Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Reality Check
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2006 :  22:33:41  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In another topic of mine, DaveW posted this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3428547197082474953

Please view the clip and tell me if you

A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.

Edited by - ergo123 on 10/27/2006 23:15:53

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2006 :  22:59:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't think anyone has any idea what you mean by a "gravity only" collapse, ergo.


"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
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2006 :  23:05:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Looks to me as though the building in the video was demolished using carefully set high explosive charges, set at the bottom (largely obscured in the video), and in a vertical line up the right side.

At a couple of spots along this line, there are very sharp, fast blasts visible, such as not seen in the slower (and more fiery) "explosions" caused by the aircraft collision and fuel burning on the Twin Towers, but about what one would expect from high explosives.

There are small but bright, simultaneous, split-second flashes from those explosives. Also (aside from the bottom, where most of the explosives were clearly, and logically set), I don't see much dust or smoke coming out of windows, until the structure actually collapses. Finally, the building collapses from the bottom first, unlike the WTC.

Your point was?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend

59 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2006 :  23:50:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Master Yoda a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

In another topic of mine, DaveW posted this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3428547197082474953

Please view the clip and tell me if you

A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.



Both.
You're not stupid and you know what Dave was saying. CD involves setting charges so that beams and support structures are taken out of the way and then gravity does the rest. Nothing more complicated than that. Why do you insist on playing this game?

So, let's ask you a question. Why does that CD fall to one side and not straight down in it's own footprint?
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  00:01:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
My response can be found over here.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  00:01:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

In another topic of mine, DaveW posted this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3428547197082474953

Please view the clip and tell me if you

A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.



Both.
You're not stupid and you know what Dave was saying. CD involves setting charges so that beams and support structures are taken out of the way and then gravity does the rest. Nothing more complicated than that. Why do you insist on playing this game?

So, let's ask you a question. Why does that CD fall to one side and not straight down in it's own footprint?



I'm not playing a game. If dave is too pig-headed to admit he's wrong, that's his problem.

As to your question, I don't know for sure--but my guess is that was where they wanted the rubble.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  01:02:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
If dave is too pig-headed to admit he's wrong, that's his problem.
Hey, watch your mouth, noob! That's Dave's head, Dave's our pig, and he's our problem!


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  02:53:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh ye gods, another one!

Look carefully at the building. You can see that it's been gutted right down to tne bone.

*shrug* Any competent demolition crew can put the rubble anywhere they want, within reason, simply by varying the firing sequence of the charges. What's the big deal?




"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!

Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  03:58:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

In another topic of mine, DaveW posted this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3428547197082474953

Please view the clip and tell me if you

A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.


As others have said, both. First the explosives blew up scructural support, after that gravity took over. Just as with the WTC, only there structural damage was caused by Jumbojets.

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-
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  06:40:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

As everyone has said this is an example of a controled demolition.

The building collapsed due to gravity because the structural integrity of the building was compromised by explosives.

In the case of the WTC the collapse was due to gravity because the structural integrity of the building was compromissed by the damage from the airplane and the subsquent fires.

If you have some evidence that it was somethng besides the planes hitting the WTC, I would be interested in seeing it.

If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  07:01:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

In another topic of mine, DaveW posted this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3428547197082474953

Please view the clip and tell me if you

A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.


As others have said, both. First the explosives blew up scructural support, after that gravity took over. Just as with the WTC, only there structural damage was caused by Jumbojets.



Interesting. No wonder it is so difficult to communicate with many of you: you have no logic skills. Option B is a totally exclusive option. Option A excludes Option B. Yet you want "only B" plus A--which excludes B...

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  08:53:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
quote:
quote:
A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.

As others have said, both. First the explosives blew up scructural support, after that gravity took over. Just as with the WTC, only there structural damage was caused by Jumbojets.

Interesting. No wonder it is so difficult to communicate with many of you: you have no logic skills. Option B is a totally exclusive option. Option A excludes Option B. Yet you want "only B" plus A--which excludes B

Could you define option B a bit more? A gravity collapse with no help pretty much excludes everything except an improperly designed building.

A collapse due to a jet crashes into a building means it is not case B.
An earth quake causing a collapse means it is not case B.
Corrosion of the support beams causing a collapse means it is not case B.

How about an example of how a building could collapse due to NOTHING except the affects of gravity.




If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  09:32:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
ergo123:
If dave is too pig-headed to admit he's wrong, that's his problem.

Projecting again?


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  09:44:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

How about an example of how a building could collapse due to NOTHING except the affects of gravity.



That's my point--dave said the video was an example of a gravity-only collapse.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  10:12:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I gotta question: Why so many new threads when the topic of discussion hasn't changed an iota? Hell, I've lost track.

Seems to me that all of this could have been done in the first thread, whatever/whenever that might have been. When that one gets closed due to length, then a new one could go.


"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!

Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2006 :  10:53:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

In another topic of mine, DaveW posted this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3428547197082474953

Please view the clip and tell me if you

A) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to controlled demolition, or,

B) Believe it to be an example of a building collapse due to gravity alone (i.e., nothing helped the collapse).

I would like to hear from all of you, so please don't be shy about responding.


As others have said, both. First the explosives blew up scructural support, after that gravity took over. Just as with the WTC, only there structural damage was caused by Jumbojets.



Interesting. No wonder it is so difficult to communicate with many of you: you have no logic skills. Option B is a totally exclusive option. Option A excludes Option B. Yet you want "only B" plus A--which excludes B...


Just because we understand physics doesn't mean we do not understand logic. There is no downward force applied by the explosives, gravity does all the work here.

When the structure is structurally sound, the support counters the forces of gravity. There is a balance between gravity and structural support that is keeping the building from falling. When you remove the structural support, there is only one way but down. But in whole the explosion sequence you see there is no specific downward force applied. The only thing the explosions do is in fact doing is removing the upward force of the structure. The falling motion is purely caused by gravity, there are no other downward forces acting on the structure.

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-
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000