|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 15:13:26 [Permalink]
|
DaveW: Am I to believe the number of your words or the content of them?
You make several incorrect assumptions above and fail to make obvious connections. If I believed you were interested I would reply in detail. But you have stated a lack of caring regarding the issue commenting, essentially, that you just want to prove me wrong. So if you are just going to make invalid assumptions, lile above, just to make it look like you are proving me wrong, the best tact for all of us is just to ignore your posts. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2006 : 15:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
DaveW: Am I to believe the number of your words or the content of them?
You make several incorrect assumptions above and fail to make obvious connections.
Such as?
quote:
If I believed you were interested I would reply in detail.
He said he was interested.
quote:
But you have stated a lack of caring regarding the issue commenting, essentially, that you just want to prove me wrong.
No, that isn't at all what he said. He said he has no vested interest in proving the goverment's official conclusions are accurate.
quote:
So if you are just going to make invalid assumptions, lile above...
You didn't point out any invalid assumptions.
quote:
...just to make it look like you are proving me wrong,
We don't know whether you are wrong or not, since you refuse to present any evidence. So far all you've done is express doubt without basis.
quote:
...the best tact for all of us is just to ignore your posts.
Yes, continue to present no evidence to support your assertions. That'll teach him!
 |
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/05/2006 15:26:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 17:24:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You make several incorrect assumptions above and fail to make obvious connections.
Name some of each.quote:
If I believed you were interested I would reply in detail.
Ah, so this continues to be about your beliefs, and not about the actual evidence.quote:
But you have stated a lack of caring regarding the issue commenting, essentially, that you just want to prove me wrong.
No, actually, you're doing a fine job of proving yourself wrong, now, like with your flatly wrong statement:The only evidence the "middle cases" failed to match with was the collapse. The above was easily found to be quite false, yet you said it anyway. That's why I asked for evidence of all those other alleged facts in one of your other posts, and am still waiting to see your evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report contains anything close to a description of the collapse physics (which you said is what you were talking about before). quote:
So if you are just going to make invalid assumptions, lile above...
I don't know what assumptions you're talking about. Name some. Provide evidence that I made any invalid assumptions.quote:
...just to make it look like you are proving me wrong...
Show me where I assumed anything about your statement that the middle cases only disagreed with the collapse other than what you wrote. Plus, I distinctly said that my goal was to continue to show that you're full of it, not that you're wrong. There's quite a difference there.quote:
...the best tact for all of us is just to ignore your posts.
The best course of action is for you to provide evidence to support your assertions, whether I'm a part of this discussion or not. Everyone else who's been involved, including H., Mab, Cune, Wreck, Ricky and McQ (forgive me for leaving anyone out) are more than competent enough to ask you "where is your evidence to support statement X" as I am, and your continued refusal to provide such evidence will be seen as indicating that you don't actually have any evidence to support your assertions of fact.
In other words, your refusal to back up your premises with data is the first obvious hint that you are, indeed, full of it. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong at that point, it just means that you're incapable of having an actual scientific discussion because you lack evidence. You could be right, but we here will never find out because you can't take the first step beyond "this is what I think."
In still other words, I'm not going to take your assertions of fact as facts just because you state them as if they were facts. Your say-so won't get you far, here. |
- 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 - 10/05/2006 : 22:02:50 [Permalink]
|
DaveW: You are so busy picking nits you are missing the big picture here. You hide behind constant questions of proof. Prove it's not a dead issue, prove this prove that, prove it's me typing, prove you are you.
At some point you have to get out from behind your shield of questions and realize that the 9-11CR and the NIST report are suspect documents that both resulted from a suspect process.
Once you realize that, you have to ask what the government is trying to hide. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 22:17:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
At some point you have to get out from behind your shield of questions and realize that the 9-11CR and the NIST report are suspect documents that both resulted from a suspect process.
Once you realize that, you have to ask what the government is trying to hide.
Ooooooooooohhhh! So it simply doesn't matter what the evidence says, the very fact that the government has been involved in some way with determining the facts of the matter means that any conclusions put forth by the government are "suspect." Why, then, all the brouhaha about Ross' report? Its conclusions are irrelevant with regard to the "suspect process." Why the detailed examination of two pages of the NIST report? Its findings are also irrelevant.
I now have enough evidence to conclude, ergo, that had the government said, "the buildings were brought down with explosives secretly hidden in them before the crashes," you'd still be saying that the government is trying to hide the real reason the towers fell. It is abundantly clear that evidence just makes no difference to you, since you refuse to provide any evidence for any of your assertions of fact, nor will you acknowledge any evidence presented that you are wrong about anything you happen to say.
