|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2006 : 02:27:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, what's your point--that in the absence of any theory based on observed evidence you pick the first story you hear?
The point, my good addlepate, is that you have yet to come up with anything better than the NIST report, and until you do, you've got doodly-squat.
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2006 : 06:54:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Controlled demolition as done by the pros is too difficult to set up and the sequencing of the firing series too complicated to be practical-- the charges do not go off all at once, BOOM!! If ergo had done a little research, and not necessarily the links I gave him, he would have dropped that one as ridiculous.
Controlled demolition by some explosive method not used by the pros -- no evidence that such was done and until there is, that one too, is ridiculous. Even more so because it probably wouldn't work and the explosion(s) would have been as obvious as a rat turd in the sugar bowl to observers. It is even concievable that it/they might even have put out the fires. High explosives are commonly used to extinguished oil well fires.....
Controlled demolition by use of a quanity of one of the thermites --  you made me laugh.
Where does that leave us, then? Aliens from the planet Agkistrodon loaning the shithead Bush their Q-Ray technology.....?
So, what's your point--that in the absence of any theory based on observed evidence you pick the first story you hear?
I pick the one we saw happen. Without evidence for a very much more complicated scenario, a highly improbable if not impossible scenario, the choice is an easy one. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 09:27:27 [Permalink]
|
Lets look at this way. If the government was not in on it, why should they look for other theories on what made the buildings collapse? You dismiss the NIST report partly because it is government sponsored and therefore tainted. But in order to do that, you must assume that the planes did not bring down the buildings. If they knew that the government had nothing to do with it, why on earth would they pursue that line of investigation? It can't be tainted unless they had access to the secret.
Naturally, the assumption that it was a conspiracy brings even more people in on the evil deed. And that's a significant problem that you have chosen not to deal with. The sheer number of people who would have had to be involved is no small matter.
Also, while some conclusions may be speculative, probably out of necessity due to the absence of hard evidence, these speculations cannot simply be waved away. An educated guess beats wild speculation every time.
It sort of comes down to what authorities you believe have the most credibility. There is always dissent. But like the case of biologists who happen to be young earth creationists, a minority view among biologists, there are those who prefer that view and will cite their chosen authorities to support that view.
You are also wrong that in science every claim is equal and should therefore be pursued. Extraordinary claims will only be pursued if more mundane claims fail. Otherwise, scientist would be obligated to waste their time examining every unlikely claim that comes down the pike.
The burden of proof for an extraordinary claim falls on those who are making that claim. (Logic 101) That's you ergo. We are not obliged to debunk your claim. And since there are plenty here who have tried, only to have you wave those “speculations” away, again and again, there really is no place to go with this.
You are going to believe what you want to believe. And it is not in our power to change that.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 10:49:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Cute Dave. But some here should chastise you for this type of argument--trying to show I don't have evidence something could not happen... tsk, tsk. Stooping to the level you accuse me of...
No, I was actually thinking you might be able to provide positive evidence that a non-CD collapse would happen in some other way than what we saw.quote:
Fortunately, we can turn to the laws of physics which define the characteristics of how steel reacts to heat. As filth should attest to, steel loses its strength gradually when heated. This would prohibit a quick onset of collapse.
As filthy and Ross would attest to, once a beam buckles (quickly), it loses nearly all its strength. Besides, "quick onset" is so vague that it could be referring to any number of things. Why don't you define it for us?quote:
But there is no evidence this would happen in a gravity-only collapse. Do you know why? Because it has never happened before to a steel-framed building.
Okay, go ahead and tell us how non-events in history constitute prima facie evidence that something shouldn't happen, and then explain the Titanic (after all, no ship with all of the Titanic's safety features had ever sunk before, so it shouldn't have sunk either).quote:
Again, you are looking for evidence of a negative.
Nope, I'm looking for positive evidence that the buildings should have fallen more slowly than they did.quote:
Here, however, like with my first point, we have the law of conservation of momentum that prohibits such a quick fall time by gravity alone acting on 80+ storys in a steel-frame building.
