|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 10:35:33 [Permalink]
|
Ah "sheeple"...was waiting for that one too.
All bow down to ergo123... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2006 : 10:41:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
What the hell are coincidence theories?
Who has asked for absolute proof besides you?
quote:
You have no evidence (let alone proof) that the buildings collapsed due to fire alone.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that fire alone brought down the WTCs. Do you read (or understand) anything that people have written here?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:02:02 [Permalink]
|
This has gone from the ridiculous to the asinine. I have shown, at the far distant beginnings of this tedious thread, that the towers could not have been brought down by a controlled, explosive implosion simply because the charges could not have been set surreptitiously. Period.
quote:
The term Building Implosion can be misleading to laymen. Although its name includes the word implosion, it is not an implosion phenomenon. Implosion occurs when the difference between internal to external pressure is such that a structure collapses on itself. When external pressure on a structure is greater than its internal pressure, the structures implodes. The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull. Numerous small explosions are used to catalyze the collapse, having been strategically planned within the structure and timed to occur in concert, often detonating within milliseconds of one another. Days or even weeks of preparation frequently precede such an event.
From there, it has been all rhetoric meaning nothing, ie: bullshit.
The only conspiracy here is a lack of paying attention on the part of the government, although I wouldn't put it past the Bush Administration to do exactly that -- if they had collective brains to think of it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/16/2006 12:03:27 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:23:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
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.
What the hell are coincidence theories?
Coincidence theories are theories that explain all unlikely co-occurances as "it was just a coincidence." Like how the only 3 steel-framed buildings to collapse for reasons other than earthquake or (as the theory goes) controlled demolition and the only 2 planes to ever vaporize on impact all happened on the same day. And coincidentally, on that day most of our fighter defenses were off playing wargames--leaving the NYC and DC areas nearly defenseless) and coincidentally, the "plane" that hit the pentagon did a 270 degree, 4-g turn and instead of going straight into the side of the building Rumsfeld's office was in, ended up hitting the only part of the building that was nearly empty due to renovations. And it was just a coincidence that the plane flew undetected from Ohio to DC, and it was a coincidence that even though the supposed pilot was unskilled, he pulled off a 4-g turn and managed to fly a 60,000 jet a few feet above the ground. And it's just a coinkydink that the security company at the WTC as well as the insurance company who gave Silverstein the policy covering terrorist acts had ties to the Bush family. And it's just a coincidence that there were hot spots under the rubble reaching temps of over 1300*c in the basements of the 3 collapsed WTC towers. And it's just a coincidence that the emergency workers who were in the city's armored bunker--likely the safest place to be at the onset of the plane strikes--decided to take to the streets of Manhattan to relocate. And it's just a coincidence that nearly all the steel framing from the 3 towers was all removed from the crime scene--against federal regulations--and either melted for scrap or burried--before an investigative team could test it; and it's just a coincidence that NIST and the 9/11 commission were told to only explore the 50+ - 88 minutes of events from the impact of the planes to the point where the buildings were poised to collapse--but not the 10 to 15 seconds beyond that time. Etc...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:30:58 [Permalink]
|
| coincidence theory = conspiracy theory with the same amount of falsifiable, testable, and predictive attributes you would expect. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/16/2006 12:31:51 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:35:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
This has gone from the ridiculous to the asinine. I have shown, at the far distant beginnings of this tedious thread, that the towers could not have been brought down by a controlled, explosive implosion simply because the charges could not have been set surreptitiously. Period.
HAHAHAHA And how did you show this? I remember you saying it, but you offered no real evidence--other than your opinion--that it could not be done surreptitiously.
quote:
...The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull.
If this is true, then why do they also use explosives? And why don't buildings fall all the time, if it is simply due to gravitational pull?
quote:
Numerous small explosions are used to catalyze the collapse, having been strategically planned within the structure and timed to occur in concert, often detonating within milliseconds of one another.
Oh--so now it's not just a technique that simply relys on the effect of gravitational pull. I would have sworn you had said it relied simply on the effect of gravitational pull...
quote:
Days or even weeks of preparation frequently precede such an event.
Frequently? Not always? So it is possible, as far as you know, that the prep work could be done quicker? Have you tried to do it quicker than weeks or even days and were not able to do so? So far, you have not shown any expertise in this area that would lead me to believe your claim that it is impossible to do. Period.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 13:12:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Like how the only 3 steel-framed buildings to collapse for reasons other than earthquake or (as the theory goes) controlled demolition and the only 2 planes to ever vaporize on impact all happened on the same day.
This is absurd! You think it is coincidence that it happened on the same fucking day??? I'm sorry but are a complete idiot?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 13:20:34 [Permalink]
|
I thought Ergo's ranting about coincidence theory was just more of his paranoia until I looked at http://coincidencetheory.com/.
It is all clear to me now.
|
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 : 13:52:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Like how the only 3 steel-framed buildings to collapse for reasons other than earthquake or (as the theory goes) controlled demolition and the only 2 planes to ever vaporize on impact all happened on the same day.
This is absurd! You think it is coincidence that it happened on the same fucking day??? I'm sorry but are a complete idiot?
