|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2006 : 13:26:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
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.
Yes--and in doing so, the explosives help the collapse; they help the collapse happen in the first place.
There is no such thing as a gravity-only collapse, except for faulty design.
So, are we agreed that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to gravity alone?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 13:42:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes--and in doing so, the explosives help the collapse; they help the collapse happen in the first place.
Right. So any "work" done by explosives happens pre-falling. After they detonate, gravity does the rest of the job. Yet you have consistently faulted the NIST report for not modelling anything after the towers began to collapse--even though any explosives would have had to have been detonated prior to that point. NIST only detailed the factors that "helped the collapse happen in the first place," yet for some reason you found that highly objectionable. Are you now reversing that position?
quote:
There is no such thing as a gravity-only collapse, except for faulty design.
So, are we agreed that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to gravity alone?
Ergo, you were the one who first starting using the term "gravity-only" to describe any building that fell without explosives. People were trying to explain to you very early on (like the first thread you started), that it was a confusing and meaningless phrase. If anyone here has ever used it in a debate with you, it would only have been in an attempt to at least talk to you using your own terminology (despite the fact that you think defining your terminology is unimportant). How can you criticize anyone here for employing a phrase you coined?
|
"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 10/28/2006 13:44:21 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2006 : 13:52:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is no such thing as a gravity-only collapse, except for faulty design.
Nope, won't work. Gravity had an assist from the flaws in the design.
You see where this leads, don't you?
|
"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 : 14:16:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes--and in doing so, the explosives help the collapse; they help the collapse happen in the first place.
quote:
Right. So any "work" done by explosives happens pre-falling.
Not likely, as the explosives don't all go off at the same time. Rather, they are sequenced. It is this sequencing, in part, which helps "control" the demolition. Once the structural integrity of one support is compromised, the collapse begins.
quote:
There is no such thing as a gravity-only collapse, except for faulty design.
So, are we agreed that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to gravity alone?
quote:
Ergo, you were the one who first starting using the term "gravity-only" to describe any building that fell without explosives. People were trying to explain to you very early on (like the first thread you started), that it was a confusing and meaningless phrase. If anyone here has ever used it in a debate with you, it would only have been in an attempt to at least talk to you using your own terminology (despite the fact that you think defining your terminology is unimportant). How can you criticize anyone here for employing a phrase you coined?
Is that a "Yes?" |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 15:08:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
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.
Yes--and in doing so, the explosives help the collapse; they help the collapse happen in the first place.
There is no such thing as a gravity-only collapse, except for faulty design.
So, are we agreed that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to gravity alone?
Yes, but how is this a point in the first place? I mean, you coined the term 'gravity-only' which everybody objected to from the start. So what is your point? |
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- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 19:01:55 [Permalink]
|
Ya see, lair123 is trying to get you to say that the buildings didn't collapse from "gravity-only", because in his delusional world a 757 hitting a building and the subsequent jet fuel fires can't weaken and destroy the support structures of a building.
Therefore they can't cause a building to collapse.
So if you agree with him you are agreeing that the buildings didn't collapse due to the plane impact and fires.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 19:09:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Then why did you say it was a gravity-only collapse?
And thus your temper tantrum continues.
Okay, I said it was a gravity-only collapse because you were focused on hair-splitting differences between "pre-collapse," "poised for collapse," and "post-collapse." Those are terms you introduced to the discussion, and you laid out contextual definitions for them so it was easy to see what you meant. As far as I could tell, by your definitions, the Continental Bank Building would have been "poised for collapse" when the demolition charges had done their work, and everything after that was due to gravity "alone," but apparently that wasn't your definition after all, so now everything is up in the air again.
Since the Continental Bank Building collapsed, then at some point in time, it must have been "poised for collapse." When was that, in your opinion? After the last charges detonated? While charges were detonating? Just before the first charge detonated? When the triggerman hit the button? When he turned the key to arm the system? When the last charge was wired into the system? When the first charge was placed? When the demolition team began working on the building? When the last tenant moved out? When the owner said, "I think I'll have this place demolished?" When the building was first built? When?quote:
Listen, Dave. I get when definitions are needed and when you are trying to split hairs. I'm not interested in those games.
Then why did you start the splitting-hairs game in the first place? I certainly didn't bring entirely new terms into the discussion to delineate certain time periods of the collapse. You did that all on your own.quote:
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.
Well, see, there's the problem, right there: you want to "have a conversation like a regular human being," yet at the same time you want to discuss detailed propositions of physics, chemistry and materials science. To discuss those things correctly, one cannot "have a conversation like a regular human being," but instead must demand unambiguous definitions. If you really want to have a cocktail-party discussion of the 9/11 events, there are plenty of other Web forums in which to do it. Most of us here aren't going to come down to that level when you start talking about "theories" being wrong.quote:
It's just not worth the time to explain to you every little possible nuance of every meaning of every word I use.