There has been no calculation presented which demonstrates any such thing using facts about how the Towers were actually constructed.quote:
quote:
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
quote:
This did not happen.
Really? Maybe we are talking about a different set of buildings...
Apparently we are, since there's all sorts of rubble well outside the buildings' footprints, so I don't see how they could possibly have fallen "straight down." Not only that, but your own sources go on at length about the top of WTC2 twisting in mid air, contradicting the "straight down" idea.quote:
Again, there is no evidence this would happen in a gravity-only collapse--because there haven't been any.
That's actually exactly my point: there haven't been any other collapses of 100+ story buildings, no matter how they were constructed, and no matter how they were brought down. You claim there's no evidence that these things could have happened in a gravity-only collapse because none have ever happened before, but in the same post claim them as positive evidence for the CD theory, even though no such buldings have ever been demolished before (with or without explosives).
You can't have it both ways. |
- 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 - 10/26/2006 : 11:24:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Lets look at this way. If the government was not in on it, why should they look for other theories on what made the buildings collapse?
Gee, I don't know... maybe to make sure it wasn't some other country behind it?!  Don't you think it is possible that some other country might want it to look like Islamic Extreemist did it? For skeptics, you take things at face value a lot, at least on this issue...
quote:
You dismiss the NIST report partly because it is government sponsored and therefore tainted.
No, (hopefully for the last time, but I doubt it...) I dismiss the NIST Report because it is not based on evidence of the entire events surrounding the 3 buildings that collapsed--namely, they do not explain the evidence (photo, video, eye witness) of the actual collapses themselves or the state of the rubble after the collapse.
quote:
But in order to do that, you must assume that the planes did not bring down the buildings.
No--there are more possibilities than "planes brought the buildings down" or "usa government did it." Just think... what country or countries would benefit from a war between USA and Islam...?
quote:
If they knew that the government had nothing to do with it, why on earth would they pursue that line of investigation? It can't be tainted unless they had access to the secret.
Maybe in your "it's either A or B" assessment of the situation that is true...
quote:
Naturally, the assumption that it was a conspiracy brings even more people in on the evil deed. And that's a significant problem that you have chosen not to deal with. The sheer number of people who would have had to be involved is no small matter.
You are correct, it's no small matter. And if it can be proven that explosives (or A.R.s) were used, then it will be important to figure out who did it and how. It sure would have been helpful if all the evidence hadn't been destroyed...
quote:
Also, while some conclusions may be speculative, probably out of necessity due to the absence of hard evidence, these speculations cannot simply be waved away. An educated guess beats wild speculation every time.
I'm not waving them away. I'm wondering why you wave away the educated speculation that explosives were used. The theory that explosives (or A.R.s) were used explains many of the observations made related to the characteristics of the collapses and the state of the rubble afterward--observations NIST never even looked at.
quote:
It sort of comes down to what authorities you believe have the most credibility.
No it doesn't. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 13:21:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You can not prove that the characteristics of the collapses that I claim are are inconsistent with the gravity-only story are consistent with a gravity-only collapse. NIST certainly doesn't even address that issue.
Furthermore, you can't prove that the characteristics that I clam are consistent with the CD Theory are somehow really not consistent with the CD Theory.
Of course not, since your CD theory is so malleable that it can "explain" most sets of observations. Since "God did it" can "explain" any set of observations about the collapses, should we give it a look, too? Of course not.quote:
So it seems clear to me that since the CD Theory explains the ovservation we all made of the actual collapses and the aftermath, and since the CD Theory has a broader scope, it should be the preferred theory between the two (i.e., the official story and the CD Theory).
How does CD theory explain the observed bowing of the perimeter columns? How does CD theory explain the presence of airplane parts within and well away from the rubble? How does CD theory explain the cores of the buildings remaining standing for some seconds after the floors and perimeter columns had fallen away? How does CD theory explain molten metal being found in the basements of the towers? How does CD theory explain the trajectory of the top portion of WTC 2?quote:
Maybe your fear won't let you see that this is the place you go with this...
