|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 08:44:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
Come on, it was us all along (meaning my people, ie the dutch). We want to destroy America so we can destroy christianity once and for all and then turn the whole world in a weed-smoking, liberal infested red light district.
Kind of like a Global Melk Weg. 
quote:
And how we did it. Hehe, you wouldn't understand anyway, we're dutch. Our intelligence moves at levels higher then you Americans can ever understand.
It's "...higher levels than you..., smarty pants.  |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 08:50:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I share your amazement.
What's amazing is that Doomar seems to be inventing "facts" just like you (how could anyone have been injured in an explosion in the basement of WTC 7 as a part of its destruction? When was that big column cut?), but you and he don't care about that. Doomar also has a long history of making up stuff about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and the theory of evolution (to name a few), so this post of his isn't particularly surprising - it's just amazing that you eat up the nonsense that he's serving, and then share his disdain for the others here as if you've somehow got a lock on "the Truth."
I'm sorry dave, did I say the CD Theory was true? I thought I offered it as a theory. In fact, that's why I've been calling it the CD Theory all along...
I'm just pointing out that the CD Theory has evidence in its favor. I have yet to see anyone here present any evidence that the total collapse of the wtc 3 could have been achieved by gravity alone. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 09:46:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm sorry dave, did I say the CD Theory was true? I thought I offered it as a theory. In fact, that's why I've been calling it the CD Theory all along...
I'm just pointing out that the CD Theory has evidence in its favor. I have yet to see anyone here present any evidence that the total collapse of the wtc 3 could have been achieved by gravity alone.
A Theory represents the best explaination for the data supporting some phenomenon. What you have does not even approach the level of a theory, which you admit to. What you have is mere speculation. You your use of CD theory is same as the DI's use of ID theory. It's wrong. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 10:00:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm sorry dave, did I say the CD Theory was true? I thought I offered it as a theory. In fact, that's why I've been calling it the CD Theory all along...
Yes, you also share with Doomar an ignorance of what the word 'theory' means (see also, electron theory, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the theory of reltivity, the theory of evolution, etc.). Of course, when I said that you think you've got a lock on "the Truth," I wasn't referring to CD theory at all, I was refering to your attitude.quote:
I'm just pointing out that the CD Theory has evidence in its favor.
You have yet to present any evidence that favors CD theory over any other theory, much less gravity-only.quote:
I have yet to see anyone here present any evidence that the total collapse of the wtc 3 could have been achieved by gravity alone.
That gravity was involved is self-evident. You are the one claiming that someone more than gravity was required for those buildings to fall in the manner they did, so you're the one making claims which require evidence to support them. And you're doing so in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to disagree, because you're failing to define "quick onset," failing to define "total collapse," failing to define "near free-fall," failing to state why the asymmetry matters, and failing to offer any measure of concrete pulverization or beam ejection. And by failing to provide any of those things, you have utterly failed to support your contention that the items you mentioned are inconsistent with a gravity-only collapse.
You've also failed to provide any evidence for those "facts" in the first place. Not only that, but there is no historical evidence that controlled demolitions occur in the manner you hint at, either. So even though you'll complain that there is no precedent for the Twin Towers falling by gravity alone, there is also no precedent for them falling the way they did through controlled demolition. As I said, your "theory" is so malleable that any potential observation could be included through some twisted "logic."
Some historical evidence:I notice that all of the above demolitions, known to have been done with explosives, are asymetrical. (This one might have been symmetrical, had it worked.)
How many of the above demolitions fell at "near free-fall" speeds? Any of them? How will we know until you define that condition? Ditto for the onset of collapse. |
- 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 - 10/27/2006 : 11:07:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm sorry dave, did I say the CD Theory was true? I thought I offered it as a theory. In fact, that's why I've been calling it the CD Theory all along...
quote:
Yes, you also share with Doomar an ignorance of what the word 'theory' means
I was using the word theory to mean "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (Dictionary.com). You know, this semantic hair-splitting on your part is an obvious tactic to deflect the discussion away from the real issue here.
quote:
Of course, when I said that you think you've got a lock on "the Truth," I wasn't referring to CD theory at all, I was refering to your attitude.
Oh--well pardon me for thinking your comment was on-topic. 
quote:
I'm just pointing out that the CD Theory has evidence in its favor.
quote:
You have yet to present any evidence that favors CD theory over any other theory, much less gravity-only.
No, Dave. Try this--What the CD Theory has going for it (that the gravity-only theory does not) is that there is evidence for the CD Theory. In other words, "the CD Theory has evidence in its favor..."
quote:
I have yet to see anyone here present any evidence that the total collapse of the wtc 3 could have been achieved by gravity alone.
quote:
That gravity was involved is self-evident.
