|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2006 : 21:46:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Gee, Dave. Thanks for the monkey. But why be such a jerk and post obviously irrelevant things?
You get what you give.quote:
Could it be your emotions are getting the better of you?
Not at all. This message board isn't here for your personal, one-way data-gathering efforts. Once you made it clear that you intended that to be the sole purpose of this thread, it seemed perfectly logical to turn it into a joke.quote:
That must cause a rational guy like you a bit of internal turmoil.
What, do you think I'm Spock or something? I'm flattered, but you are, once again, making totally unrealistic assumptions.quote:
Or could it be that you now realize how you have been using "the bible" (i.e., the NIST Report--i.e., the official conspiracy theory) as a source to prove the bible is the word of god (i.e., that the official conspiracy theory is to be believed)...
When did I ever post the NIST report as proof of anything? Oh, that's right - you won't post any evidence of your claims (you don't care if your claims are accepted or not), you just expect other people to do that for you.quote:
...and are so embarrassed you need to lash out at me for pointing it out?
But you didn't point that out in any way. I've got nothing to be embarrassed about. You, on the other hand, claimed that 'mass' is just a science term for 'weight'. Now that should be embarrassing for someone with your schooling.quote:
For your own sake, I'd recommend a warm glass of milk and a cookie, then a nice long rest.
And you might consider playing your game somewhere else. Or maybe you should have considered asking the staff here nicely before trying to use our forums as a read-only data dump. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 21:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Does anyone see the point in this thread?
Yeah, ergo wants other people to provide information to him, period. |
- 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 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 22:16:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Gee, Dave. Thanks for the monkey. But why be such a jerk and post obviously irrelevant things?
quote:
You get what you give.
Gee. I don't recall ever giving you a photo of a monkey... But nice way to take the high road!
quote:
Could it be your emotions are getting the better of you?
quote:
Not at all. This message board isn't here for your personal, one-way data-gathering efforts. Once you made it clear that you intended that to be the sole purpose of this thread, it seemed perfectly logical to turn it into a joke.
Hmmm. Where does it say that? And can you parse out that logic for me?
quote:
Or could it be that you now realize how you have been using "the bible" (i.e., the NIST Report--i.e., the official conspiracy theory) as a source to prove the bible is the word of god (i.e., that the official conspiracy theory is to be believed)...
quote:
When did I ever post the NIST report as proof of anything?
Gee, Dave. Just look throughout the various pages of my threads. You point to NIST as support for the official conspiracy theory frequently.
quote:
Oh, that's right - you won't post any evidence of your claims (you don't care if your claims are accepted or not), you just expect other people to do that for you.
Expect? No. Will show gratitude for? You bet.
quote:
...and are so embarrassed you need to lash out at me for pointing it out?
quote:
But you didn't point that out in any way. I've got nothing to be embarrassed about. You, on the other hand, claimed that 'mass' is just a science term for 'weight'. Now that should be embarrassing for someone with your schooling.
No, it's not--because I know the context I was using it in. And that context was someone claiming 'the weight of the materials wasn't even included in the calculations.' Well of course the word weight wouldn't be used--because physics deals with mass, not weight (as the value for the weight of a given mass is dependant on the local force of gravity, and the laws of physics relating to mass transfer and the conservation of energy and the laws of inertia are independent of gravity). So from the perspective of the person who complained about 'weight' not being taken into account (given he didn't know that the issue was mass, not weight), mass is what the scientists would call what he refered to as weight.
quote:
For your own sake, I'd recommend a warm glass of milk and a cookie, then a nice long rest.
quote:
And you might consider playing your game somewhere else. Or maybe you should have considered asking the staff here nicely before trying to use our forums as a read-only data dump.
But it's not read-only. I thank contributors for their contributions. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 22:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Does anyone see the point in this thread?
Yeah, ergo wants other people to provide information to him, period.