The idea that you are somehow more skeptical than the rest of us is therefore ludicrous, since all you are is a contrarian. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 03:31:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
DaveW: You are so busy picking nits you are missing the big picture here. You hide behind constant questions of proof. Prove it's not a dead issue, prove this prove that, prove it's me typing, prove you are you.
At some point you have to get out from behind your shield of questions and realize that the 9-11CR and the NIST report are suspect documents that both resulted from a suspect process.
Once you realize that, you have to ask what the government is trying to hide.
Before we consider such a process suspect, we have to have a valid reason to suspect it is. That requires evidence. So far, you have not provided any.
You have asserted that the report leaves out some of the scenario's that should have been taken into consideration, without any valid evidence to support that they should have been taken into consideration in the first place. You have asserted that Dave W. makes assumptions that are invalid, without even pointing out what these assumptions are in the first place (which makes a subsequent discussion of the validity of these alleged assumptions impossible).
Basically, you assert a lot but give evidence for naught. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 04:54:31 [Permalink]
|
tomk80: try reading my op...
I'm not sure you understand the various types of evidence. It seems you and dave require 100%, absolute proof. And as we all know, there are many situations where such proof is just impossible to produce. Say you and dave went into an empty room, with only one way in. You are seen carrying a gun. A gun shot is heard. Police come in to see you alive and dave dead--shot in the back. A smoking gun is on the floor on the opposite side of the room. Ballistic analysis shows the gun was the weapon that killed dave. No other gun is found in the room. Further forensic analysis showed dave was shot from 5 meters away. Authorities test your hands for powder but find none. You think you can't be arrested for, let alone convicted of, murder because there is no proof you did it. But you would be arrested, tried and convicted of murder.
Justice might be blind but it's not stupid. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 05:11:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
tomk80: try reading my op...
I did.
quote:
I'm not sure you understand the various types of evidence. It seems you and dave require 100%, absolute proof. And as we all know, there are many situations where such proof is just impossible to produce. Say you and dave went into an empty room, with only one way in. You are seen carrying a gun. A gun shot is heard. Police come in to see you alive and dave dead--shot in the back. A smoking gun is on the floor on the opposite side of the room. Ballistic analysis shows the gun was the weapon that killed dave. No other gun is found in the room. Further forensic analysis showed dave was shot from 5 meters away. Authorities test your hands for powder but find none. You think you can't be arrested for, let alone convicted of, murder because there is no proof you did it. But you would be arrested, tried and convicted of murder.
Justice might be blind but it's not stupid.
I don't require 100% proof, and neither does Dave. What I require is some kind of evidence that the scenarios that were not analyzed were in fact credible. For example, I do not need 100% proof that demolition explosions were used. I would like some compelling evidence, and you have no provided that. Thus, I can only conclude that in the absence of evidence of such a scenario, the NIST was perfectly justified in neglecting to model it.
Next to this, you make a lot of the careful word choice of the analysists, while this is a use of words that you see in all scientific reports and conclusions. In other words, you are presenting a red herring there.
The other red herring is in pretending that there is a problem with making the model fit the observations. Of course you are going to make the model fit the observations, that's what you're supposed to be doing.
But here I am in fact only starting to reiterate the points Dave made, which you have left unanswered. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 06:50:38 [Permalink]
|
The problem with fitting the model to the observations is that A) it is a novel situation that might not fit the historical information the simulators are simulating. Models work well when interpolating--coming up with solutions WITHIN historic parameters. They are notoriously bad at extrapolating--coming up with solutions OUTSIDE of historic parameters.
We know we are dealing with events OUTSIDE the normal, historic parameters because up until 9-11-01, the only steel/concrete constructed buildings that have collapsed did so in earthquakes.
Beyond that, we have evidence (video, photo, eyewitness) that debris, including pieces of steel beam, being forcefully ejected from the towers. NIST says it was due to air being forced out the windows from the collapsing mass above. But that would require pancaking, which NIST say was NOT how the building collapsed. We also have extensive amounts of debris outside the footprint of the building, which is INCONSISTENT with a gravity-only collapse. Where is my evidence for these things--ON THE INTERNET and IN THE NIST REPORT. We have all seen it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 08:01:20 [Permalink]
|
It is because there is debris outside the footprint of the building that one would conclude that it is a gravity-only collapse. Have you looked at the videos of the collapse? The buildings looked like they where coming straight down, but they where not. They where twisting as they came down.
