|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 18:17:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But that is speculation on their part based on their pre-collapse modeling.
You have again failed to address the point, which was that you claimed, "time periods and events NIST ignores completely," but the report does not ignore them completely. Your broad generalization about the report depends upon some secret meaning (known only to you) of the words "ignores" and/or "completely." Oh, wait, that's right: to you, "completely" doesn't mean 100%, as in your refrain about how the Twin Towers were "completely destroyed." I apologize, ergo, I should have translated "time periods and events NIST ignores completely" into normal-people-talk as "time periods and events NIST ignores mostly."
By the way, did you know that the Greek word idios, meaning "own" or "private" is where we get the word "idiot" from, as in a person having private or secret knowledge? Of course you knew that, you majored in psychology, so surely you're familiar with the old meaning of the word "idiot." |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 19:08:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Especially when you don't want to know what it shows...
What you obviously don't want to do is suggest a particular video that we all might watch, because you're afraid that you won't be able to complain, "I didn't mean that video, of course that video doesn't show what I was talking about." No, if you link to a video that demonstrates everything you claim, you won't have any "outs" like that, you'll have to stand by your decision in presenting evidence.
It's really nifty to see you duck and dodge to avoid actually offering evidence of something that might make a difference to your arguments (the "molten metal" stuff sure didn't). I mean, rather than simply post a link and tell us what you see and when, you prefer to imply that it is my fault, through fear, that you haven't provided any evidence.quote:
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?
Rather obvious words? You say the collapse is symmetrical when neither its beginning, middle nor end result were symmetrical, and you think your meaning is "obvious?" I want to get to the "real issues," ergo, but you stonewall at every turn. We can't have a productive discussiion unless you lay out what you mean so that we can all agree on the evidence. Your meaning isn't clear, and it's your fault that it isn't clear. Once again, rather than doing the simple, straightforward thing and providing your definitions, you instead accuse me of trying to derail the debate.quote:
Why? What evidence do you have that my definitions are necessary?
Your "obvious" meaning conflicts with mine on several points.quote:
I already explained that by "in favor of" I did not mean that any particular piece of evidence "favored" one theory over the other.
Oh, so everything you say you've posted as evidence is equivocal, according to you. We can all stop discussing it then, and you have no need to post video or links. You've just wasted our time.quote:
I said that the fact that there is (some) evidence for the CD Theory and that there is no evidence for the Grav-only Theory makes the CD Theory the one that should be favored by rational, intelligent people.
You haven't presented any evidence of CD theory, though. I can't take you at your word that CD theory has evidence when you haven't presented any. You want to see some good skepticism? Post some actual evidence that can be examined. Your say-so isn't good enough.quote:
I'm saying the CD Theory explains the quick onset.
Why doesn't gravity-only explain it, too?quote:
After all, every steel framed building that has had a quick onset of collapse has been the target of a controlled demolition at the time.
Every one? Name them all.quote:
quote:
And this is my problem somehow?
Because you have no evidence that "quick Onset" explains a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed buildong.
I couldn't possibly provide such evidence unless you define "quick onset" in some non-subjective way. From my point-of-view, the onset of collapse of WTC 2 took over 50 minutes, anyway. If that's "quick," then it shouldn't be too tough to find steel-framed buildings collapsing in less time.quote:
It's not enough to just say "it could happen." Demonstrate that it could happen.
I'm not the one trying to prove a point here: you are, so stop trying to shift the burden of proof.quote:
But it is relevant to the gravity-only theory. Because if it can be shown that the steel would not fail under the conditions it was under for the time it was under them, it can be proven that the gravity-only theory is untenable.
Okay, so if 55 inches isn't enough to cause a cold perimeter column to fail, what distance would have been enough?quote:
All definitions are subjective, dave. It's a function of the human condition.
Then science is pointless and we should all just go our merry way. Maybe I'll define "World Trade Center in Manhattan" to mean "towers which fell via gravity," argue based on that, and expect you to just know my definition without me telling you what it is.quote:
Some hide behind this fact--using it to postpone having to deal with what their mind sense to be true.