Thank you for admitting that the communications problems you and I have had are due to your unwillingness to communicate.quote:
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.
Wow, way to shift the topic unexpectedly. What's this about the NIST report? Weren't we talking about what a "gravity-only" collapse is?quote:
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.
Why can't those both happen? WHY NOT? You've yet to explain it at all.quote:
If you don't want to admit that that rules out a "gravity only" explanation fine.
I very well might admit it if you would explain why it would rule out "gravity only" as you've defined it above.quote:
But one of us needs to be the grown-up.
Yes, thank you for admitting to your childish behaviour.quote:
You can keep splitting your hairs...
You're projecting again, since splitting hairs was your game.quote:
...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.
Ah, a strawman. I've never once asked for "the most precise words," I have instead clearly and repeatedly told you that if I don't know what your definition is, then it's impossible to reply to your questions. Case in point, "gravity only." Above, you defined it as "plane hits the building, starts fires, blah, blah, blah and then gravity does the rest," but elsewhere you've defined "gravity-only" clearly as "gravity does everything," to the point where the only possible gravity-only collapses are those due to design flaws. You keep changing your definitions every time it suits your needs (when you're cornered), and so you make it impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with you. This is all your doing, but you lash out at me only because I've pointed it out. You've got all the rhetorical skills of a nine-year-old on the playground.quote:
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.
Then by the rules of the game you began earlier and never ended, you have conceded the fact that CD theory is "gravity only" (as you defined it above) plus some explosives, along with a buttload of other points you've left hanging. Thanks for the landslide win, I appreciate you admitting defeat so easily. |
- 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 - 10/28/2006 : 21:23:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Ya see, lair123 is trying to get you to say that the buildings didn't collapse from "gravity-only", because in his delusional world a 757 hitting a building and the subsequent jet fuel fires can't weaken and destroy the support structures of a building.
Therefore they can't cause a building to collapse.
So if you agree with him you are agreeing that the buildings didn't collapse due to the plane impact and fires.
No. But you are close. Clearly, admitting that buildings do not fall by gravity alone does not mean one agrees that the impact and fires didn't cause the buildings to fall. That's not even a logic error dave would make.
But I do plan to prove that the impact and the fires did not cause the buildings to fall--which will require us to come up with alternative energy sources for the events we all know happened. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 21:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But I do plan to prove that the impact and the fires did not cause the buildings to fall--which will require us to come up with alternative energy sources for the events we all know happened.
By all means, please continue - on the proper thread.
|
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 : 23:33:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But I do plan to prove that the impact and the fires did not cause the buildings to fall--which will require us to come up with alternative energy sources for the events we all know happened.
Great, jumpin', jinglin' Jesus, get on with it, then!
I will help. First, let's toss the report. Fuck the report. Second, let's toss all of the idiotic nit-picking bullshit about gravity. Gravity's here and we're stuck with it. Let's just look at what we know -- I did this a while ago, somewhere.....
We know that big airplanes with their fuel tanks topped off crashed into the buildings at drag strip speeds, causing a certain amount of structural damage. That amount is unknown, but we can safely assume that it was not inconsiderable.
We know that there was a kerosene fire; a large one that was well ventilated from the holes made by the airplanes and windows being blown out by the impacts.
We know that such a fire can reach as much as 1,800 degrees F.
We know that the fire burned unchecked for some 50 minutes (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that time) before the first collapse.
We know that, at temperatures that high, or even a fair amount lower, for that length of time, structural steel will have it's temper drawn -- lose it's strength -- and become pliable.
We don't know the tonnage of the structure above the stricken floors (could probably find out, but I'm not gonna bother), but we do know that it was a lot.
We actually know more than that, but that's the basics and it'll give us a start.
Now then, what exactly, and at last, and in words and phrases that even an ignorant redneck like myself can readily grasp, is your theory?
|
"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 - 10/29/2006 : 10:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
But I do plan to prove that the impact and the fires did not cause the buildings to fall--which will require us to come up with alternative energy sources for the events we all know happened.
quote:
Great, jumpin', jinglin' Jesus, get on with it, then!
Please, don't bring that myth into this!
quote:
We know that big airplanes with their fuel tanks topped off...
No. They were likely to be only half-full, about 10,000 gallons in each plane when they hit.
quote:
...crashed into the buildings at drag strip speeds, causing a certain amount of structural damage. That amount is unknown, but we can safely assume that it was not inconsiderable.
Why can we safely assume that? The architects of the towers claim their tests showed that the design was so redundant the perimeter columns of one entire side of the building could be cut (including both corner supports of that side) and the building could still withstand the load of a 100MPH wind. Official estimates of the damage to the perimeter column claim about 13% were damaged. I posit that your "safe assumption" is an overstatement of the severity of the damage.
quote:
We know that there was a kerosene fire; a large one that was well ventilated from the holes made by the airplanes and windows being blown out by the impacts.
