Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[anhailla]

Originally Posted by 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

nah..I think he knows that...

[Denie]

This is funny. I ask for real science to support a CD theory and I get the Moderator demanding that I post evidence of a theory that I know nothing of...even after I state that I have no familiarity with said theory!!

I'm told there is plenty of evidence that meets the criteria for a scientific theory yet none is brought forth. In fact, I'm told this readily available data will only be brought forth once I supply evidence to support a theory I've never even read.

This leads me to believe that the "evidence" to support a CD theory is no more than disagreements with the "official story". ( I base this on the fact that I am repeatedly told to provide evidence in support of the official story)

I'll give it another day before we declare the topic of this thread DOA.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

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

What planet do you live on? If you watched the events as they unfolded on 11 September 2001 then you saw the Offical Story unspool. And there was little that was scientific about it. Why is science required to disprove it?

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

What planet do you live on? If you watched the events as they unfolded on 11 September 2001 then you saw the Offical Story unspool. And there was little that was scientific about it. Why is science required to disprove it?

I'm going to go out on a limb a guess that the official story has more elements to it than video tape of jets hitting the WTC.

Again, why is it required that I prove or disprove the official story in order to ask for scientific evidence supporting the CD claim?

What planet do you live on that emphatically states that in order to ask for evidence of one theory a person must first provide evidence of a different theory?

Let me try to make this clear once again!!

This thread is for SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN SUPPORT OF CONTROLLED DEMO.
This is not the "What about the official story" thread. If you can't seem to provide any real science in support of this theory then don't post repeated spamming in order to derail or hijack the thread. Start your own thread asking for evidence to support the official story.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

Let me try to make this clear once again!!

This thread is for SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN SUPPORT OF CONTROLLED DEMO.
This is not the "What about the official story" thread. If you can't seem to provide any real science in support of this theory then don't post repeated spamming in order to derail or hijack the thread. Start your own thread asking for evidence to support the official story.

And if we don't supply scientific evidence it proves that you (who don't have to prove anything) are right?

PS you are the first person ever to brand me as a spammer.

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by Denie

I'm going to go out on a limb a guess that the official story has more elements to it than video tape of jets hitting the WTC.

Again, why is it required that I prove or disprove the official story in order to ask for scientific evidence supporting the CD claim?

What planet do you live on that emphatically states that in order to ask for evidence of one theory a person must first provide evidence of a different theory?

Let me try to make this clear once again!!

This thread is for SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN SUPPORT OF CONTROLLED DEMO.
This is not the "What about the official story" thread. If you can't seem to provide any real science in support of this theory then don't post repeated spamming in order to derail or hijack the thread. Start your own thread asking for evidence to support the official story.

What about the explosive squibs? Lets start there.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

And if we don't supply scientific evidence it proves that you (who don't have to prove anything) are right?

PS you are the first person ever to brand me as a spammer.

Proves I'm right about what? Have I made a claim in any way by asking for evidence to support a CD theory?

What do I call those that repeatedly post off topic in a thread which from the start makes it very clear as to what is to be posted?

The only thing not posting scientific evidence proves is either;
1. You have none to post, or
2. You refuse to post it.

And to clear up one more thing. No, I do not have to prove anything in order to ask for scientific evidence about CD theory. Those making claim to a theory must provide this. This is how science works.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

What about the explosive squibs? Lets start there.

You're funny!!
Let's all thank Brian here for intentionally providing a prime example of what scientific evidence is not

Thanks, Brian!!!

[brian_wilbanks]

The one I'm really interested in is why the twin towers should have fallen over like trees.

Even though they aren't built anything like a tree.

[brian_wilbanks]

I'd also like to talk a little bit about weight and transfer of momentum as well.

A structure designed to withstand a static load is suddenly subjected to a dynamic force that was much greater than the weight of the entire structure.

Center of gravity is something that comes into play when talking about how the towers should have fallen. It's like tipping over a bottle of wine. A wine bottle will not fall over unless you tilt it past it's center of gravity. It will just "right itself" Now I know a wine bottle is not a the WTC, but the center of gravity holds steady for ANY structure.

But alas...I have to go to work...I'll come back later with some more scienctific flapdoodle.