View Single Post
Old 2nd January 2006, 07:35 PM   #351
CurtC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Like I said already, if a theory doesn't possess the possibility that it could be false than it is not scientific, I really don't know how to explain it any other way.
Is that what you've been harping about? You think the prevailing theory of the 9/11 events is not falsifiable? You're flat wrong. Find evidence of explosives in the WTC. Find a picture of a missile, or anything other than a 757, hitting the Pentagon. There are literally thousands of ways to falsify it. Unfortunately for you and other CTs, nothing like that has ever shown up.
In the case of 9/11 there was an official story before all of the evidence could have been gathered
Well, duh! There was lots of evidence on the first day pointing to what happened. Should everyone wait quietly in suspense, like a jury, while they're waiting for all the WTC wreckage to be cleared?
Listen, a theory isn't true or false.
After it's falsified, a theory is false. For example, Lamarckian evelutionary theory is false.
You as a skeptic should investigate my claim of a lack of deduction on your own if you wish to debunk it.
Maybe I could if I understood what you're saying.
If I were to say anything, you in your bumbling skepticism using rationalization would just attempt to debunk each circumstance instead of looking at the greater picture that is painted by all the circumstantial evidence...
What circumstantial evidence? Every bit of hearsay indicating a conspiracy that I've seen has been, uh, unreliable, to be polite. Are you saying that we should overlook the fact that all that hearsay and conjecture is unreliable, but instead look at the overall picture that this unreliable evidence points to? Is that your point of all this?
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top