Like what? CD at the WTC? It wouldn't make any difference in my life if it were true, so why would I hide from it?quote:
quote:
Who cares about that?
Anyone who wishes to know what really happened to the towers, of course!
But it doesn't make a bit of difference to either the NIST theory or to CD theory, so again: who cares about steel beams and their response to heat in initiating a collapse?quote:
And what was the cause of these massive amounts of lateral stress, dave...
According to NIST's theory, the cause was the sagging of the floors, which were made with thin steel trusses, not large beams, and the trusses were subjected to temperatures over 205°. But that's their theory. What's obvious, from the photos, is that there was a massive amount of lateral stress on the perimeter columns. The internals don't really matter since we're talking about the collapse.quote:
But it has everything to do with the gravity-only theory. Can't you talk about both theories in the same thread?
I can, but your comments have nothing to do with the gravity-only theory. You're talking about some failure mode which nobody is proposing. You're just building a strawman, and filthy very sensibly has refused to help you cut it down.quote:
Okay--but you do know that the Ft. Worth video is of a building collapsing due to a controlled demolition, right? It's not a gravity-only collapse. If gravity was the only source of energy applied to the building, it wouldn't have taken years to fall (i.e., a non-quick onset of collapse). 
No, the collapse was due only to gravity. The explosives just cut through the supporting columns, allowing gravity to act when before, gravity's force was equally balanced by an upward force through the intact columns. Compare and contrast this with your idea, that the NIST theory and CD theory aren't incompatible, or worse yet, that the fall of the top parts of the towers would be arrested by something, somehow, and so CD was required to continue the collapse).quote:
Don't make a conclusion based on the G-O theory as reason to ignore observed evidence, dave.
I'm not making a conclusion based on the gravity-only theory, I'm stating what the evidence shows: it wasn't a symmetric collapse.quote:
It's obvious from looking at the videpos, that the part of the towers below the crash zones collapse floor by floor, one into the next and into the next and so on.
I fail to see how that is relevent to whether or not the collapse was "symmetric."quote:
And you are right, the tops did tilt. So we are left with visual evidence that the tops tilted and the rest collapsed floor-by-floor. By your own logic above, these 2 conditions cannot occur in a gravity-only collapse.
In a gravity-only collapse,
--a necessary condition for a symetric collapse is a symertic load.
--tilting top = asymetric load and necessitates an asymetric collapse.
No, my logic doesn't include anything about the collapse being symmetrical, because for all the evidence I've seen, it was not.quote:
We have visual evidence of both a tilting top and a symetric collapse.
Show the evidence of a symmetric collapse. I haven't seen it.quote:
Ergo, it was not a gravity-only collapse.
I don't accept your premises, so your conclusion is not compelling.quote:
That still doesn't automatically make the CD Theory true; but at least we have finally dealt a death blow to that outrageous gravity-only theory!
The only thing that's outrageous here is the "symmetric collapse" nonsense.quote:
Now we need to turn our attentions to how we explain the symetric collapse of the towers below the crash zone...
Why would you seek to explain something which did not happen?quote:
...given there was an asymetric load bearing down on the building.
Indeed, how would you explain such magic?quote:
If the demolition of the building was controlled such that the falling upper block of floors never actually hit the floors below untill everything was within, say, 30 feet above ground level, it would be possible for that tilted top to just fall essentially straight down while the rest of the building looked as if it was being forced to the ground by that asymetric load.
Pure speculation, you're no better off than you claim the NIST report to be.quote:
That method would also let the top of the building travel downward at a near-free-fall speed, since it would encounter no resistance on the way down (because each floor would start to fall before the tilted top reached it).
More rampant speculation without a shred of evidence to back it up.quote:
See why the CD Theory is attractive? It accounts for lots of observed facts.
Observed only in your mind, apparently. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 22:02:54 [Permalink]
|
One thing I forgot: you, ergo, expressed a desire to play the "if you don't respond that means you found my argument compelling and irrefutable" game. Yet you didn't respond to me pointing that out. Should I take your silence as an admission that you do wish to play that game? That would, indeed, be continuing the game, and I've got no evidence that you do not want to play. Therefore, I will take all of the following points as won in my favor and irrefutable by you...
