Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you've once again proven how thick you really are!
oh my. lots of physics in that... blog...lol
Cause and Effect We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship...
no BUT THE DEBRIS FROM THE TOWERS DID...AND THEY WERE.......CAUSE AND EFFECTCause and Effect We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship...
no plane hit wtc 7...in a murder investigation an investigator would not say...someone hit the person hours ago...so that is the conclusive cause of death
no BUT THE DEBRIS FROM THE TOWERS DID...AND THEY WERE.......CAUSE AND EFFECTCause and Effect We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship...
no plane hit wtc 7...in a murder investigation an investigator would not say...someone hit the person hours ago...so that is the conclusive cause of death
AND NO AGAIN An inspector would say what was the cause of death...and then search for what hit that person...say a car hit the building the person was standing in and impacted the building with enough force to impale the person on their kitchen faucet. the car not the building is the cause of death
just as the planes hitting the twin towers were the ultimate cause of wtc7 collapse.
(cue buzzer)THANKS FOR PLAYING.
yea and?no but the debris from the towers did...and they were.......cause and effectno plane hit wtc 7...in a murder investigation an investigator would not say...someone hit the person hours ago...so that is the conclusive cause of death
and no again an inspector would say what was the cause of death...and then search for what hit that person...say a car hit the building the person was standing in and impacted the building with enough force to impale the person on their kitchen faucet. The car not the building is the cause of death
just as the planes hitting the twin towers were the ultimate cause of wtc7 collapse.
(cue buzzer)thanks for playing.
but nist determined damage from debris was not a significat factor in the collapse
THEY SUCK what's your point?
no BUT THE DEBRIS FROM THE TOWERS DID...AND THEY WERE.......CAUSE AND EFFECTno plane hit wtc 7...in a murder investigation an investigator would not say...someone hit the person hours ago...so that is the conclusive cause of death
AND NO AGAIN An inspector would say what was the cause of death...and then search for what hit that person...say a car hit the building the person was standing in and impacted the building with enough force to impale the person on their kitchen faucet. the car not the building is the cause of death
just as the planes hitting the twin towers were the ultimate cause of wtc7 collapse.
(cue buzzer)THANKS FOR PLAYING.
but NIST determined damage from debris was not a significat factor in the collapse
all theories start with an assumtion, the difference is your has no basis in fact.
The Role of Assumptions in Scientific Investigation
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
Support Us Events Blogs Subscriptions Audio/Video Media Site
oh my. lots of physics in that... blog...lol