|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2006 : 02:23:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yo, Jackass! Do you have a clock? Do you know how to add and subtract? I'm in Hong Kong! When you're posting because Joanie Loves Chachi isn't on any longer, I'm sleeping.
Read the NIST. Start with the link Filthy gives you. It's only you who've decided I should tell you the difference between progressive collapse and pancaking.
Rank amateur!
Yoda, this clown will take you around in more circles than you'd find at the county fair midway. No matter how accurate the information or meticulous the research, he will deride it without putting forth anything of value of his own. And if he can't break up the message, he attacks the messenger.
He says he's developing some sort of theory. I myself, doubt it. I think the "theory" is no more than an excuse to continue his verbal trudge, 'round and around, like some mindless ox working an old-fashoned cane mill.
Me, I've decided to give him nothing more. Fuck him. Let him live his fantasia with the rest of the conspiricy dingbats, who see a commie under every bed, in spite of the fact that it's been reliably shown that commies don't commonly lurk under beds.
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2006 : 02:31:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh. Okay. So the 9-11 Commission "describes the collapse as a pancake collapse."
Feel better?
Sure: since the 9/11 Commission Report, by your own admission, doesn't contain a theory of what brought down the towers, then it's irrelevant to this discussion, and there's no discrepancy for Master Yoda or anyone else to explain.
Are you ever going to move on to something interesting? I doubt it, you're too stuck on the details to ever get to the big picture.
Just because they don't call it a theory doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm still interested in hearing from Yoda on the distinction. The site he recommended uses them interchangably. I just want to know if that's appropriate.
Doo Doo Head!!!! You figure out the distinction. It's there - in writing. I'm not the spokesman for the NIST, nor 911Myths, nor the pancake theory, nor progressive collapse. You figure it out, and come back when you've made sense of it. (Sense!!! Not when you've nitpicked another hole in another sentence in the middle of a cite of a hundred page document!)
Hint: Many theories abounded in the early weeks/months after 9/11. Some turned out to be true. Some turned out to be fales. Others required refinement. Still others required sequencing.
You figure out which one of those statements suits the pancaking vs progressive collapse.
It's okay. I've got to go to Happy Valley... It's a racetrack, not a retirement home.... so will be off line for about 18 hours. That'll give you plenty of google-time. You have fun now, ya hear!
(I'll see if I can bring you back some real horse manure for your smiley collection. Give me an address, I'll be happy to send you some. I have a couple of friends in The Bravest who'd be real happy to deliver.) |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 03:05:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Me, I've decided to give him nothing more. Fuck him. Let him live his fantasia with the rest of the conspiricy dingbats, who see a commie under every bed, in spite of the fact that it's been reliably shown that commies don't commonly lurk under beds.
Filthy,
I'm slowly getting there.... Hey, I'm old and addled, and I am a trainer in my company when I'm not sucking the very marrow from the bones of unsuspecting clients, plus I'm a certified TESOL English teacher, so I tend to try to teach even the most thick-headed.
But this isn't an inability to learn - it's an unwillingness!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 06:50:54 [Permalink]
|
| The writers of the 9/11 Commission report weren't structural engineers, so their description of the collapse is made in layman's terms. Since Ergo couldn't tell the difference between pancaking and progressive collapse, why should we expect the 9/11 Commission report writers to make that distiction? Especially when their job wasn't to focus on the collapse in the first place. |
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. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 09:13:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The writers of the 9/11 Commission report weren't structural engineers, so their description of the collapse is made in layman's terms. Since Ergo couldn't tell the difference between pancaking and progressive collapse, why should we expect the 9/11 Commission report writers to make that distiction? Especially when their job wasn't to focus on the collapse in the first place.
Well, like most people who love conspiracies or some sort of bad science, ergo is a cherry picker. So it's easy to see why he would glom on to convenient phrases, even if they have no meaning in a larger context. If the report had said that the collapse reminded them of a controlled demolition, even though the collapse was not their focus, you can bet that ergo would have considered that as evidence for the theory that he favors.
While ergo claims that he is more in touch with reality than some (all) of us because he understands the emotional connection of information filtering that we all do, (as if that is news to us) he demonstrates just the opposite. I think the main reason for that is he doesn't understand that critical thinking is a tool for cutting through that filtering bias we have as much as we can. He simply discounts our methodology for considering evidence.
His latest intimation that we are unwilling to learn is an example of his contempt for the way we approach claims of fact. He doesn't get it and, after reading his replies to mine and everyone else's posts in several threads, I think it is unlikely that he ever will.
So, outside of the entertainment factor (which at this point is non existent for me) and as reason to learn more about the subject (often a good thing) there is no reason to expect anything useful to come from these discussions…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 09:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The writers of the 9/11 Commission report weren't structural engineers, so their description of the collapse is made in layman's terms. Since Ergo couldn't tell the difference between pancaking and progressive collapse, why should we expect the 9/11 Commission report writers to make that distiction? Especially when their job wasn't to focus on the collapse in the first place.
That's a good point doc. The 9/11 Commission, and the NIST for that matter, didn't focus on the collapse. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 11:44:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That's a good point doc. The 9/11 Commission, and the NIST for that matter, didn't focus on the collapse.