...That you're purposefully trying to dodge the issues, as shown by your non-response to:Nice try at dodging the issues ...That you're trying to set up challenges only winnable by people with superpowers, as shown by your non-response to:How can anyone respond to your gut feelings about what "quick onset" means? We can't read your mind. ...That you're creating strawmen in order to look like you're arguing against the "official" theory, as shown by your non-response to:The beams which buckled under the NIST theory weren't exposed to extreme heat for hours. ...That you really don't care about what the "opposing" theory really says, as shown by your non-response to:But you can't be bothered with representing the NIST theory correctly, can you? ...That you don't care about what you've said, either, as shown by your non-response to:You presented no reasons behind the collapse in your previous post. ...That you don't care if your physics is correct or even reasonable, as shown by your non-response to:You've got no clue about physics, obviously. Why would mass outside the footprint not be counted when the center of mass of the whole piece which would allegedly - according to CD theory - be supported by the lower floors is still well inside the footprint? ...That you revel in making wild claims unsupported by evidence, as shown by your non-response to this exchange:quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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?
You'll have to provide evidence of the assumptions underlying this question before it will be answerable.
...That your main argument (the "real issue") is a textbook example of the fallacy of begging the question, as shown by your non-response to:Ah, and now what you're trying to prove becomes your evidence, and your argument becomes completely circular. ...That your arguments favoring CD theory for the Twin Towers do not apply at all to WTC 7, as shown by your non-response to:What about building 7? There definitely was no "quick onset" there, nor was the collapse symmetrical around the axis, nor were beams propelled long distances. WTC 7 doesn't seem to fit any of the conditions you've applied (even though I have to supply temporary definitions myself until you come up with something). ...And that your arguments about the lack of historical precedent for gravity-only theory effectively debunk your own arguments for CD theory, as shown by your non-response to:You demonstrate it for me, everytime you talk about how the CD of the towers could look like anything, and so no historical precedent ir relevant. Your bias prevents you from realizing that your own argument is self-defeating. Wow, I'm getting waaaaay ahead in this game you wanted to play, aren't I?
Did I forget to reply to anything in your last post? Nope, it looks like I hit everything. I even answered one of your older points again because you quote strangely and I missed the fact that it had already been asked and answered.
So let's go for another round of this wonderful game! I'm set and ready! |
- 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 : 22:25:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Okay--but you do know that the Ft. Worth video is of a building collapsing due to a controlled demolition, right? It's not a gravity-only collapse. If gravity was the only source of energy applied to the building, it wouldn't have taken years to fall (i.e., a non-quick onset of collapse).
quote:
No, the collapse was due only to gravity. The explosives just cut through the supporting columns, allowing gravity to act when before, gravity's force was equally balanced by an upward force through the intact columns.
Dave: I'm not going to waste my time answering the rest of your post this quote came from until you clarify something for me.
Is it really your stance that the Ft. Worth video you posted is an example of a gravity-only collapse? Because if you believe that to be true you are either severely mentally ill or just too proud to admit you made a mistake (or both). In either case, I want no part of these debates with you--I don't want to worsen your condition if you are mentally ill; and I don't want to waste my time with you if you are just too proud to admit when you are wrong.
If you admit that the Ft. Worth video is not an example of a gravity-only collapse I'll respond to the rest of your post. If you won't admit it I will not respond to any of your posts.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 00:00:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you admit that the Ft. Worth video is not an example of a gravity-only collapse I'll respond to the rest of your post. If you won't admit it I will not respond to any of your posts.
Why won't you admit that you're just pissed off about being caught in another one of your silly illogical games?
As should be obvious to anyone, a nanosecond after the last charge went off in the Continental Bank Building, it was only poised for collapse. In the absense of gravity, it would have actually flown off into space (whole!) after the last column was cut, given the momentum the building had due to Earth's rotation and the fact that it was no longer "tethered" to the planet. Therefore, the fact that it collapsed was due to nothing but gravity, according to your own hair-splitting arguments with regard to the NIST report.