Agreed--but no one has shown credible evidence that gravity alone was all that was needed to start the collapse and have the buildings totally collapse as a result, leaving debris spread over the area as it was.
quote:
You are the one claiming that someone more than gravity was required for those buildings to fall in the manner they did, so you're the one making claims which require evidence to support them.
Yes--and I have provided that evidence.
quote:
And you're doing so in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to disagree, because you're failing to define "quick onset," failing to define "total collapse," failing to define "near free-fall," failing to state why the asymmetry matters, and failing to offer any measure of concrete pulverization or beam ejection. And by failing to provide any of those things, you have utterly failed to support your contention that the items you mentioned are inconsistent with a gravity-only collapse.
Ooooh, I see. So seeing the characteristics of the collapse does not count as evidence for you. You want to dissect words again. Okay. I'll try to define some of these terms if that will get you to focus.
quote:
You've also failed to provide any evidence for those "facts" in the first place.
Just watch a couple of the videos of the collapse, Dave. If you need a link let me know...
quote:
Not only that, but there is no historical evidence that controlled demolitions occur in the manner you hint at, either. So even though you'll complain that there is no precedent for the Twin Towers falling by gravity alone, there is also no precedent for them falling the way they did through controlled demolition.
And your evidence for there being no precedent for controlled demolitions occuring in the manner I hint is what, that you can't find one? At least hold yourself to the same standard you hold me to, Dave...
quote:
As I said, your "theory" is so malleable that any potential observation could be included through some twisted "logic."
Some historical evidence:I notice that all of the above demolitions, known to have been done with explosives, are asymetrical. (This one might have been symmetrical, had it worked.)
How many of the above demolitions fell at "near free-fall" speeds? Any of them? How will we know until you define that condition? Ditto for the onset of collapse.
Dave, Dave, Dave... The fact that not all controlled demolitions look like what happened at the WTC does not act as evidence against the CD Theory or for the Gravity Only theory. That controlled demolitions are on record that look nothing like what happened at the WTC is irrelevant--just like the fact that many cars are driven without hitting someone is irrelevant to a particular hit-and-run incident.
Again you are basing your understanding of controlled demolition on how it is conventionally used in a commercial context. Do you agree that the reasons a building is demolished will influence what techniques are used to demolish it? If so, does it seem reasonable that demolitions for commercial purposes have different reasons behind them than would demolitions meant to look like terrorist attacks? If so, why would you assume the techniques used for creating the illusion of a terrorist attack would be the same as those used for all the videos you listed?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 11:30:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
'm just pointing out that the CD Theory has evidence in its favor.
You have yet to present any evidence that favors CD theory over any other theory, much less gravity-only.
No, Dave. Try this--What the CD Theory has going for it (that the gravity-only theory does not) is that there is evidence for the CD Theory. In other words, "the CD Theory has evidence in its favor..."
No, no, no, you don't get it do you ergo? This is where you show the evidence. Just saying there is evidence over and over without presenting it just makes you look silly.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:01:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Dave. Try this--What the CD Theory has going for it (that the gravity-only theory does not) is that there is evidence for the CD Theory. In other words, "the CD Theory has evidence in its favor..."
Demonstrate that such a statement is true.quote:
Agreed--but no one has shown credible evidence that gravity alone was all that was needed to start the collapse and have the buildings totally collapse as a result, leaving debris spread over the area as it was.
Nobody can in light of the undefined conditions you seek to apply to the evidence.quote:
Yes--and I have provided that evidence.
No, you have just talked about it. You haven't actually presented anything.quote:
Ooooh, I see. So seeing the characteristics of the collapse does not count as evidence for you. You want to dissect words again.
No, I want you to show that "quick onset" is evidence in favor of CD and not gravity-only. Your claim is that "quick onset" is evidence for CD, so demonstrate that to be true. I can't see why it would be, since lots of gravity-only collapses are quick. Same goes for your other imposed conditions.quote:
Okay. I'll try to define some of these terms if that will get you to focus.
I can't wait!quote:
quote:
You've also failed to provide any evidence for those "facts" in the first place.
Just watch a couple of the videos of the collapse, Dave. If you need a link let me know...
Yeah, show me a video of the collapse that demonstrates them to be symmetrical. Oh, the tops tip (on both towers) and WTC 7 had one side fall before the other, so they're not symmetrical. Too bad.quote:
And your evidence for there being no precedent for controlled demolitions occuring in the manner I hint is what, that you can't find one? At least hold yourself to the same standard you hold me to, Dave...
Show me a controlled demolition of a 100-plus story building, ergo. It's not that I can't find any historical precedent - it's that none exists.quote:
Dave, Dave, Dave... The fact that not all controlled demolitions look like what happened at the WTC does not act as evidence against the CD Theory or for the Gravity Only theory. That controlled demolitions are on record that look nothing like what happened at the WTC is irrelevant--just like the fact that many cars are driven without hitting someone is irrelevant to a particular hit-and-run incident.
