|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2006 : 06:41:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you used it, you would see that I never asked anyone here to validate the cd theory.
Since you never asked anyone to validate it, then how is it that you know people are afraid of it?quote:
but there are several posts stating that the cd theory isn't even worth examination. That's closed minded.
Only if they haven't examined the claims elsewhere, before. Do you know that they have not?
Wrong
yes.
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 07:34:18 [Permalink]
|
| If someone examined them elsewhere they must have been perceived as worth examining. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 07:38:43 [Permalink]
|
| I can show you people who think bowel movements are worth examining as well. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:28:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I can show you people who think bowel movements are worth examining as well.
Good for you!! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:40:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
At least I'm examining a theory that seems obviously a sham. But I'm looking for actual support for the official conspiracy theory.
I'm examining a "theory" that seems obviously a sham: the controlled demolition hypothesis. I'm looking for actual support of it, but I haven't seen any reliable evidence yet.
quote:
As crazy as that theory seems to me, I want to give it an objective examination to be sure it's not what actually happened.
It's the same from my perspective. But so far, noone has produced convincing evidence.
quote:
You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.
You seem to be afraid to admit that the NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report might have a lot of truth in it.
It seems like everything written that has a connection to federal government is tainted, and cannot be trusted. I'm starting to believe that you are paranoid.
quote:
And is it that you don't like vigorously defended views in general, or is it only when the vigorously defended views are different from yours? That's really rich--a skeptics site that doesn't tolerate vigorously defended views...
We don't mind vigorously defended views, as long as they have good evidence.
Just your say-so is not good enough. You tried to vigorously defend your position, but you're only passing wind.
quote:
What part of "I wasn't comparing the two theories" do you not understand? All I was asking for was a list or link to the "independent experts" you refer to above.
When bringing forth two explanations, where at least one make claims that both are mutually exclusice, then you'll have race and the theory that has "the biggest evidence" win.
quote:
I wasn't looking for a validity test of my theory--I was looking for support of the official conspiracy theory. (I should program that line onto a function key.)
And I should program a function key to repeat what Dude has been repeating. The government report is not a "conspiracy theory". |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 10:03:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
At least I'm examining a theory that seems obviously a sham. But I'm looking for actual support for the official conspiracy theory.
quote:
I'm examining a "theory" that seems obviously a sham: the controlled demolition hypothesis. I'm looking for actual support of it, but I haven't seen any reliable evidence yet.
quote:
As crazy as that theory seems to me, I want to give it an objective examination to be sure it's not what actually happened.
It's the same from my perspective. But so far, noone has produced convincing evidence.
Well, it is possible that neither the official conspiracy theory nor the cd conspiracy theory are correct. It's not an either/or issue.
quote:
You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.
quote:
You seem to be afraid to admit that the NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report might have a lot of truth in it.
Why do yo say that? Just because I'm looking for independent validation of it? I think you are more emotionally attached to the official conspiracy theory than you admit to yourself...
quote:
It seems like everything written that has a connection to federal government is tainted, and cannot be trusted. I'm starting to believe that you are paranoid.
Hmmm. You haven't had much contact or experience with our federal government, have you...
quote:
And is it that you don't like vigorously defended views in general, or is it only when the vigorously defended views are different from yours? That's really rich--a skeptics site that doesn't tolerate vigorously defended views...
quote:
We don't mind vigorously defended views, as long as they have good evidence.
Just your say-so is not good enough. You tried to vigorously defend your position, but you're only passing wind.
Then why has no one who vigorously defends the NIST Report come up with any independent evidence to support it?
quote:
What part of "I wasn't comparing the two theories" do you not understand? All I was asking for was a list or link to the "independent experts" you refer to above.
quote:
When bringing forth two explanations, where at least one make claims that both are mutually exclusice, then you'll have race and the theory that has "the biggest evidence" win.
I've never said the two were mutually exclusive.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 11:40:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
When bringing forth two explanations, where at least one make claims that both are mutually exclusice, then you'll have race and the theory that has "the biggest evidence" win.
I've never said the two were mutually exclusive.
I thought the Ross-report said so.