More obviously, the Continental Bank Building was of course brought down with a combination of explosives and the Earth's gravity. The point being, of course, that NIST's report correctly didn't ignore gravity, but you, ergo, want us to consider the totality of the damage from the airplanes separately from gravity with all of your "poised for collapse" whining.
The World Trade Center did not collapse due to "gravity alone" any more than the Continental Bank Building collapsed from "gravity alone." In both cases, other actors were at play, preparing the buildings for the point at which gravity could do the rest of the work all by itself.
Even your CD "theory" requires that same premise. Such an idea simply requires some extra unstated and undefined "something" about the WTC towers which could prevent gravity from doing all the work once the perimeter columns had buckled. You won't name that something, because you've got no evidence for it at all.
So, your childish game of "pre- or post-collapse" has been shown for what it is, and you're so angry about it that you start another thread in which you fail to offer all pertinent information in yet another attempt to strawman your way out of your absurd notions.
Obviously, it really frustrates you that I can play the games you create better than you can. It frustrates you so much that you're now threatening to not play with me anymore unless I concede a moronically obvious point to you with fanfare. If you're that much a sore loser, it's easy to predict that your entire presence here on the SFN isn't going to end well, regardless of how convincing (or not) your arguments are. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 00:12:29 [Permalink]
|
| By the way, the whole "I'm not going to play with you anymore if you won't admit you're wrong about some tangential thing you said" schtick really does just come off as petulant sobbing coming from someone who, just a couple of posts ago, was complaing that I was avoiding the "real issues." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 00:26:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, the whole "I'm not going to play with you anymore if you won't admit you're wrong about some tangential thing you said" schtick really does just come off as petulant sobbing coming from someone who, just a couple of posts ago, was complaing that I was avoiding the "real issues."
If the whole board had played this game, he would've run out of an audience about three posts into the "game". You're just not in the spirit of this thing, Dave! Ergo's allowed to unanswer everyone as often as he likes. If you don't answer some particular bit of sophistry of his, though, ...? Why then you're obviously a fool and a coward. 
Maybe we should combine and start a thread of The Questions Ergo Won't Answer. The tapdancing there would be a delight to behold. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 00:31:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
More obviously, the Continental Bank Building was of course brought down with a combination of explosives and the Earth's gravity.
Then why did you say it was a gravity-only collapse?
Listen, Dave. I get when definitions are needed and when you are trying to split hairs. I'm not interested in those games.
If you really don't know what is meant by phrases like "quick onset" or that gravity only includes the factors that nist covers in it's pre-collapse modeling fine. But it gets tiring when one needs to write a 20 word sentence to get you to "understand" what is being said. If you can't have a conversation like a regular human being I'm not willing to bother with you. It's just not worth the time to explain to you every little possible nuance of every meaning of every word I use. I already admitted that I was referring to NIST's model & simulators that ignored the collapse and post collapse events. You just can't seem to let go of it. It's like you don't hear the new information--like your mind is made up and the fact that I admitted to referring to the simulations doesn't register.
Anyone with one eye and half a brain can see that the top of the South Tower tipped and that the building collapsed floor-by-floor--conditions that can't both happen in a "plane hits the building, starts fires, blah, blah, blah and then gravity does the rest (referred to as a gravity-only collapse for ease of typing)" collapse. If you don't want to admit that that rules out a "gravity only" explanation fine.
But one of us needs to be the grown-up. You can keep splitting your hairs and playing the "we on this tiny internet board must use the most precise words that exist--otherwise we will never know the truth" game. I'll be the grown-up and move on. Feel free to post comments in my threads, but I've reconsidered my stance here--and you just aren't worth the effort it takes to communicate with you. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2006 : 02:37:20 [Permalink]
|
Damn, Sam!
They are all gravity-only collapses; every noisey, dusty one of them. All the explosives do is weaken the structure so it is easier for gravity to pull it down. What is so hard to grasp about that? Does anyone think that God pushes them down?