As I said, your "theory" is so malleable that any evidence can "fit" it.quote:
Again you are basing your understanding of controlled demolition on how it is conventionally...
Blah, blah, blah. More rationalization about how the CD theory can be molded to fit any possible observation has been snipped. No response to the point I was making is found. My criticism about your prior statement of the lack of historical precedent for a gravity-only collapse remains unanswered, and you remain a hypocrite: unable or unwilling to examine your own "theory" as you wish others would examine the government's. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:06:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
No, no, no, you don't get it do you ergo? This is where you show the evidence. Just saying there is evidence over and over without presenting it just makes you look silly.
ergo thinks that posting the following:--quick onset of collapse
--total collapse
--near free-fall speed of collapse
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
--pulverization of much of the concrete in the building coupled with ejection of steel beams and total collapse. is presenting the evidence in favor of CD. He is, of course, completely wrong because he hasn't shown that such things would be expected in CD and not in gravity-only. So all of these claims (since they're undefined, it's impossible to tell if they've even happened - and the "straight down" one is baloney on its face) are, at this moment, equivocal with regard to all theories of collapse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:51:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It's "...higher levels than you..., smarty pants.
Oh bugger... |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:53:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Hi Doomar; welcome back!
Ok, since, after what seems like a century of riding this foundered carousel, I haven't gotten much for an answer out of ergo, I'll ask you:
If high explosives were responsible for the destruction of the towers, how were the charges set? Remembering that these were buildings that had at least some legitimate activity on all floors 24/7?
When that can be answered to my satisfaction, I might entertain further exploration of the idea.
There are any number of scenarios that could accomplish the logistics for a CD at the WTC 3. But the reality of whether it was or was not a CD does not depend on having a scenario that satisfies you. That's why I haven't responded to your other requests for an answer on this topic.
And I posited an scenero about some god or other farting it down. That's as good as any other, unsupported nonsense. You haven't answered because, obviously, you have no answer.
But I, having the patience of a corpse, shall ask again: How were the charges set and what was the secondary explosive?
To my satisfaction, not yours. You, it seems, would be satisfied with 'most any, old fairy tale as long as it was spectacular enough.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:55:09 [Permalink]
|
By the way...quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The CD Theory explains observations of the collapse itself and afterwards--time periods and events NIST ignores completely.
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's a real pity that you've got to misrepresent the NIST report even after moving the goalposts.
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Your problem is that you're confused. You're confused in that you're thinking that the NIST model is the whole of the NIST report. It is not. And with statements like this:The release of potential energy due to the downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
- NCSTAR1-6D, page 314 (page 378 of PDF) shows that the report extends beyond the model. The report does, indeed, address the collapse itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:58:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
No, no, no, you don't get it do you ergo? This is where you show the evidence. Just saying there is evidence over and over without presenting it just makes you look silly.
ergo thinks that posting the following:--quick onset of collapse
--total collapse
--near free-fall speed of collapse
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
--pulverization of much of the concrete in the building coupled with ejection of steel beams and total collapse. is presenting the evidence in favor of CD. He is, of course, completely wrong because he hasn't shown that such things would be expected in CD and not in gravity-only. So all of these claims (since they're undefined, it's impossible to tell if they've even happened - and the "straight down" one is baloney on its face) are, at this moment, equivocal with regard to all theories of collapse.
I'm still confused by the term 'gravity only'. I mean, it's more like 'big airplane hits building, spills fuel which starts burning interior which has lots of other flammable material which further damges and further weakens the already weakened (because of being hit by aforementioned big airplane) structure'-only. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:26:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Dave. Try this--What the CD Theory has going for it (that the gravity-only theory does not) is that there is evidence for the CD Theory. In other words, "the CD Theory has evidence in its favor..."
quote:
Demonstrate that such a statement is true.
I have, Dave. I have provided evidence (okay--I've talked about it, but it's easy enough to watch a video of it on the internet...)
quote:
Agreed--but no one has shown credible evidence that gravity alone was all that was needed to start the collapse and have the buildings totally collapse as a result, leaving debris spread over the area as it was.
quote:
Nobody can in light of the undefined conditions you seek to apply to the evidence.
Really Dave? Or is your expressed need for definitions of rather obvious words just a tactic of yours to deflect the discussion from the real issues?
quote:
Ooooh, I see. So seeing the characteristics of the collapse does not count as evidence for you. You want to dissect words again.
quote:
No, I want you to show that "quick onset" is evidence in favor of CD and not gravity-only.
You sure can be dense when you want to, eh Dave. Even after correcting your misreading of the phrase "in favor of," you still use your original interpretation. Why is that?