And you made the claim that it was physically impossible for the towers to fall that quickly without demolition, citing the Ross report. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 12:57:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
When bringing forth two explanations, where at least one make claims that both are mutually exclusice, then you'll have race and the theory that has "the biggest evidence" win.
I've never said the two were mutually exclusive.
I thought the Ross-report said so.
And you made the claim that it was physically impossible for the towers to fall that quickly without demolition, citing the Ross report.
NIST has the towers taking longer to fall than the 9/11 Commission Report does. Maybe NIST did that to get the models to work...
And yes, Ross says that--but I'm not Ross. And Ross' paper assumes a collapse scenario outlined by Greening. Ross' paper shows that Greenings collapse scenario is impossible. NIST does not use Greening's collapse scenario. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 14:43:47 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
Why do yo say that? Just because I'm looking for independent validation of it? I think you are more emotionally attached to the official conspiracy theory than you admit to yourself...
Yet again your attempt to apply the negative connotation of "conspiracy theory" to the official description of the 9/11 events is rejected for the imbecilic straw-man it is. Yet again, it makes you seem stupid.
Your continued refusal to acknowledge the hundreds of independent, non-government sources and references listed in the NIST report is also noted. As with every other fact that you can't dismiss out of hand, because they are virtually self evident upon examination, your choice to dismiss and ignore them is revealed for the dishonest debate tactic it is.
Is there no limit to your willingness to lie?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 15:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You all seem to be afraid to do the same with the controlled demolition theory.
What!!??? After all the time people have spent practically begging you to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, that demolitions were used to bring down the towers (only to have you refuse to do so), where on Earth do you get off calling us close-minded or afraid?
What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
it's called objective observation. I highly recommend it.
If you used it, you would see that I never asked anyone here to validate the cd theory. but there are several posts stating that the cd theory isn't even worth examination. That's closed minded.
It not only was worth examination. Most of us here did examine it and found it wanting. Also, we have found the official story to be sound. Where is the evidence to the contrary? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 17:55:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
NIST has the towers taking longer to fall than the 9/11 Commission Report does. Maybe NIST did that to get the models to work...
Since you have obviously read both, can you please tell me if they both used the same events to time the fall?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:09:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
NIST has the towers taking longer to fall than the 9/11 Commission Report does. Maybe NIST did that to get the models to work...
Since you have obviously read both, can you please tell me if they both used the same events to time the fall?
The 9/11 CR uses the seismic record. I don't remember what NIST uses If I get a chance, I'll look it up. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 21:48:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
NIST has the towers taking longer to fall than the 9/11 Commission Report does. Maybe NIST did that to get the models to work...
Since you have obviously read both, can you please tell me if they both used the same events to time the fall?
I've been doing some closer reading of the NIST Report. On page 82 of the report there is a fascinating footnote: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.(NIST-FInal Report, p. 82, fn. 13; emphasis added.)
To me this says that the timing of the collapse was not modeled--or even investigated--by NIST. So one of the physical laws they made sure were adhered to in their "tweaking" of the inputs wasn't the force of gravity!! Is this possible? It also says (to me) that the models did not include any actions or interactions of materials once the the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. So, the results of "pancaking" floors, or "progressively falling floors," or the "piston effect" they use to explain debris shooting out of the building were never modeled. All these things (and more) that are mentioned in the NIST Report were never modeled--they were just mentioned. But if these factors were not modeled, how do they come to the conclusion that the collapse was inevitable? How can NIST claim their model is appropriate if they don't know it will actually simulate a total collapse? How does one reach this conclusion when the force of gravity is not part of your model?!
Am I reading this wrong?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/10/2006 22:39:53 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 02:05:45 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 posted:
quote:
although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable
So what? At that point the building is collapsing. The behavior of the building during its collapse is hardly relevent to the reason why it started to collapse.
It does not, as you seem to be implying, leave any room for explosive demolitions. Because the building is already collapsing from well explained, documented, and referenced reasons.
quote:
Am I reading this wrong?
Obviously.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 02:53:17 [Permalink]
|
| Dude: Why didn't you answer my question about how they could concluded their model would yield a complete collapse of the building without modeling the collapse? How can you accept a theory of collapse that never modeled the collapse and did not include the force of gravity in its calculations? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