The official reports state that the fire was not well ventilated--they cite the black, sooty smoke coming from the crash zone as evidence of a fuel-rich environment which limited the maximum temperature of the fires to about 650*C. The official reports also point out that the jet fuel was likely consumen within the first 10 to 15 minutes of the fires. There are also reports from fire fighters that the fires were not large--in fact one fire fighter asked for 2 water lines to put out "2 pockets of isolated fire." That hardly seems like what a fire fighter would ask for if the fires were the blazing infernos you attempted to characterize them as.
quote:
We know that such a fire can reach as much as 1,800 degrees F.
But only in a controlled environment with pure oxygen pumped into that environment. Gas stoves are a controlled burn (as opposed to a controlled environment like a blast furnace). The burn at a temperature much hotter than the uncontrolled burn environment that were the twin towers. And so far, my gas stove has never weakened the steel pots I use to cook, nor have the burner grates I set the pot on ever deformed. Why? Because the fire isn't how enough to do either.
quote:
We know that the fire burned unchecked for some 50 minutes (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that time) before the first collapse.
How do we know this? We have expert testimony that the fires did not burn unchecked. We see people standing in the crash zone and not aflame. These bits of evidence, along with the black smoke pouring out of the buldings suggest the fires were not burning unchecked.
quote:
We know that, at temperatures that high, or even a fair amount lower, for that length of time, structural steel will have it's temper drawn -- lose it's strength -- and become pliable.
But test conducten by NIST show that the columns reached a maximum temperature of 250*C--far below the 600*C where steel loses 50% of its strength. In fact, a NIST/UL test of the flooring system showed the floors stood up to test loads without failing when heated to the temperature criteria set forth by NIST. In fact the floors were so resistant to heat, UL was unable to raise the temperature of the test fires high enough to induce a collapse for fear they would damage their facility.
quote:
We don't know the tonnage of the structure above the stricken floors (could probably find out, but I'm not gonna bother), but we do know that it was a lot.
 I can see now why you wanted to toss the reports--because so much of your "help" is contradicted by the factual information contained in the reports. 
quote:
Now then, what exactly, and at last, and in words and phrases that even an ignorant redneck like myself can readily grasp, is your theory?
I'm not sure I'll be able to cut it up into pieces small enough for a redneck to understand. But it sure looks like you have a heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 11:30:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm not sure I'll be able to cut it up into pieces small enough for a redneck to understand.
ergo has no theory to present, just a bunch of half-baked objections to a regular person's understanding of the collapses and an insult to top it off.
And harping on the U/L study is ridiculous, since it must be wrong if it says what ergo is reporting. If he and it were correct, then there would have been no inward bowing of the perimeter walls, yet that was observed. So the U/L's model fails to match reality. Or maybe CD theory will suddenly include hot fires purposefully set on the exact same floors into which the airplanes crashed, and/or a system of jacks to make it look like the floors were sagging due to the fires. |
- 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 - 10/29/2006 : 12:01:54 [Permalink]
|
I am not moving on to the next thread because all of your threads are the same, old, endless bullshit. It's this one or none.
Now what's yout theory? If you have one, that is.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 13:09:21 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 wrote to filthy: quote:
I'm not sure I'll be able to cut it up into pieces small enough for a redneck to understand. But it sure looks like you have a heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread...
Now, wasn't that a nice ad hominem?
Look, ergo, let's make one thing real clear: Filthy's neck may be red from all the time he spends in his swamp studying nature, but his brain cells are plenty gray. Filthy is one of those very rare persons; an open-minded good old boy and enlisted war veteran who has recreated himself as a self-taught, but genuine layman scientist.
So, before you go using insulting names for filthy, you might want to take a deep breath, try to control that mean streak you have exhibited, and attempt to do some serious, evidenced thinking for yourself. Just citing your conspiracy-nut sources by itself don't cut it. Nor do irrelevant insults.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 13:36:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
ergo123 wrote to filthy: quote:
I'm not sure I'll be able to cut it up into pieces small enough for a redneck to understand. But it sure looks like you have a heep of learnin' to do 'fore you even move on to the next thread...
Now, wasn't that a nice ad hominem?
Look, ergo, let's make one thing real clear: Filthy's neck may be red from all the time he spends in his swamp studying nature, but his brain cells are plenty gray. Filthy is one of those very rare persons; an open-minded good old boy and enlisted war veteran who has recreated himself as a self-taught, but genuine layman scientist.
So, before you go using insulting names for filthy, you might want to take a deep breath, try to control that mean streak you have exhibited, and attempt to do some serious, evidenced thinking for yourself. Just citing your conspiracy-nut sources by itself don't cut it. Nor do irrelevant insults.
He called himself a redneck, yell at him.  |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