It is evedent that the collapse started from the points of impact, and just built from there. There are far to few 'puffs' from the building for it to be explosives. If they had put explosives on a floor to sever the core steel beams we would have seen more windows blow out on those floors where there was a single puff go out.
On top of that, how did the explosives get there? Where they put there before hand and waiting for the planes to crash? Or where they put there later? Again the point of failer was the floors that the planes crashed into, would someone braved the fires around those points to put enough explosives to bring the building down? The other option is that the explosives where there waiting for the planes to crash into them. But how can you tell where you need to hit on a building where 100 floors all look the same? Yes, they could have had explosives on every floor before hand, but that is alot of explosives. It would have taken weeks if not months to rig every floor so it would collapse, someone would have noticed. Also, there is a high chance that the explosives would have gone off when the plane hit and the fuel burned, which you can see never happened.
That is what my logic tells me after looking at countless videos and pictures of the towers falling. I see little to support your claim that the towers where brought down or where helped down by explosives. |
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 |
| Edited by - Paulos23 on 10/06/2006 08:03:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 08:55:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It seems you and dave require 100%, absolute proof.
No, I require some sort of evidence at all, which you haven't provided. You now scream that your evidence for some new claims is "ON THE INTERNET and IN THE NIST REPORT," but you haven't provided any links to any evidence, nor have you provided page numbers to any actual evidence in the NIST report outside a couple pages which you failed to read carefully.
You have provided no evidence to support your many claims. We are not asking for 100% proof, we are asking for some actual evidence, instead of just your say-so.
Claims you've made that you need to support with actual evidence:- The columns broke up into 30' lengths
- NIST describes no errors in its simulations and model
- Sounds of explosions accompanied onset of collapse
- The buildings collapsed in a radially symmetric pattern around their vertical axes
- There was "consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials"
- The buildings were "totally destroyed"
- I refered to the NIST report as a description of what actually happened
- The medium case in the NIST report matched all observations except that the buildings remained standing
- The NIST severe cases were the worst of all possible cases
- The same things happened to both towers
- The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report are "incongruent"
- I have made incorrect assumptions about something
- I have missed some sort of "obvious connections"
- I have made some sort of error in my assessment of Ross' paper
- "we have evidence (video, photo, eyewitness) that debris, including pieces of steel beam, being forcefully ejected from the towers"
- Air being forced out of the towers would require "pancaking"
- Debris outside the tower footprints is inconsistent with a gravity collapse
- "it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone"
- The 9/11 Commission Report gave multiple reasons for why the towers collapsed
- Ross' analysis is correct
- The 9/11 Commission Report says it took 10 seconds for the towers to collapse
- WTC 7 fell for the same reasons that WTC 1 & 2 fell
- "sensors recorded maximum temperatures of only 350 to 400 degrees" [inside the towers]
- "Firefighers, also, reported only pockets of small fires on the floor that would have been the first impacted floor"
- 'mass' is "scientist talk" for 'weight'
- The towers were designed to withstand several direct impacts from commercial airliners
- "no other steel & concrete building ever before or since fell due to fire"
- Dust was "shot upwards" during the collapses
- The concrete in the buildings was 100% pulverized
- The 9/11 Commission was "not allowed" to examine why the towers collapsed
I think the above list of things for which you need to provide evidence is long enough for now. I'm sure I'll add to it as time goes on. |
- 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 : 09:52:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
NIST says it was due to air being forced out the windows from the collapsing mass above. But that would require pancaking, which NIST say was NOT how the building collapsed.
Why is pancaking required for air to move out of a structure which is losing volume?
Because if the entire floor is not moving down the inside of the building (like a piston in a cylinder), there is not enough pressure to blow out the windows and blow the mass of debris that was ejected as far as it was thrown. If, like NIST concludes, there was a progressing collapse of the flooring the path of least resistance for the air is up through the areas of the flooring that have progressively collapsed (like a coffee press). |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 10:07:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
It is because there is debris outside the footprint of the building that one would conclude that it is a gravity-only collapse. Have you looked at the videos of the collapse? The buildings looked like they where coming straight down, but they where not. They where twisting as they came down.
It is evedent that the collapse started from the points of impact, and just built from there. There are far to few 'puffs' from the building for it to be explosives. If they had put explosives on a floor to sever the core steel beams we would have seen more windows blow out on those floors where there was a single puff go out.