Maybe your fear won't let you see that CD is an unnecessary hypothesis?quote:
that and working up an alternative theory that also explains the characteristics of the collapses that I listed.
Why should an alternative theory explain things which did not happen?quote:
Science doesn't (nor should the skeptic) stop just because something fixs.
Science should only go where the evidence leads, and you're busy manufacturing fake evidence, so science shouldn't follow you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 14:01:50 [Permalink]
|
Something that has been bothering me about this from the git-go:
How exactly, would a high explosive event speed up the collapse? It seems to me that it would take one hell of a boom to do that; far in excess of what a normal, controlled demolition would produce. None such was observed. I saw the second strike on the toob almost the minute it happened. There was no explosion of such magnitude, unless, of course, some new and exotic explosive was used -- an SBD perhaps....
|
"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 - 10/26/2006 : 18:34:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You can not prove that the characteristics of the collapses that I claim are are inconsistent with the gravity-only story are consistent with a gravity-only collapse. NIST certainly doesn't even address that issue.
Furthermore, you can't prove that the characteristics that I clam are consistent with the CD Theory are somehow really not consistent with the CD Theory.
Of course not, since your CD theory is so malleable that it can "explain" most sets of observations. Since "God did it" can "explain" any set of observations about the collapses, should we give it a look, too? Of course not.quote:
So it seems clear to me that since the CD Theory explains the ovservation we all made of the actual collapses and the aftermath, and since the CD Theory has a broader scope, it should be the preferred theory between the two (i.e., the official story and the CD Theory).
How does CD theory explain the observed bowing of the perimeter columns? How does CD theory explain the presence of airplane parts within and well away from the rubble? How does CD theory explain the cores of the buildings remaining standing for some seconds after the floors and perimeter columns had fallen away? How does CD theory explain molten metal being found in the basements of the towers? How does CD theory explain the trajectory of the top portion of WTC 2?quote:
Maybe your fear won't let you see that this is the place you go with this...
Maybe your fear won't let you see that CD is an unnecessary hypothesis?quote:
that and working up an alternative theory that also explains the characteristics of the collapses that I listed.
Why should an alternative theory explain things which did not happen?quote:
Science doesn't (nor should the skeptic) stop just because something fixs.
Science should only go where the evidence leads, and you're busy manufacturing fake evidence, so science shouldn't follow you.
I think what you don't see, Dave, is that the CD Theory is not at odds with what happened up to the point where the CD began--if, indeed, it occurred. The CD Theory takes over where NIST leaves off. The CD Theory explains observations of the collapse itself and afterwards--time periods and events NIST ignores completely.
Why is that so hard for you to take into account? It's as if you think either NIST is right OR the CD Theory is right. Everything NIST describes could be true. Since NIST don't model to the point of actual collapse they are not at odd with eachother. The CD Theory is a theory of collapse. NIST is a theory of pre-collapse. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 19:26:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I think what you don't see, Dave, is that the CD Theory is not at odds with what happened up to the point where the CD began--if, indeed, it occurred. The CD Theory takes over where NIST leaves off.
Then why have you been so busy drawing a clear distinction between CD theory and "gravity only?" Oh, I see: it's because you can't defend your theory against gravity-only, but you think you can defend it against the NIST report, so you moved the goalposts again.quote:
The CD Theory explains observations of the collapse itself and afterwards--time periods and events NIST ignores completely.
It's a real pity that you've got to misrepresent the NIST report even after moving the goalposts.quote:
Why is that so hard for you to take into account?
It's not, you just moved the goalposts and apparently expected me to read your mind about it.quote:
It's as if you think either NIST is right OR the CD Theory is right.
No, it's as if gravity-only is right or CD theory is right, and then you moved the goalposts. I expect you'll try to move them back real soon, right after you think I've forgotten that you failed to answer any of my previous questions.quote:
Everything NIST describes could be true.
 quote:
Since NIST don't model to the point of actual collapse they are not at odd with eachother.
NIST did model up to the point of collapse.quote:
The CD Theory is a theory of collapse. NIST is a theory of pre-collapse.
