|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/15/2006 : 17:53:30
|
The saddest part of all of part one of this thread, ergo, is that you went on and on about you wanting to see non-governmental evidence for (or validation of - nice goalpost movement there) the government's case, but then you said that my demonstration that a 300-ton beam was impossible under the conditions you set was "the kind of stuff" you were looking for. But since the government's case doesn't rest upon disproving fiction, I provided nothing that you were asking for. Your comment represents the worst sort of inconsistency, and when I called you on it the first time, you simply ignored it. Will you continue to do so?
"Just to be clear," my aunt fanny. You're as clear as mud.
|
- 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 - 10/15/2006 : 18:04:22 [Permalink]
|
You call it inconsistency--I call it flexibility. You see, once I realized that NIST covered only up to the point where the buildings were poised to collapse, proving the NIST Report valid because unimportant. Now what is important to me is the validation of details relating to the CD theory of collapse.
If you guys were a little flexible inyour beliefs--i.e., being able to incorporate new information that conflicts with your existing belief--you would be better off.
As for accuracy in language, yes--the more accurate the better. I am so sorry that I said dozens instead of several. I see how the word dozens completely throws concerte folks like you and I should be better at remembering that folks like you can't get past an idiom like that. If you could, you would have relized that indeed there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down. But instead, you couldn't see past a poor choice of words and therefore missed the actual content of the statement. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 18:15:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Now what is important to me is the validation of details relating to the CD theory of collapse.
Great, why don't you put something forward that isn't completely fictitious?quote:
If you guys were a little flexible inyour beliefs--i.e., being able to incorporate new information that conflicts with your existing belief--you would be better off.
You haven't presented anything that conflicts with any of my beliefs. Well, you did make the claim that a 300-ton beams (plural!) were thrown from the buildings, but that just conflicts with your claim that all the columns were snipped into neat 30' lengths. It doesn't conflict with anything that I know.quote:
As for accuracy in language, yes--the more accurate the better. I am so sorry that I said dozens instead of several. I see how the word dozens completely throws concerte folks like you and I should be better at remembering that folks like you can't get past an idiom like that.
See, first it was that we were focused on minutae, and now the story changes such that we missed the idiom. You're just being inconsistent again.quote:
If you could, you would have relized that indeed there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down.
What does that matter? Has anyone made a contradictory claim (that there are no experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down)?quote:
But instead, you couldn't see past a poor choice of words and therefore missed the actual content of the statement.
The content is only meaningful if you plan on making an argument from authority. Such things lack logical soundness, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 18:20:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you could, you would have relized that indeed there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down.
No, we know what you were trying to say. Using the word "dozens" implies that your theory has more validity. It was/is an argument from authority. If numbers were not important, you would not have put any numerical descriptor there.
You just got caught exagerrating. Next time check YOUR facts before presenting them. Any decent researcher would.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/15/2006 18:20:49 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 19:00:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Now what is important to me is the validation of details relating to the CD theory of collapse.
quote:
Great, why don't you put something forward that isn't completely fictitious?
Why don't you keep your pants on?
quote:
As for accuracy in language, yes--the more accurate the better. I am so sorry that I said dozens instead of several. I see how the word dozens completely throws concerte folks like you and I should be better at remembering that folks like you can't get past an idiom like that.
quote:
See, first it was that we were focused on minutae, and now the story changes such that we missed the idiom. You're just being inconsistent again.
No, you focus on minutia and missed the idiom.
quote:
If you could, you would have relized that indeed there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down.
quote:
What does that matter? Has anyone made a contradictory claim (that there are no experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down)?
Dude challenged me to list some.
quote:
But instead, you couldn't see past a poor choice of words and therefore missed the actual content of the statement.
quote:
The content is only meaningful if you plan on making an argument from authority. Such things lack logical soundness, of course.
If you were paying attention, you'd have realized that my comment was a response to someone else on the thread who asked me to provide proof that there were experts in physics and material science who believed in the CD theory. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 19:04:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
If you could, you would have relized that indeed there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down.