On top of that, how did the explosives get there? Where they put there before hand and waiting for the planes to crash? Or where they put there later? Again the point of failer was the floors that the planes crashed into, would someone braved the fires around those points to put enough explosives to bring the building down? The other option is that the explosives where there waiting for the planes to crash into them. But how can you tell where you need to hit on a building where 100 floors all look the same? Yes, they could have had explosives on every floor before hand, but that is alot of explosives. It would have taken weeks if not months to rig every floor so it would collapse, someone would have noticed. Also, there is a high chance that the explosives would have gone off when the plane hit and the fuel burned, which you can see never happened.
That is what my logic tells me after looking at countless videos and pictures of the towers falling. I see little to support your claim that the towers where brought down or where helped down by explosives.
Yes. Putting explosives on every floor (or even every 3rd floor, which would slice the steel supports into approximately 30 foot sectoins...) would take time. It's like you would have to have the security company in charge of those buildings in on the whole thing. Oh, what's that? Bush's brother was chairman of that security company until just before 9-11-01, then it was another Bush relative after that? What a coincidence! Oh, and you say that in the month prior to 9-11-01 sections of the building were shut down for maintenace on the electrical system--so, since the security cameras run on electricity, there is no visual record of what type of "maintenance" was going on? What another coincidence!! Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that were sop at WTC were taken off duty two weeks before 9-11--01? What another coincidence!!! Oh, and the only 3 steel/concrete constructed buildings that have ever fallen due to fire fell on 9-11-01? What another coincidence!!!! Oh and the guy who leased those buildings had taken out an extra insurance policy against terrorist attacks on those 3 buildings? What another coincidence!!!!! Oh, and the insurance company that underwrote that policy has ties to the Bush family? Well, yet another coincidence!!!!!! Wow, what a miserable, no good, unlucky, very bad day!
What story do you want next? How about The Emperor's Theory Has No Legs to Stand On? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 10:19:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It seems you and dave require 100%, absolute proof.
No, I require some sort of evidence at all, which you haven't provided. You now scream that your evidence for some new claims is "ON THE INTERNET and IN THE NIST REPORT," but you haven't provided any links to any evidence, nor have you provided page numbers to any actual evidence in the NIST report outside a couple pages which you failed to read carefully.
You have provided no evidence to support your many claims. We are not asking for 100% proof, we are asking for some actual evidence, instead of just your say-so.
Claims you've made that you need to support with actual evidence:- The columns broke up into 30' lengths
- NIST describes no errors in its simulations and model
- Sounds of explosions accompanied onset of collapse
- The buildings collapsed in a radially symmetric pattern around their vertical axes
- There was "consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials"
- The buildings were "totally destroyed"
- I refered to the NIST report as a description of what actually happened
- The medium case in the NIST report matched all observations except that the buildings remained standing
- The NIST severe cases were the worst of all possible cases
- The same things happened to both towers
- The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report are "incongruent"
- I have made incorrect assumptions about something
- I have missed some sort of "obvious connections"
- I have made some sort of error in my assessment of Ross' paper
- "we have evidence (video, photo, eyewitness) that debris, including pieces of steel beam, being forcefully ejected from the towers"
- Air being forced out of the towers would require "pancaking"
- Debris outside the tower footprints is inconsistent with a gravity collapse
- "it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone"
- The 9/11 Commission Report gave multiple reasons for why the towers collapsed
- Ross' analysis is correct
- The 9/11 Commission Report says it took 10 seconds for the towers to collapse
- WTC 7 fell for the same reasons that WTC 1 & 2 fell
- "sensors recorded maximum temperatures of only 350 to 400 degrees" [inside the towers]
- "Firefighers, also, reported only pockets of small fires on the floor that would have been the first impacted floor"
- 'mass' is "scientist talk" for 'weight'
- The towers were designed to withstand several direct impacts from commercial airliners
- "no other steel & concrete building ever before or since fell due to fire"
- Dust was "shot upwards" during the collapses
- The concrete in the buildings was 100% pulverized
- The 9/11 Commission was "not allowed" to examine why the towers collapsed
I think the above list of things for which you need to provide evidence is long enough for now. I'm sure I'll add to it as time goes on.
Haven't you seen the towers fall or heard any comments from fire fighters and other responders at the scene? Haven't you seen any of the videos on the internet or read papers on the internet describing these oddities and coincidences? Haven't you read or seen news reports of the damage done to surrounding buildings? Have you been living in a cave--with a guy with a long beard, perhapse?--since 9-11-01? Do I really need to cite physics formulae? I get that you don't want it to be true that our government had anything to do with this. I don't want it to be true, either. But at least have to balls to look at the evidence and use your brain to figure out what happened. Or maybe you are just one of those people who needs a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing... And I suppose you require your family to show you proof of identity before you let them in the house, too... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
