Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  11:41:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

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?
This isn't about what I've seen or heard, it's about the evidence you want to use to support your pet theory. You haven't presented any evidence here for us to discuss. Not one tidbit.
quote:
Do I really need to cite physics formulae?
Well, I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you, so yes, you do.
quote:
I get that you don't want it to be true that our government had anything to do with this.
Actually, finding out that Bush is directly responsible would go a long way towards getting him out of office, which I would very much enjoy, but you won't present any evidence that the government was involved in any way.
quote:
I don't want it to be true, either.
Well, don't project your fears onto others.
quote:
But at least have to balls to look at the evidence and use your brain to figure out what happened.
I'll look at any evidence you care to present, which so far has amounted to nothing at all.
quote:
Or maybe you are just one of those people who needs a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing...
Hehehe, the weathermen get most of their data from the government, and they've got jobs at which they can be wrong half the time and not get fired. Really bad analogy on your part.
quote:
And I suppose you require your family to show you proof of identity before you let them in the house, too...
Again, this isn't about proof, this is about evidence. You've got no evidence whatsoever to back up your ridiculous statements, and you know it, so you refuse to present any links or page numbers. Some of your statements have already been shown to be completely false, so there is good reason to question the veracity of every one of the others.

So, where is your evidence? Not proof, just evidence?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  11:43:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
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?

Ergo you seem to be implying that the explosives could have been planted when the cameras were off. Hmmmmm very ingenious! Then they took the bomb sniffing dogs off duty 2 weeks AFTER planting the explosives. Oops, not so ingenious. But this does sound like something our mentally challenged administration might actually do.........





If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  12:09:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
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?

Ergo you seem to be implying that the explosives could have been planted when the cameras were off. Hmmmmm very ingenious! Then they took the bomb sniffing dogs off duty 2 weeks AFTER planting the explosives. Oops, not so ingenious. But this does sound like something our mentally challenged administration might actually do.........








Maybe they did the wiring ahead of time and went in during the last 2 weeks with the explosives...

Are these kind of scenarios really that hard for you guys to come up with on your own?

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  12:18:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

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?
This isn't about what I've seen or heard, it's about the evidence you want to use to support your pet theory. You haven't presented any evidence here for us to discuss. Not one tidbit.
quote:
Do I really need to cite physics formulae?
Well, I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you, so yes, you do.
quote:
I get that you don't want it to be true that our government had anything to do with this.
Actually, finding out that Bush is directly responsible would go a long way towards getting him out of office, which I would very much enjoy, but you won't present any evidence that the government was involved in any way.
quote:
I don't want it to be true, either.
Well, don't project your fears onto others.
quote:
But at least have to balls to look at the evidence and use your brain to figure out what happened.
I'll look at any evidence you care to present, which so far has amounted to nothing at all.
quote:
Or maybe you are just one of those people who needs a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing...
Hehehe, the weathermen get most of their data from the government, and they've got jobs at which they can be wrong half the time and not get fired. Really bad analogy on your part.
quote:
And I suppose you require your family to show you proof of identity before you let them in the house, too...
Again, this isn't about proof, this is about evidence. You've got no evidence whatsoever to back up your ridiculous statements, and you know it, so you refuse to present any links or page numbers. Some of your statements have already been shown to be completely false, so there is good reason to question the veracity of every one of the others.

So, where is your evidence? Not proof, just evidence?



LOL! I'm not interested in proving that I've seen/have the same evidence you've seen/have. I'm interested in getting to the truth--not pulling out the ruler to see who has bigger evidence. I'm not interested in a contest. I'm not interested in presenting evidence to someone who is just interested in proclaiming it as valid or invalid. I'm not looking for someone to do my homework for me--I'm looking for someone to help. And what you are doing is not helpful.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Paulos23
Skeptic Friend

USA
446 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  12:23:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Paulos23's Homepage Send Paulos23 a Private Message
quote:

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.



Yup, but the charges to cut the supports would weigh thousands of pounds and would only work if you strip the fireproofing off the columns according to Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition [Debunking 9/11 Myths pg 45-47]. You would need to move these explosives with forklifts. And even if you just put bulk explosives next to every column in a box or something it would just blow out the windows on that floor and maybe the floors next to it. It would not bring that building down.

Oh, and the time it would take? Two months and 75 men with unfettered access to three floors. And that is just the base floors to bring the building down. Imagine how much time it would take to do every third floor?

quote:

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!



If your talking about Marvin Bush he left his job there in 2000. http://www.physics911.ca/Burns:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

quote:

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.



There is a Wirt Walker who was chairman of the security firm from 1999 to 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirt_Walker But even so, being the head of the company and being related to Bush isn't condemning in of itself. There needs to be more proof then that.

quote:

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!!



The shutdown of the WTC electricity has been hard for me to trace. The best account I have gotten of it is here:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/04/24/3472877

This is by one guy and he admits it was from the 48th floor up in tower two only, and only during the weekend of 8-9. Granted, there could have been other power downs on other weekends, but I haven't found any yet. I am not convinced that the explosives needed to bring down tower two could have been placed in that time frame.

quote:

Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that were sop at WTC were taken off duty two weeks before 9-11--01? What another coincidence!!!


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
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  12:35:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23

quote:

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.



Yup, but the charges to cut the supports would weigh thousands of pounds and would only work if you strip the fireproofing off the columns according to Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition [Debunking 9/11 Myths pg 45-47]. You would need to move these explosives with forklifts. And even if you just put bulk explosives next to every column in a box or something it would just blow out the windows on that floor and maybe the floors next to it. It would not bring that building down.

Oh, and the time it would take? Two months and 75 men with unfettered access to three floors. And that is just the base floors to bring the building down. Imagine how much time it would take to do every third floor?

quote:

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!



