|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2006 : 12:35:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Ghost. We know the vertical members DID snap--most into 30' sections. My question is HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? The attachments are much less strong than the box columns. If they were sheared off the box columns they could not transfer energy to the box columns after the shear. We'd be left with a pile of rubble on the ground and 287 very long beams. But we weren't. We had lots of steel beams but it was in 30' long sections.
There is a good reason for the 30' sections if you look at the construction of the building.
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
But is that the only reason? Ask any construction worker or building contractor where the strongest point on a welded beam is. They'll tell you it's the weld point.
The length of the beams was noted when they were being loaded on trucks and hurried away before forensic analysis could be done on them. But I guess it's just another coincidence that evidence was removed from a crime scene before it was analyzed...
True, the weld is a strong point, but they where not welded together, they where bolted. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 12:36:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm asking you to prove it would have been impossible to do so without being caught.
And how would someone prove something is impossible? You don't see it, do you...
Why don't you prove it is possible without being caught? After all, you are the one proposing the explosives "theory"...
And by "prove", I mean provide real evidence, not conjecture... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/06/2006 12:37:26 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 12:39:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
I'm asking you to prove it would have been impossible to do so without being caught.
And how would someone prove something is impossible? You don't see it, do you...
Why don't you prove it is possible without being caught? After all, you are the one proposing the explosives "theory"...
If you said you wanted to travel from LA to NYC in 1 second, I could prove that it is impossible to do via the laws of physics. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 12:45:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you said you wanted to travel from LA to NYC in 1 second, I could prove that it is impossible to do via the laws of physics.
But the burden of proof isn't on you in that case. There's no good reason why you should have to prove it's impossible. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that there were explosives in the tower, so it's up to you to provide evidence that they could have been planted there and the work hushed up. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to do your homework for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 13:05:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you said you wanted to travel from LA to NYC in 1 second, I could prove that it is impossible to do via the laws of physics.
But the burden of proof isn't on you in that case. There's no good reason why you should have to prove it's impossible. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that there were explosives in the tower, so it's up to you to provide evidence that they could have been planted there and the work hushed up. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to do your homework for you.
Right--and what's his face was the one who made the claim that it would be impossible to plant the explosives. That's why I asked him to prove it... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 13:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Ghost. We know the vertical members DID snap--most into 30' sections. My question is HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? The attachments are much less strong than the box columns. If they were sheared off the box columns they could not transfer energy to the box columns after the shear. We'd be left with a pile of rubble on the ground and 287 very long beams. But we weren't. We had lots of steel beams but it was in 30' long sections.
There is a good reason for the 30' sections if you look at the construction of the building.
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
But is that the only reason? Ask any construction worker or building contractor where the strongest point on a welded beam is. They'll tell you it's the weld point.
The length of the beams was noted when they were being loaded on trucks and hurried away before forensic analysis could be done on them. But I guess it's just another coincidence that evidence was removed from a crime scene before it was analyzed...
True, the weld is a strong point, but they where not welded together, they where bolted.
How many bolts and in what pattern? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 13:09:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Ghost. We know the vertical members DID snap--most into 30' sections. My question is HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? The attachments are much less strong than the box columns. If they were sheared off the box columns they could not transfer energy to the box columns after the shear. We'd be left with a pile of rubble on the ground and 287 very long beams. But we weren't. We had lots of steel beams but it was in 30' long sections.
There is a good reason for the 30' sections if you look at the construction of the building.
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
But is that the only reason? Ask any construction worker or building contractor where the strongest point on a welded beam is. They'll tell you it's the weld point.
The length of the beams was noted when they were being loaded on trucks and hurried away before forensic analysis could be done on them. But I guess it's just another coincidence that evidence was removed from a crime scene before it was analyzed...
True, the weld is a strong point, but they where not welded together, they where bolted.
How many bolts and in what pattern?
Check the links from the link. I think their where 4 in a square pattern. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 13:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Ghost. We know the vertical members DID snap--most into 30' sections. My question is HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? The attachments are much less strong than the box columns. If they were sheared off the box columns they could not transfer energy to the box columns after the shear. We'd be left with a pile of rubble on the ground and 287 very long beams. But we weren't. We had lots of steel beams but it was in 30' long sections.
There is a good reason for the 30' sections if you look at the construction of the building.
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
But is that the only reason? Ask any construction worker or building contractor where the strongest point on a welded beam is. They'll tell you it's the weld point.
The length of the beams was noted when they were being loaded on trucks and hurried away before forensic analysis could be done on them. But I guess it's just another coincidence that evidence was removed from a crime scene before it was analyzed...
True, the weld is a strong point, but they where not welded together, they where bolted.
How many bolts and in what pattern?
Check the links from the link. I think their where 4 in a square pattern.
What's the tensile strength of the bolts? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:10:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Right--and what's his face was the one who made the claim that it would be impossible to plant the explosives. That's why I asked him to prove it...
That was only in response to your claim, ergo. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence supporting the idea that explosives brought the towers down, and you refuse to provide any. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:21:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Right--and what's his face was the one who made the claim that it would be impossible to plant the explosives. That's why I asked him to prove it...
That was only in response to your claim, ergo. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence supporting the idea that explosives brought the towers down, and you refuse to provide any.
So. I made a claim and he made a claim. It doesn't matter if his was a response to mine--a claim is a claim. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:31:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What's the tensile strength of the bolts?
What does it matter? Your implied claim that the columns were spliced together with welds is incorrect. But according to the NIST report, most of the bolts were (ASTM) A325. The ones splicing "the heaviest butt plates" were (ASTM) A490. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:34:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So. I made a claim and he made a claim. It doesn't matter if his was a response to mine--a claim is a claim.
You have yet to provide any evidence by which the truth value of your claim might be determined. You claim to be searching for the truth. Your asking for evidence supporting other claims is therefore simply a distraction away from your own claims. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:36:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So. I made a claim and he made a claim. It doesn't matter if his was a response to mine--a claim is a claim.
You have yet to provide any evidence by which the truth value of your claim might be determined. You claim to be searching for the truth. Your asking for evidence supporting other claims is therefore simply a distraction away from your own claims.
That's okay, I don't mind. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:42:41 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
So, you are saying that the possibility that gravity alone brought the towers down (given the damage...) is proof that explosives were not used? What kind of logic is that?
That is your own illogic, as no one has suggested any such thing. Is there some reason that you lie so much? Its starting to seem pathological.
As has already been said, you are the one making the positive claim, therefore the burden of proof rests with you. Neither I, nor anyone else, is under any obligation to "prove" your imbecilic fantasy wrong.
Never the less, the "proof" that no explosives were used is easily seen when you examine the concept of controlled demolition.
As I have repeatedly stated:
1. There is no non-obvious way you could expose the support beams to set the charges. Thousands of people worked in those buildings, and you would need to expose the supports in, literally, thousands of places in each building across most of the floors, just to set the charges.
2. The ammount of material (explosives, wiring, etc) needed to drop one of those buildings would be measured in tons. There is no non-obvious way you could transport literal tons of material, obviously used for explosives detonation, into those buildings.
3. It would require a crew of hundreds of people, most with very specific skill sets, to prep the support beams, plant the charges, and run the wiring. How do you find a crew that is willing to kill Americans, has the right set of skills for this, and would remain silent afterwards?
So, before you can even reasonably put forth your "controlled demolitions theory" you need to account for those three things at a minimum. When you have accounted for them, THEN you need to provide some actual evidence that controlled demolition was actually used.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:52:56 [Permalink]
|
To put it another way, what reason do we have for assuming explosives were used?
If there isn't any reason to suspect it, we don't.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