You know exactly what I meant, and that didn't include the NIST report. Such an equivocation that you made is a dishonest misrepresentation of the NIST-report. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 11:45:38 [Permalink]
|
| Kil, you're so right... |
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. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 11:59:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That's a good point doc. The 9/11 Commission, and the NIST for that matter, didn't focus on the collapse.
You know exactly what I meant, and that didn't include the NIST report. Such an equivocation that you made is a dishonest misrepresentation of the NIST-report.
Do you think the NIST was focused on the collapse? They make it very clear that is was not. But if you have support that it was, please provide it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 13:32:07 [Permalink]
|
And you're accusing us of nit picking words?
Ok, what I meant was that NIST focused on what made the collapse possible, but not the actual collapse sequence itself as it was tumbling down.
Edited to fix syntax (marked with blue).
Thanks Ergo for pointing out my mistake that wasn't obvious to me at first nor second glance. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/25/2006 18:48:47 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 13:36:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And you're accusing us of nit picking words?
Ok, what I meant was that NIST focused on what made the collapse possible, but the actual collapse sequence itself as it was tumbling down.
No. I'm trying to understand your perception of what NIST represents and why.
And did you mean to say "...possible, not the actual...? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 13:56:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And did you mean to say "...possible, not the actual...?
Since we didn't have the Lieutenant Commander Data of the USS Enterprise at the scene collecting data on every molecule in the building with the omni-scanning Tricoder, we will never actually know exactly what transpire in there. Such is the language of science. All conclusions are tentative. That you don't understand that is symptomatic of your lack of understanding of the scientific process and critical thinking. It's time for you to memorise the Skeptic Friends Network mission statement (at the bottom of every page), and ponder upon its meaning. |
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. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 14:11:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And did you mean to say "...possible, not the actual...?
Since we didn't have the Lieutenant Commander Data of the USS Enterprise at the scene collecting data on every molecule in the building with the omni-scanning Tricoder, we will never actually know exactly what transpire in there. Such is the language of science. All conclusions are tentative. That you don't understand that is symptomatic of your lack of understanding of the scientific process and critical thinking. It's time for you to memorise the Skeptic Friends Network mission statement (at the bottom of every page), and ponder upon its meaning.
Um. I just asked you if you left a word out of your sentence--because as typed it doesn't make much sense. Use of the word "but" in the middle of a sentence like yours generally implies a modification of the previous part of the statement--like, "I've been to Europe several times, but never to Sweden."
If you meant to say "Ok, what I meant was that NIST focused on what made the collapse possible, but not the actual collapse sequence itself as it was tumbling down,"--that would make sense. And I would agree with you.
But although they focused on what made the buildings collapse--or as they say, what brought the buildings to be poised for collapse"--they had no evidence upon which to base their speculations. Look at the inputs they used for their model. They do not report using observations made during or after the collapse, as those were "beyond the scope of the investigation." Granted they were just 10 to 15 seconds beyond the scope, but a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat and the scope is the scope. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 14:31:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But although they focused on what made the buildings collapse--or as they say, what brought the buildings to be poised for collapse"--they had no evidence upon which to base their speculations.
Just because you dismiss the report as prejudicial does not mean it was based on "no evidence." Clearly they looked at what evidence they had, then used it to determine several likely scenarios and pitted them against the events which were observed. It is speculative to a degree--but it is highly focused and educated speculation which ultimately matched up with observation.
There is no reason to suspect explosives were involved because no observations are unaccounted for. So far you've offered nothing but baseless rumors, inaccurate descriptions, or observations which fail to contradict the conclusion that no explosives were used.
Until any compelling evidence is brought forth to suggest that explosions were necessary to explain an observed event, then that theory does not merit consideration, since the problems of planting explosives (already touched upon here and ignored by you as too difficult to address), make the scenario highly unlikely.
In the absence of any compelling reasons to believe explosives must have been used, no reasonable person would assume they were.
|
"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 10/25/2006 14:33:55 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 14:49:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But although they focused on what made the buildings collapse--or as they say, what brought the buildings to be poised for collapse"--they had no evidence upon which to base their speculations.
quote:
Just because you dismiss the report as prejudicial does not mean it was based on "no evidence."
I don't dismiss NIST because it is prejudicial. I dismiss NIST because it is pure speculation.
quote:
Clearly they looked at what evidence they had, then used it to determine several likely scenarios and pitted them against the events which were observed.
Oh, really? And what evidence was left at the site when NIST began its investigation? And how much of that evidence was collected, handled, stored and tested in accordance with forensic protocols?
quote:
It is speculative to a degree--but it is highly focused and educated speculation which ultimately matched up with observation.
 A "degree?" Is that like being pregnant to a degree? And the only observations it matches up with are "planes hit" and "buildings fell." Oh, but that only accounts for 2 out of the 3 buildings that collapsed. I forget, remind me what they said about Building 7... please!
quote:
There is no reason to suspect explosives were involved because no observations are unaccounted for.
Unless you took the 10 - 15 seconds to watch each building as it collapsed. Then you would have seen the observations I made above that are inconsistent with a gravity-only collapse.
quote:
In the absence of any compelling reasons to believe explosives must have been used, no reasonable person would assume they were.
Then why do you believe that fire brought down 3 WTC buildings when there is no evidence to support the notion that it did? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunk or Just Bunk