Ok, here, again, be-still-my-rolling-eyes, is how it is done:
The demolition gang doesn't even show up on the job until the building is thourghly gutted -- walls, windows, and so forth removed and hauled away. Then a bunch of highly-paid nerds in plastic hats and toting reams of blueprints arrive and make sure the plan they've already worked out is suitable. Following them is a crew armed with oxy-acetylene cutting gear. These guys carefully weaken the structure in accordance with the nerd's orders. Then the blasters make and set the charges, and wire them in, again under the direction of the guys with the thick glassses and the blueprints, who argue with each other a lot. And now it gets, not complicated, but a bit tetchy. Those charges must be fired in sequence, from the center out. This is very carefully planned and done with electronic delays in the firing circutes. Needless to say, the wiring as well as the charges themselves, are rigiously double-checked.
You see, in order to drop the structure into it's own celler hole, without risking damage to other structures even as close as next door, the center is used to pull the rest inward. Look at any video of this. The sequence is obvious.
The charges themselves are not all that spectacular. A liniar shaped charge might weigh only a couple of pounds up to perhaps 8 or 10, or so, although there's a lot of them. The explosive is one of the compositions, in my day, usually C-4. This is nothing but RDX with a plastic-type binder to make it mallable -- lovely stuff. It is highly stable, indeed, all but unexplodeable without a detonator.
There it is in a nutshell. This sort of thing is not done in a trice nor in the dark of the moon.
|
"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 - 10/28/2006 : 07:20:52 [Permalink]
|
| I see. They are all gravity-only--but with help. Personally, I wouldn't call that a gravity-only collapse--since it's getting help; and the 'only' in gravity-only, by definition, precludes getting any help. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 08:41:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I see. They are all gravity-only--but with help. Personally, I wouldn't call that a gravity-only collapse--since it's getting help; and the 'only' in gravity-only, by definition, precludes getting any help.
Then of course the WTC attack was not a gravity only collapse.
|
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 - 10/28/2006 : 10:03:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I see. They are all gravity-only--but with help. Personally, I wouldn't call that a gravity-only collapse--since it's getting help; and the 'only' in gravity-only, by definition, precludes getting any help.
Uh huh.... The sort of help a rock gets when the ice expands and it is knocked off the cliff face? That is not a gravity-only event?
This doesn't make any sense, ergo. By your terms, to qualify the building would have to somehow spontainously lose it's integrety, and possibly it's ethics and virginity in the bargain, and drop. When was the last time you heard of that happening?
In fact, thinking about it that way, real gravity-only events are damned rare, if not nonexistant. Which puts us right back where we started -- it's all the same, fucking thing.
|
"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 - 10/28/2006 : 10:15:58 [Permalink]
|
filth: So if someone asked you why the rock fell off the cliff, you'd say "gravity?" If so, you must be the life of the party...
I'd be inclined to say it was water expansion as it transitioned to ice that caused the rock to fall--as it favors the laws of inertia. You know: bodies at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by some other force...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 10:45:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
filth: So if someone asked you why the rock fell off the cliff, you'd say "gravity?" If so, you must be the life of the party...
I'd be inclined to say it was water expansion as it transitioned to ice that caused the rock to fall--as it favors the laws of inertia. You know: bodies at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by some other force...
If you told 'em that, you'd be the death of the party.... 
Well,  under many conditions. But I must ask: please give us an example of your version of a gravity-only event.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 10:48:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
filth: So if someone asked you why the rock fell off the cliff, you'd say "gravity?" If so, you must be the life of the party...
I'd be inclined to say it was water expansion as it transitioned to ice that caused the rock to fall--as it favors the laws of inertia. You know: bodies at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by some other force...
But that is the problem here. The structures are kept upright because the beams etc act as a counter against gravity. Remove or weaken this structural support enough and the balance moves toward gravity.
In controlled demolition as in the WTC collapses, no downward force is applied. Rather, the structural integrity is weakened after which gravity takes over. This way, the force causing the collapse is indeed only gravity. |
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- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