And yet, gravity-only is a theory of collapse which is at odds with CD theory, but you'd rather avoid that by moving the goalposts. You'd rather avoid gravity-only because then you'd be expected to demonstrate that the buildings should have fallen more slowly, but you don't actually know the math for that. You'd be expected to demonstrate that if it were a gravity-only collapse, the dust clouds would be smaller, the beams wouldn't have been ejected as far as they were, and that molten metal shouldn't have been found in the basements.
But you don't know nearly enough about any of these things to be able to do more than parrot the CD-theorists' litany of alleged evidence. Polly want some pulverized concrete? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 20:39:29 [Permalink]
|
I believe you are correct in stating the WTC towers fell as a result of demolition, Ergo123. There is little doubt that WTC 7 fell by demolition. I believed official story for 5 years, but simple logic finally got through to me: only upper stories damaged, lower structure supposedly strong and unaffected, yet this undamaged portion provided NO resistance to the falling upper floors. This is highly improbable if not completely impossible. Along with eye witness reports of secondary explosions, including evidence of windows blown out on lobby level and people injured by explosions in the basement, one needs to rethink the official story. Upon seeing a huge lower support column cut at a 60" angle with molten steel on the edges...well...that didn't happen by "accident" or anything to do with a plane hitting 70+ stories up.
What is amazing though, is the lack of "critical thinking" or skeptism by this Skeptic Friends group. What a joke. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 21:01:20 [Permalink]
|
HAHAHA!
|
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 - 10/26/2006 : 22:47:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I think what you don't see, Dave, is that the CD Theory is not at odds with what happened up to the point where the CD began--if, indeed, it occurred. The CD Theory takes over where NIST leaves off.
quote:
Then why have you been so busy drawing a clear distinction between CD theory and "gravity only?" Oh, I see: it's because you can't defend your theory against gravity-only, but you think you can defend it against the NIST report, so you moved the goalposts again.
I draw the distinction because it is a clear one. At least I had thought so--reading your posts makes me think it isn't as clear to everyone as I had thought...
In a nutshell, the Gravity Only Theory (GOT) claims that the total collapse of "the WTC 3" (i.e., WTC 1, 2 & 7) was due to gravity alone. It posits that once the buildings were poised to collapse, they ended up collapsing due to gravity alone.
The CD Theory (CDT) claims that some sort of explosive or otherwise destructive materials were used to assist the collapse. It posits that once the buildings were poised to collapse, some unknown person or group set off these destructive materials and that's what caused the poised buildings to actually collapse.
This is the distinction I have always seen between these 2 theories. The "goalposts" have been in the same spot from my perspective.
quote:
The CD Theory explains observations of the collapse itself and afterwards--time periods and events NIST ignores completely.
quote:
It's a real pity that you've got to misrepresent the NIST report even after moving the goalposts.
How is my comment a misrepresentation of NIST? NIST says, on page 144 of their final report: "The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable--i.e., was poised for collapse." Their models were post-impact/pre-collapse simulations.
quote:
It's as if you think either NIST is right OR the CD Theory is right.
quote:
No, it's as if gravity-only is right or CD theory is right, and then you moved the goalposts.
No. I agree: either the GOT is right or the CDT is right. No moving goal posts. My point about NIST is completely separate. My point about NIST is that it is not support for the GOT--because GOT is a collapse theory, and NIST does not cover the collapse (and the NIST Report admits it's scope of analysis did not extend to the collapse itself).
quote:
Everything NIST describes could be true. Since NIST don't model to the point of actual collapse they are not at odds with eachother.
quote:
NIST did model up to the point of collapse.
Your statement is simply not true according to NIST. If they had modeled to the point of collapse, they would not have said they modeled "to he time at which the building became unstable--i.e., was poised for collapse." For cripe's sake, Dave, look up the word "poised" in the dictionary and see what it says!
quote:
The CD Theory is a theory of collapse. NIST is a theory of pre-collapse.
quote:
And yet, gravity-only is a theory of collapse which is at odds with CD theory, but you'd rather avoid that by moving the goalposts.