No, I don't think it was a coincidence--but people who buy the official theory must, or they wouldn't buy the official theory. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/16/2006 13:53:38 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 14:04:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
This has gone from the ridiculous to the asinine. I have shown, at the far distant beginnings of this tedious thread, that the towers could not have been brought down by a controlled, explosive implosion simply because the charges could not have been set surreptitiously. Period.
HAHAHAHA And how did you show this? I remember you saying it, but you offered no real evidence--other than your opinion--that it could not be done surreptitiously.
quote:
...The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull.
If this is true, then why do they also use explosives? And why don't buildings fall all the time, if it is simply due to gravitational pull?
quote:
Numerous small explosions are used to catalyze the collapse, having been strategically planned within the structure and timed to occur in concert, often detonating within milliseconds of one another.
Oh--so now it's not just a technique that simply relys on the effect of gravitational pull. I would have sworn you had said it relied simply on the effect of gravitational pull...
quote:
Days or even weeks of preparation frequently precede such an event.
Frequently? Not always? So it is possible, as far as you know, that the prep work could be done quicker? Have you tried to do it quicker than weeks or even days and were not able to do so? So far, you have not shown any expertise in this area that would lead me to believe your claim that it is impossible to do. Period.
Because I have done it. It was required knowledge in my specialty in the Navy. The literature is available; study it before you look like an even bigger fool.
Ok, explain to me, in detail and with reference, exactly how you would set the charges to bring down a structure such as the top part of one of the twin towers. Further, explain how a shaped charge works and how to assemble one.
Until you can do that, you have nothing but speculation and wind, and therefore are scarcely worth listening to. I suggest that you find another conspiracy -- you don't know enough about this one to convince anyone but the semi-braindead.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 15:05:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Because I have done it. It was required knowledge in my specialty in the Navy. The literature is available; study it before you look like an even bigger fool.
And you are so familiar with the techniques you had to copy text out of wikipedia because....? And you assume there is only 1 way to do a CD--the way you learned in the Navy. Why is that?
quote:
Until you can do that, you have nothing but speculation...
Just as you speculate that it probably can't be done. You speculate that no one would have the days or weeks access to the building. But how could you know if people could have had access or not? You don't know--you are speculating. Neither of us are in a position--even with your supposed experience, of which you provide no evidence--to prove anything here. That's why there should be a panel funded to examine these possibilities.
LOL. And why did you not answer my other questions? Specifically: So it is possible, as far as you know, that the prep work could be done quicker? Have you tried to do it quicker than weeks or even days and were not able to do so?
Mister "I did it in the Navy" can't seem to see he isn't as sure about whether it really is impossible to do like he originally thought. Just because you don't know how to do it quicker doesn't mean someone with more experience or resources couldn't. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 15:28:44 [Permalink]
|
That's right sonny, I did it in the Navy, forty & some-odd years ago. A lot of demolitions, in fact. And I an not saying "probably," no. I am coming right out and stating that series of charges complex enough to cause the top of the towers to implode and collapse would be impossible to set surreptitiously. It would be a major undertaking requiring a large crew and extensive tear-out of the walls to reach the support structure.
What, do you think it is done by stashing a little dyn-o-mite in the broom closet? 
As I said, the literature is available. You obviously know nothing about demolitions of any sort, so I'd suggest that you do a little research before we find you even more amusing.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 15:52:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
That's right sonny, I did it in the Navy, forty & some-odd years ago. A lot of demolitions, in fact. And I an not saying "probably," no. I am coming right out and stating that series of charges complex enough to cause the top of the towers to implode and collapse would be impossible to set surreptitiously. It would be a major undertaking requiring a large crew and extensive tear-out of the walls to reach the support structure.
What, do you think it is done by stashing a little dyn-o-mite in the broom closet?
As I said, the literature is available. You obviously know nothing about demolitions of any sort, so I'd suggest that you do a little research before we find you even more amusing.
Forty years ago?!?! And you don't think any new materials or techniques have been developed in the last 40 years?!?!? That's a bold and naive assumption.
So is that there would be no access to the parts of the building they needed. If Silverstein was involved (he did say they decided to pull building 7), he would control who did "maintenance" on the buildings and Bush's brother and then his cousin ran the security company for the WTC.
So your statement that it would be impossible to set the charges surreptitionsly is complete speculation.
What's more, in the same paragraph you claim it would be impossible to do, you go ahead and tell us what one would need to do to get it done! (Did you sniff C-4 in the Navy?) So while it might be difficult to do, it would not be impossible. And even though you said it was impossible, it seems that you now agree that it would just be difficult... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 16:06:53 [Permalink]
|
| Can't you read? He said it would be impossible to do surreptitiously, not impossible to do period. Jeez! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 16:23:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Can't you read? He said it would be impossible to do surreptitiously, not impossible to do period. Jeez!
Yes, I can read. Don't you understand pronouns? It refers to "setting the explosives surreptitiously." What a jughead... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/16/2006 16:27:32 |
|
|
 |
|
Just to be clear (part 2)