No, we know what you were trying to say. Using the word "dozens" implies that your theory has more validity. It was/is an argument from authority. If numbers were not important, you would not have put any numerical descriptor there.
You just got caught exagerrating. Next time check YOUR facts before presenting them. Any decent researcher would.
PLEASE don't turn me into the Exaggerration Police!!! Oh, wait, you guys are the Exaggerration Police... 
How lame that you knew what I was saying, but wasted your time picking on the nit of the word "dozens" rather than acknowledge that there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe in the CD theory. I guess that's your own way of deflecting information you don't want to hear. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 19:11:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
PLEASE don't turn me into the Exaggerration Police!!! Oh, wait, you guys are the Exaggerration Police...
Whatever you do for a living, don't give it up for comedy.
And "exagerration police" is pretty funny coming from someone who believes what you do.
quote:
How lame that you knew what I was saying, but wasted your time picking on the nit of the word "dozens" rather than acknowledge that there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe in the CD theory. I guess that's your own way of deflecting information you don't want to hear.
It sure is! You got it! But it wasn't a waste of time to me. I had fun! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/15/2006 19:14:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 19:48:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Why don't you keep your pants on?
Why are you wasting your precious time arguing about unimportant things?quote:
No, you focus on minutia and missed the idiom.
Still not what you said either time.quote:
Dude challenged me to list some.
No, he challenged you to name the "dozens of experts in physics and material sciences" you spoke of. Not 'some' of them, but the dozens. You failed to do so no matter how many you meant, since all you did was point to a website and expect others to find the names for you.quote:
If you were paying attention, you'd have realized that my comment was a response to someone else on the thread who asked me to provide proof that there were experts in physics and material science who believed in the CD theory.
I was paying attention, and the only reason you were challenged was because of a statement you made clearly signifying your intent to make an argument from authority. Actually, reading back, that statement of yours was the argument from authority, so the names really didn't matter. I think you've missed more content than I. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 20:47:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergoman
You call it inconsistency--I call it flexibility.
Flexible.... right.
quote:
If you guys were a little flexible inyour beliefs--i.e., being able to incorporate new information that conflicts with your existing belief--you would be better off.
Speaking for myself I am happy to incorporate new information into my beliefs. The problem is I am not gonna just ignore all the evidence that led me to my current conclusion unless the new (non existent in this case) evidence overrules the previous. In this case it has not yet (because there isn't any).
quote:
As for accuracy in language, yes--the more accurate the better. I am so sorry that I said dozens instead of several. I see how the word dozens completely throws concerte folks like you and I should be better at remembering that folks like you can't get past an idiom like that. If you could, you would have relized that indeed there are experts in the fields of physics and material sciences who believe explosives were used to bring the towers down. But instead, you couldn't see past a poor choice of words and therefore missed the actual content of the statement.
There also exist a few biologist who favor ID. So what? |
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.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 21:08:36 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
Dude challenged me to list some.
And you still haven't.
The site you linked to is pretty far away from a credible source.
What you have done is the equivilent of a creationist linking to The Discovery Institute and then claiming that there are scientists who support intelligent design.
|
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 - 10/15/2006 : 22:22:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you guys were a little flexible inyour beliefs--i.e., being able to incorporate new information that conflicts with your existing belief--you would be better off.
quote:
Speaking for myself I am happy to incorporate new information into my beliefs. The problem is I am not gonna just ignore all the evidence that led me to my current conclusion unless the new (non existent in this case) evidence overrules the previous. In this case it has not yet (because there isn't any).
What evidence are you talking about and why didn't you post any here?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 22:40:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergoman
quote:
Speaking for myself I am happy to incorporate new information into my beliefs. The problem is I am not gonna just ignore all the evidence that led me to my current conclusion unless the new (non existent in this case) evidence overrules the previous. In this case it has not yet (because there isn't any).