Absolutely not, Dave. This is precisely the theories I want to pit against each other. Your problem is that you see NIST as support for GOT. But NIST is NOT support for GOT--because GOT is a collapse theory, and NIST does not cover the collapse (and the NIST Report admits it's scope of analysis did not extend to the collapse itself). So I absolutely do not want to avoid gravity only. You might, because at this point you have no evidence that supports the gravity only theory.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 23:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You can not prove that the characteristics of the collapses that I claim are are inconsistent with the gravity-only story are consistent with a gravity-only collapse. NIST certainly doesn't even address that issue.
Furthermore, you can't prove that the characteristics that I clam are consistent with the CD Theory are somehow really not consistent with the CD Theory.
quote:
Of course not, since your CD theory is so malleable that it can "explain" most sets of observations.
Please demonstrate.
quote:
So it seems clear to me that since the CD Theory explains the ovservation we all made of the actual collapses and the aftermath, and since the CD Theory has a broader scope, it should be the preferred theory between the two (i.e., the official story and the CD Theory).
quote:
How does CD theory explain the observed bowing of the perimeter columns?
It doesn't--the CD Theory is a collapse theory, not a pre-collapse theory.
quote:
How does CD theory explain the presence of airplane parts within and well away from the rubble?
It doesn't--the CD Theory is a collapse theory, not a what-happened-to-the-aircraft theory.
quote:
How does CD theory explain the cores of the buildings remaining standing for some seconds after the floors and perimeter columns had fallen away?
It doesn't--but that scenario is not inconsistent with the CD Theory--especially when you are talking about them standing for some seconds rather than them just standing. Besides, you have shown no evidence that the cores remained standing for some seconds.
quote:
How does CD theory explain molten metal being found in the basements of the towers?
Through the potential use of various destructive materials along with explosives.
quote:
How does CD theory explain the trajectory of the top portion of WTC 2?
Well, Dave, the CD Theory does not ignore the forces of gravity...
quote:
Maybe your fear won't let you see that this is the place you go with this...
quote:
Maybe your fear won't let you see that CD is an unnecessary hypothesis?
Show me the evidence that gravity alone is enough to totally collapse the towers in the way we saw, Dave. Just show me the evidence. But don't bring up NIST--because NIST is a pre-collapse story.
quote:
that and working up an alternative theory that also explains the characteristics of the collapses that I listed.
quote:
Why should an alternative theory explain things which did not happen?
Are you smoking crack there, Dave? I didn't advocate explaining things that never happened. quote:
Science doesn't (nor should the skeptic) stop just because something fixs.
quote:
Science should only go where the evidence leads, and you're busy manufacturing fake evidence, so science shouldn't follow you.
What are you talking about!? Are you referring to details that are not worded exactly right? Then help me fix the wording--don't make some federal case out of it. I'm only human. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 23:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I believe you are correct in stating the WTC towers fell as a result of demolition, Ergo123. There is little doubt that WTC 7 fell by demolition. I believed official story for 5 years, but simple logic finally got through to me: only upper stories damaged, lower structure supposedly strong and unaffected, yet this undamaged portion provided NO resistance to the falling upper floors. This is highly improbable if not completely impossible. Along with eye witness reports of secondary explosions, including evidence of windows blown out on lobby level and people injured by explosions in the basement, one needs to rethink the official story. Upon seeing a huge lower support column cut at a 60" angle with molten steel on the edges...well...that didn't happen by "accident" or anything to do with a plane hitting 70+ stories up.
What is amazing though, is the lack of "critical thinking" or skeptism by this Skeptic Friends group. What a joke.
I share your amazement. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 23:09:54 [Permalink]
|
Ergo123....
quote:
Gee, I don't know... maybe to make sure it wasn't some other country behind it?! Don't you think it is possible that some other country might want it to look like Islamic Extreemist did it? For skeptics, you take things at face value a lot, at least on this issue...
Well, I'm not taking this at face value!
Careful, Ergo, your slip is showing!
What sort of trawling are you doing here? Want to name a country, please? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
