claim that the event, as it was claimed to have happened by the government, is "impossible"....which means that it is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific:

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit consideration of the possibility of its being false.

"Falsifiable" does not mean "false". For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow.

Any theory not falsifiable is said to be unscientific, but this does not mean it is necessarily nonsense or meaningless. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by followers of Popper as an example of an ideology rather than a science. A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his alcoholism might be viewed as confirming he is an alcoholic because he denies that he is. If he abstains from drinking liquor, the patient is showing how desperate he is to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate he is not an alcoholic. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is an alcoholic is not falsifiable. Definition of Falsifiability

I do not think that it is possible to have a meaningful discussion about this, because your mind is already made up. Good day.

[harris7]

I didn't change the topic. I do not know anything much about the details of the Pentagon crash, but my instincts and intelligence do not sway me to believe that a rocket was used. You claim that the event, as it was claimed to have happened by the government, is "impossible"....which means that it is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific:
.

you admit you no little of the crash... yet you have such a strong opinion.


i never said i believe a missile hit the building, i said the government story is impossible
Stop assuming I share the beliefs of others.


impossible dose not mean unfalsifiable, but i am glad you have heard of this concept

For something to be falsifiable it needs to make predictions.

IE, a descriptive theory, for example Freud, has no predictive value. After the event Freud can always explain why, but he can never predict.

A prediction can be proven wrong when it does not occur thus can be falsified.

The problem with this is that Popper, as your quote mentioned, can also explain any human even. Both of these theories explain events well the problem is that they cannot both be correct. Since neither make predictions, we cannot determine which one, or if both, are false.
This is the Value of Falsifiability, please don’t teach me first year critical thinking


The governments story makes predictions for example:
that you would find pools of molten metal around the hole.

Since this prediction was not observed the theory is false.

this is what Falsifiability is.

[harris7]

oh, stop avoiding my comments. please rebut them

[harris7]

Silence…

Defeat?