Results 21 to 30 of 47
-
03-05-2007, 02:51 AM #21Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
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
-
03-05-2007, 03:19 AM #22Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
Originally Posted by harris7
-
03-05-2007, 04:29 AM #23Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
LoL the "I was there" excuse.....................I think we just have to PULL IT
-
03-05-2007, 06:15 AM #24Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
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?ť
-??? 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?ť
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?ť
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?ť 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?ť
?
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
-
03-05-2007, 06:40 AM #25Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
Originally Posted by harris7
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:
-
03-05-2007, 07:08 PM #26Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
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?ť 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
-
03-05-2007, 07:30 PM #27Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
Originally Posted by harris7
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.
-
03-05-2007, 08:03 PM #28Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
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.
-
03-05-2007, 08:05 PM #29Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
oh, stop avoiding my comments. please rebut them
-
03-06-2007, 05:18 PM #30Senior Member
BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week
Silence…
Defeat?
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
Calgary: SOAP 2005 and GMM 2006 You Tube Video
By KanMan in forum ActivismReplies: 1Last Post: 03-19-2007, 01:34 AM -
BBC Reports Building 7 Collapse BEFORE IT COLLAPSES! VIDEO!
By pisshead in forum ConspiracyReplies: 11Last Post: 03-05-2007, 08:22 PM -
You Tube Funny Video Thread
By Dro_Princess in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 6Last Post: 10-18-2006, 08:13 PM -
Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out" VIDEO
By pisshead in forum PoliticsReplies: 8Last Post: 05-23-2006, 01:44 PM