If you don't like that, don't contribute. But you know, even though I'm the one asking for the information, anyone on this forum can use the information. Others might just like having a consolidated list of support for the official conspiracy theory of what happened to the towers on 9-11-01. In fact, you seem to be a little short when it comes to any independent, non-federal government-linked support for the NIST Report. You might consider using some of the links provided by those who have honored my request. So it's not as one-way as you make it out to be. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 22:47:18 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
As I point out in my op, I am only interested in evidence supporting the official conspiracy theory at this time,
Once again, your imbecilic attempt to apply a derogatory connotation of the official description of the 9/11 events by calling it a "conspiracy theory" is rejected for the straw-man it is. Again, it makes you seem stupid.
As for your OP, you have been directed, repeatedly, to the authoritative description of the 9/11 collapse of the WTC buildings, the NIST report. You are obviously unqualified to examine and critique the contents of that report, based on your continued assertion that mass is the same thing as weight.
Just because you obviously do not comprehend the contents of that report does not allow you to dismiss it's content.
If you were capable of refuting even the smallest part of that report, you would have no need to resort to straw-men and ad hom attempts to falsely cast the report in a negative light by continiously calling it a "conspiracy theory".
|
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 - 10/08/2006 : 22:59:03 [Permalink]
|
| Dude: The NIST Report IS the official conspiracy theory. How can you use the NIST Report to support itself? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 23:12:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Gee. I don't recall ever giving you a photo of a monkey... But nice way to take the high road!
Ah, pronoun trouble.quote:
Hmmm. Where does it say that?
Oh, you need the intent of the forum spelled out for you somewhere, the word of an administrator isn't good enough?quote:
And can you parse out that logic for me?
I could, but you wouldn't, so I won't.quote:
Gee, Dave. Just look throughout the various pages of my threads. You point to NIST as support for the official conspiracy theory frequently.
So in your mind, "support for" and "proof of" are synonyms. See, this is why Dude doesn't need to provide you with evidence that you lack knowledge of science in general, you provide your own evidence, just by posting.
But beyond that, why would I "point to NIST as support for the official conspiracy theory frequently" when the NIST report is the official conspiracy theory, as I've repeatedly told you (and you've finally understood, given your response to Dude)? You're just trying (and failing) to cover up another one of your lies, ergo.quote:
Expect? No. Will show gratitude for? You bet.
You're mighty shallow to think that people will participate in return for nothing but gratitude.quote:
No, it's not--because I know the context I was using it in. And that context was someone claiming 'the weight of the materials wasn't even included in the calculations.' Well of course the word weight wouldn't be used--because physics deals with mass, not weight (as the value for the weight of a given mass is dependant on the local force of gravity, and the laws of physics relating to mass transfer and the conservation of energy and the laws of inertia are independent of gravity). So from the perspective of the person who complained about 'weight' not being taken into account (given he didn't know that the issue was mass, not weight), mass is what the scientists would call what he refered to as weight.
You're still wrong, yet you try to defend it by calling Val an idiot (because the issue was weight - a mass in a gravity field). Again, you provide all the necessary evidence to show that you don't understand the science.quote:
But it's not read-only. I thank contributors for their contributions.
You won't discuss them, and the SFN is for discussions.
You also wrote:quote:
If you don't like that, don't contribute.
You just don't get it, do you? This is not your website.quote:
But you know, even though I'm the one asking for the information, anyone on this forum can use the information. Others might just like having a consolidated list of support for the official conspiracy theory of what happened to the towers on 9-11-01.
They won't get it here, since you refuse to say what you consider to be "support" and what you don't. The one contribution so far has a mix of governmental and non-governmental evidence, but you won't take the time to sort through them. Your intent has already been undermined, by someone other than me.quote:
In fact, you seem to be a little short when it comes to any independent, non-federal government-linked support for the NIST Report.
The NIST report lists all of its own non-governmental evidence, so why should I re-invent the wheel because you can't be bothered to verify it all yourself?quote:
You might consider using some of the links provided by those who have honored my request.
Using them for what? I don't have a horse in your race.quote:
So it's not as one-way as you make it out to be.