You know, I would show you the signature "slow onset" of a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed building that was poised to collapse due to fire--but steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire. But let's ask filth. Yo filth-EE, what happens to load-bearing steel as its temperature rises to the point it can no longer hold the load it was originally bearing? And while you are at it, what would the fires need to be like on the floor that "gave way" and brought all the steel columns to this failure temperature at the same time? And, how long would those fires need to be heating up all that steel to the failure point?
Think back to the videos you listed, dave. Watch them again. Notice how as you watch, you don't have much of a clue when the building is going to begin to fall. Then all of a sudden, the building begins to fall. That's what I mean by "quick onset." I'm sorry there isn't a more detailed, objective definition--at least that I can give you. But in contrast, when steel framed structures are subjected to several hours of extreme heat (i.e., hotter than what was experienced at the WTC 3), as the temperature of the steel rises, it warps and buckles over a couple of hours minutes or more before failing (according to my brother, the mechanical engineer who worked at Republic Steel and LTV). Add to that the fact that NIST examination of some of the twin towers' steel (what little wasn't shipped off or burried) showed no beams reached a temperature of over 250*C--which just isn't hot enough for the steel to fail. But this last point is evidence that the gravity-only theory is impossible; sorry for straying off topic.
quote:
I can't see why it would be, since lots of gravity-only collapses are quick.
Really? Show me some evidence of that. But make sure the collapses are of steel-framed buildings subjected to heat--because those are important details that need to be controlled for (no pun intended) here.
quote:
Yeah, show me a video of the collapse that demonstrates them to be symmetrical.
They are symetrical around the main axis of the building, Dave. The collapse progresses floor by floor. Now sure, you can rig a building to blow and lean it over if you want--and I'm sure you will provide a long list of videos to watch where they do that. But that speaks to the issue of the reasons behind the collapse which I presented in my previous post--that you apparently found compelling and impossible to refute as you didn't respond to it.
quote:
Oh, the tops tip (on both towers) and WTC 7 had one side fall before the other, so they're not symmetrical.
Funny thing about that, dave. If the tops tipped, it would have had to have been beyond the footprint of the remaining structure, right?
And if that was the case then the mass impacting the "floors below" the top should have that portion beyond the footprint removed from any calculations of mass transfer. Right? But when you look at any of the Gravity-Only papers on mass transfer, they multiply the average mass per floor time the number of floor above the first impacted floor to get their estimate for the mass of the top block of floors. (Also, the use of the average in this case overestimates the mass from the start since the mass of the upper floors is less on a per-floor basis due to the way the steel support columns get thinner as you go up the tower.)
Also, that portion that tipped beyond the perimeter of the building... why did it not fall faster than the dust which was somewhat suspended in air due to the respective pieces (big hunk of building vs. concrete dust particles) ratio of surface area to mass?
quote:
And your evidence for there being no precedent for controlled demolitions occuring in the manner I hint is what, that you can't find one? At least hold yourself to the same standard you hold me to, Dave...
quote:
Show me a controlled demolition of a 100-plus story building, ergo.
There are only two I think fit that description: WTC 1 & WTC 2. But don't forget WTC 7! WHy is it that those believing the official story always forget to mention building 7...?
It's not that I can't find any historical precedent - it's that none exists.quote:
Dave, Dave, Dave... The fact that not all controlled demolitions look like what happened at the WTC does not act as evidence against the CD Theory or for the Gravity Only theory. That controlled demolitions are on record that look nothing like what happened at the WTC is irrelevant--just like the fact that many cars are driven without hitting someone is irrelevant to a particular hit-and-run incident.
quote:
As I said, your "theory" is so malleable that any evidence can "fit" it.
Yes, you keep saying it but never demonstrate it...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:30:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
[quote]Originally posted by ergo123
[quote]Originally posted by filthy
Hi Doomar; welcome back!
I posited an scenero about some god or other farting it down. That's as good as any other, unsupported nonsense. You haven't answered because, obviously, you have no answer.
But I, having the patience of a corpse, shall ask again: How were the charges set and what was the secondary explosive?
To my satisfaction, not yours. You, it seems, would be satisfied with 'most any, old fairy tale as long as it was spectacular enough.
There are any number of scenarios that could accomplish the logistics for a CD at the WTC 3. But the reality of whether it was or was not a CD does not depend on having a scenario that satisfies you. That's why I haven't responded to your other requests for an answer on this topic.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:32:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way...quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The CD Theory explains observations of the collapse itself and afterwards--time periods and events NIST ignores completely.
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's a real pity that you've got to misrepresent the NIST report even after moving the goalposts.
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Your problem is that you're confused. You're confused in that you're thinking that the NIST model is the whole of the NIST report. It is not. And with statements like this:The release of potential energy due to the downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
- NCSTAR1-6D, page 314 (page 378 of PDF) shows that the report extends beyond the model. The report does, indeed, address the collapse itself.
But that is speculation on their part based on their pre-collapse modeling. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
