Skyscrapers on fire, not collapsing

[Mozart1220]

@Cisco

@Mozart1220

Tell you what…ask the question again, or please let it go.

Ok, here you go:

Have you studied much science? If you have, then you know that the debate over the line of demarcation (what is and isn’t science) raged in the early 20th century. When the dust finally cleared, one of the few things that everybody could agree on was that science is falsifiable. If it can’t be falsified, it is not science. That’s why Freud’s theories are no longer accepted as scientific; how could you prove he was wrong?

What can falsify your claims? What facts, observations, or data could be introduced to the argument that would invalidate your claims? And while we’re at it, why don’t you - clearly and concisely - state your claims.

Put up or shut up. Don’t ask us to keep playing Calvinball with you. Give us the rules to play by and we will more than gladly play.

So you are saying that if science is involved, it MUST be falsified, and thus you want me to prove myself wrong?

Wow. Go back to college and tell whatever professor that taught you that way of thinking that Fox news is hiring.

I have stated all the “claims” I’m going to make, other than if the governments story involves science, it could also be “falsified”.

Are you claiming that the government’s explaination is NOT based on science?

Wow.