Your intent has been undermined by someone who appears to have the best of intentions, and upriver has completely misunderstood your request (which isn't particularly surprising). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 23:38:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Although I doubt it matters:
THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home
The sister of former NHL hockey player Garnet "Ace" Bailey worked in accounting at Integrated Petroleum Services when I worked there (at the time of 9/11). |
"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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 23:40:05 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 asked:
quote:
Dude: The NIST Report IS the official conspiracy theory. How can you use the NIST Report to support itself?
Once again, your imbecilic attempt to apply a derogatory connotation of the official description of the 9/11 events by calling it a "conspiracy theory" is rejected for the straw-man it is. Again, it makes you seem stupid
Why must I use the NIST report to support itself? At the end of each section you can find references. The document doesn't "support itself" as you wrongly suggest, but is in fact supported by a very large number of exterior references. Your claim here is rejected for the obvious straw-man it is.
I'll give you a list of the references from one particular section, the one that deals with the collapse of the WTC towers:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf
At the very end:
quote:
ACI Committee 209 (1992), “Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete
Structures,” ACI 209R-92, ACI.
ACI Committee 318 (2002), “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,”
ACI 318-02, ACI.
American Institute for Steel Construction (2003), Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance
Factor Design, 3rd Edition, AISC.
American Institute for Steel Construction (2001), Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance
Factor Design, 2nd Edition, AISC.
American Institute for Steel Construction (1964), Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design,
6th Edition, AISC.
ANSYS, Inc. 2004. ANSYS Release 8.1 Documentation. ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
ANSYS, Inc. 2004. Theory Reference, ANSYS, Inc.
Bartlett, F. M. and MacGregor, J. G. (1996), "Statistical Analysis of the Compressive Strength of
Concrete in Structures," ACI Materials Journal, March-April, pp. 158-168.
Fields, B. A. and Fields, R. J. (1991), The Prediction of Elevated Temperature Deformation of Structural
Steel Under Anisothermal Conditions, NIST.
LERA (2003), Development of Structural Databases and Baseline Models for the World Trade Center
(WTC) Towers - Progress Report #4: Structural Analysis Computer Models.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 2003. LS-DYNA User's Manual. Livermore Software
Technology Corporation. Livermore, CA.
Phan, Long T. (1996), Fire Performance of High-Strength Concrete: A Report of the State-of-the-Art,
NIST.
Seanz, L. P. (1964), “Discussion of Equation of the Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete by Desayi and
Krishman,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Col. 61, No. 9, pp. 1229-1235.
Stevick, G. R. (1994), “Failure of Welds at Elevated Temperatures,” Welded Research Council
Bulletin 390, Welding Research Council, pp. 1-39.
Every subsection of the report contains detailed referencing.
So really, that lays to rest your absurd assumtion that the NIST report is fictional and/or a self contained document with no external sourcing. Can you imagine for one second that the hundreds of non-federal government employees who are listed in the reference to this document are complicit in some ridiculous conspiracy? Would all these people stand idly by and let the government publish lies and use their names to support those lies? Ridiculous.
|
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 - 10/09/2006 : 00:26:33 [Permalink]
|
| I didn't say the NIST Report supported itself. I said you support the NIST Report with the NIST Report. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 09:18:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I didn't say the NIST Report supported itself. I said you support the NIST Report with the NIST Report.
No one is using the NIST report as support for the NIST report. The NIST report was compiled with sources you know. Have you actually done any research at all? Of course not, you have made your mind up. We have given plenty of evidence from expert testimony, to forensics, to I witness accounts, to official records, and personal testimony. What evidence have you given? A ten minute search online would yield tons of counter arguments to your claim. This thread is useless. Your entire theory rests on the imagination of a few fringe entities that are able to dupe those who refuse to look it up for themselves. |
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.] |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 09:33:39 [Permalink]
|
Check out the fixture on this page. The original page copyright was actually 1998... pre-9/11!
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 10:01:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Check out the fixture on this page. The original page copyright was actually 1998... pre-9/11!
Sehr interesant. Vielen dank Herr GeeMack. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
