Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

The other side claims that two hijacked airliners hit the two tallest office buildings in the world and brought them down like a stack of cards and you say you need no evidence to prove that scenario. Some of us find that very hard to believe. What convinced you that there was nothing untoward about it? Scientific or otherwise.

That's fine, great. Now, what has this to do with providing evidence as outlined to support the CD theory?

Please people. This thread is not for discussing any other theory but CD theory. There are many threads already doing that and there's no need for it here unless your only intent is to hijack the thead.

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by Denie

That's fine, great. Now, what has this to do with providing evidence as outlined to support the CD theory?

Please people. This thread is not for discussing any other theory but CD theory. There are many threads already doing that and there's no need for it here unless your only intent is to hijack the thead.

It's fucked when you cant have an intellgent discussion without being spammed by one of the board moderators.

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by Denie

Yes you are spamming. Do you not understand the title of the thread? This is not a thread about the official story and please stop trying to hijack it into that.

Hmm...I've never read the "official" story so how is it "obvious" I believe it?

Again, where in science is it required to provide evidence of one theory in order to ask for evidence of another? If you don't like this thread then don't reply or start your own. What's so hard about staying on topic?

I understand it completely. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, tho.

You want scientific theory regarding CD - you've posted this in the 9/1 thread. Therefore, you're talking about the Twin Towers. Am I right thus far?

I'm also not trying to hijack it...but if you're looking for science by the way of the Twin Towers' demolitions, it is axiomatic that the official story of how they fell, i.e., FEMA, NIST, Silverstein-Weidlinger, Popular Mechanics - take your pick - would be used as your argument against that scientific theory of CD.

Why don't you apply your own rules to yourself? And BTW, if you haven't already noticed, there are a plethora of threads in this very topic regarding 9/11, theory, scientific data, etc., on CD.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

I understand it completely. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, tho.

You want scientific theory regarding CD - you've posted this in the 9/1 thread. Therefore, you're talking about the Twin Towers. Am I right thus far?

I'm also not trying to hijack it...but if you're looking for science by the way of the Twin Towers' demolitions, it is axiomatic that the official story of how they fell, i.e., FEMA, NIST, Silverstein-Weidlinger, Popular Mechanics - take your pick - would be used as your argument against that scientific theory of CD.

Why don't you apply your own rules to yourself? And BTW, if you haven't already noticed, there are a plethora of threads in this very topic regarding 9/11, theory, scientific data, etc., on CD.

So again you only provide spam. Again you refuse to respond to the topic.

Yes, I see the plethra of other threads. Is there one that is specifically asking for data on one subject only? What seems to be so hard in focusing on the title of the thread?

Now, please either post your data that you claim to be readily available or quit trying to hijack the thread!! You've done nothing but complain about topic of the thread and demand the subject be changed to the "offical story" evidence.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

It's fucked when you cant have an intellgent discussion without being spammed by one of the board moderators.

I can't believe this!! I want a simple thing and keep getting..but...but...but...the official story!!

I have no idea what the offical story is, never claimed it to be right, wrong or anything, yet I'm now required to provide evidence to support it if I'm to ask for evidence in support of another theory!!

Makes me wonder if those that have replied ever took a science class at all!!!

[MarkMiller]

Originally Posted by sunflower

I'm not spamming anything. It's pretty obvious that you believe the official story. So, post your own "empirical evidence" to support your own convictions. We will certainly come back with our own. That's guaranteed.

Can't do it?

How about all the video footage of Jet Airliners slamming into the buildings. People that don't think that was enough to bring down those towers should be offering all the evidence they have.....if they even have any. No, you are spamming this thread. It was explained very clearly what this thread was about. But don't worry, going off topic is expected and means nothing. If it did, the Sanctimonious thread would have been shut down immediately when things went astray.

[MarkMiller]

Originally Posted by Denie

I can't believe this!! I want a simple thing and keep getting..but...but...but...the official story!!

I have no idea what the offical story is, never claimed it to be right, wrong or anything, yet I'm now required to provide evidence to support it if I'm to ask for evidence in support of another theory!!

Makes me wonder if those that have replied ever took a science class at all!!!

It's not our board. It's the truther's board. We are just here till they get sick of us I guess.

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by Denie

I can't believe this!! I want a simple thing and keep getting..but...but...but...the official story!!

I have no idea what the offical story is, never claimed it to be right, wrong or anything, yet I'm now required to provide evidence to support it if I'm to ask for evidence in support of another theory!!

Makes me wonder if those that have replied ever took a science class at all!!!

The official story is any explanation other than "inside Job"

If you dont think they staged the whole thing in some aspect or another, you believe the official story.

They're totally OK with the nuts in their camp as long as they say it was an inside job. No matter if they think it was space beams or an optical illusion.

Anything else is the official story.

[anhailla]

Originally Posted by Denie

Please, empirical scientific data only. Not cut and paste (believe me, we've all seen it over and over) credulous theories about explosives, thermite, etc. from the many CT sites out there. There are many other threads here where you can post these types of things

And for those out there confused as to what a scientific theory and empirical evidence is, here are definitions of what criteria is required.

Logical Criteria

A scientific theory must be:
1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor")
2. logically consistent
3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
3. involve reproducible results
4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

Sociological Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies irresolvable on the basis of preexisting theories
2. pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work
3. suggest a "paradigm" or problem solving model to help resolve these new problems
4. provide definitions of concepts or operations which will help other scientists solve problems.

Historical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual
2. be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed)
3. be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.

Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are:

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Please, this thread is for "scientific theories" (as discribed above) not "theories" as there is a very large difference in the two. Please also remember any evidence you bring forth needs to follow empirical law.

Thank You.

[slowhand]

Denie..This probably isnt news to you..but these truthers dont understand that you need to search for logical, scientific, and physical evidence to conduct a proper investigation..They cant even answer the simple questions