If your talking about Marvin Bush he left his job there in 2000. http://www.physics911.ca/Burns:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

quote:

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.



There is a Wirt Walker who was chairman of the security firm from 1999 to 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirt_Walker But even so, being the head of the company and being related to Bush isn't condemning in of itself. There needs to be more proof then that.

quote:

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!!



The shutdown of the WTC electricity has been hard for me to trace. The best account I have gotten of it is here:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/04/24/3472877

This is by one guy and he admits it was from the 48th floor up in tower two only, and only during the weekend of 8-9. Granted, there could have been other power downs on other weekends, but I haven't found any yet. I am not convinced that the explosives needed to bring down tower two could have been placed in that time frame.

quote:

Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  12:37:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

LOL! I'm not interested in proving that I've seen/have the same evidence you've seen/have.
I'm not interested in that, either, I'm interested in seeing the evidence that you have seen.
quote:
I'm interested in getting to the truth--not pulling out the ruler to see who has bigger evidence.
You can't get to the truth without laying your evidence out for all to see.
quote:
I'm not interested in a contest.
Neither am I.
quote:
I'm not interested in presenting evidence to someone who is just interested in proclaiming it as valid or invalid.
You're not interested in having me agree with you about your evidence? As I said: you're not interested in the truth, you're just on a romantic quest in a delusional fight against authority.
quote:
I'm not looking for someone to do my homework for me--I'm looking for someone to help. And what you are doing is not helpful.
If you're not going to present your evidence, then it is you who are impeding your own quest for the truth, not I. Dogging you about your evidence would be helpful if you actually had any evidence.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  12:38:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Maybe they did the wiring ahead of time and went in during the last 2 weeks with the explosives...
Wild speculation. I thought you were interested in getting at the truth.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Paulos23
Skeptic Friend

USA
446 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  13:08:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Paulos23's Homepage Send Paulos23 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Controlled Demolition... where have I heard of that company before... Oh, now I remember. They are the company that got the contract to bring down the remaining WTC buildings. Not that there would be a conflict of interest there... And I guess the explosives CD uses are the state of the art explosives. The government probably doesn't have access to anything CD wouldn't have...



I noticed you didn't comment on the rest of the post, so you must agree on it, and that you don't have any evedence about the insurance company having ties to Bush.

As for the CD, they are one of the few demolition companies that does implosion type demolition. There are not that many, so it is not supprising that they where interviewed by Popular Mechanics as well as get the contract. Now the explosives they use are high end, and he did admit that they had nothing designed to take out a WTC support collum, it is posible someone else could have gotten it. But you are still looking at something very heavy (2000lbs+) that had to be moved into place unnoticed. Several of them in fact. What is your evedence that several 2000 lbs explosive devices where placed in the towers?

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
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  13:15:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

LOL! I'm not interested in proving that I've seen/have the same evidence you've seen/have.
I'm not interested in that, either, I'm interested in seeing the evidence that you have seen.
quote:
I'm interested in getting to the truth--not pulling out the ruler to see who has bigger evidence.
You can't get to the truth without laying your evidence out for all to see.
quote:
I'm not interested in a contest.
Neither am I.
quote:
I'm not interested in presenting evidence to someone who is just interested in proclaiming it as valid or invalid.
You're not interested in having me agree with you about your evidence? As I said: you're not interested in the truth, you're just on a romantic quest in a delusional fight against authority.
quote:
I'm not looking for someone to do my homework for me--I'm looking for someone to help. And what you are doing is not helpful.
If you're not going to present your evidence, then it is you who are impeding your own quest for the truth, not I. Dogging you about your evidence would be helpful if you actually had any evidence.



Don't flatter yourself, Dave. I came here LOOKING for evidence, remember? I don't NEED evidence to ask for evidence. So far all you have done is challenged my reasoning for requesting evidence and quote the NIST report, which I have shown deserves skepticism. If you have other evidence that would help us get to the truth that you are withholding for some reason that's your own deal. But dogging me for evidence on why I want evidence is pointless.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  13:17:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Maybe they did the wiring ahead of time and went in during the last 2 weeks with the explosives...
Wild speculation. I thought you were interested in getting at the truth.



Wild speculation (even when put in context as the answer to a specific comment) often leads to the truth.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26016 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  14:09:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

I came here LOOKING for evidence, remember? I don't NEED evidence to ask for evidence. So far all you have done is challenged my reasoning for requesting evidence and quote the NIST report, which I have shown deserves skepticism. If you have other evidence that would help us get to the truth that you are withholding for some reason that's your own deal.
I see: questioning the government's "facts" is okay, but questioning ergo's "facts" is something that you're uninterested in. Got it.
quote:
But dogging me for evidence on why I want evidence is pointless.
No, I am dogging you for evidence to support your claims of fact. For example, I'd never heard the 30' claim before, and it makes no sense given the construction of the towers. Is it a fact? Your resistance to learning the truth of your own claim says in no uncertain terms that you don't want your version of the truth to be disturbed, and so it's easy to conclude that your only objective here is to have your prejudices reinforced, despite your stated intentions.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  14:23:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
You are missing the point, Dave. If you don't want to give me the evidence I asked for in my OP that's fine. But don't blame me for your unwillingness to share what you know.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  15:09:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
Hey Dave. I've been meaning to ask you. What were the stated error parameters reported by NIST in their report or addendum?

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2006 :  18:06:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

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.

Which is a reason to fit the model to the observations, not a reason against it.

quote:
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.

Which, again, is a reason to fit the evidence to the known observations.

quote:
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.


I saw no such evidence, not in video, not in photo, not in eyewitness testimony. So maybe here you could start at actually presenting such evidence.

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-
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.62 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000