What evidence are you talking about and why didn't you post any here?
Are you serious? What have we spent an entire thread discussing? |
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.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/15/2006 22:46:50 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 22:52:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ergoman
quote:
Speaking for myself I am happy to incorporate new information into my beliefs. The problem is I am not gonna just ignore all the evidence that led me to my current conclusion unless the new (non existent in this case) evidence overrules the previous. In this case it has not yet (because there isn't any).
What evidence are you talking about and why didn't you post any here?
Are you serious? What have we spent an entire thread discussing?
Well, it hasn't been evidence for the official theory. If you have some, please post it!! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 06:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
As for accuracy in language, yes--the more accurate the better. I am so sorry that I said dozens instead of several. I see how the word dozens completely throws concerte folks like you and I should be better at remembering that folks like you can't get past an idiom like that.
There is not room for idioms like that in scientific discussions.
I suspected strongly that you exaggerated quite a lot when you said "dozens" (as in several "dozen" --> X*dozen where X>1 --> at least 24). That makes it untruth.
Since you presented the 300 ton beam as evidence because of your say-so, I thought "dozens" sounded equally suspicious, and not backed up so I dismissed your claim.
There is 6-day creationist who holds a PhD in Paleontology. He deny evolution occur, but the PhD in a relevant field of study doesn't make him right.
Similarly, you present a few material engineers physicists who are mistaken. None of them seem to know much about Controlled Demolition anyway, so their opinions are outside their particular field of study anyway. |
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. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 06:24:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo said
Now what is important to me is the validation of details relating to the CD theory of collapse.
So the purpose of this thread has completely changed. OK. The ball is now in your court to present evidence that the CD was the cause of the collapse of the WTCs.
Please continue...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 10:19:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
As for accuracy in language, yes--the more accurate the better. I am so sorry that I said dozens instead of several. I see how the word dozens completely throws concerte folks like you and I should be better at remembering that folks like you can't get past an idiom like that.
quote:
There is not room for idioms like that in scientific discussions.
LOL. This is far from a scientific discussion--on all our parts. I don't mind that it's not a scientific discussion--but you sheeple seem to be under the delusion that it could or should be a scientific discussion. But the way you let your adherence to coincidence theories keep you from even entertaining any other theory without absolute proof prohibits you from actually engaging in a scientific discussion of this topic.
quote:
There is 6-day creationist who holds a PhD in Paleontology. He deny evolution occur, but the PhD in a relevant field of study doesn't make him right. Similarly, you present a few material engineers physicists who are mistaken. None of them seem to know much about Controlled Demolition anyway, so their opinions are outside their particular field of study anyway.
How do you know they are mistaken? How do you know you aren't the one who is mistaken? You have no evidence (let alone proof) that the buildings collapsed due to fire alone. Nor does the government. At least the government admits they have no idea how building 7 fell (FEMA Report). And they at least acknowledge that they didn't even try to describe the mechanics of the collapse of the twin towers (NIST and 9/11 CR). But because they showed that the towers became unstable, you jump to the conclusion that they musthave collapsed because they were unstable. Maybe it's just me, but I think the words 'unstable' and 'collapsed' mean two different things.
And yes, as someone pointed out earlier--the mass of the top had to go somewhere. Well, the mass of the top of the South Tower fell on Building 4--so why did the rest of the South Tower collapse? And it's clear from the videos of the North Tower that the antenna on the top of the tower begins to fall a fraction of a second before the rest of the top. But the only way that could happen is if the 47 core support columns "went." But how would that happen when none of the interior columns got above 500*C for much more than an hour (as reported by NIST p.140)?
Did explosives bring down the towers? I don't know. But the evidence at hand does not support the coincidence theory put forth by the 9/11 CR or NIST. And you ignore evidence that they did not fall due to fire alone. So I don't see how you know anything you say you know here. Your "I believe the first theory heard" approach to these events is anything but scientific.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
Just to be clear (part 2)
