|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2006 : 14:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Have you people ever heard of "building a case?"
Have you heard about "losing the audience"?quote:
At this point, I'm proving that the official story is an impossibility. In doing so, you will not be able to fall back on it (read "hide behind it") when we discuss the evidence for the CD Theory.
What you have to do is to to show that your "story" explains the evidence better than the "official story" so far, without any positive evidence, you are not even close.
Why do I have to do that? My point here is not to prove the CD Theory is true--my goal is to prove it is worth examining more closely. One way to do that is to disprove the official story--thereby creating the need to develop one that is actually possible.
And sure, I expected to lose at least some of the audience--namely the ones who really don't want to hear that the official story really isn't true. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 14:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
And sure, I expected to lose at least some of the audience--namely the ones who really don't want to hear that the official story really isn't true.
Ha! I doubt it would occur to you but some of us are waiting (perhaps like vultures) for you to finish. I, for one, am inclined to not comment until you have presented your case…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 15:28:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
And sure, I expected to lose at least some of the audience--namely the ones who really don't want to hear that the official story really isn't true.
Ha! I doubt it would occur to you but some of us are waiting (perhaps like vultures) for you to finish. I, for one, am inclined to not comment until you have presented your case…
I was hoping for a more organic, interactive process, as it is more efficient. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 15:37:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
I was hoping for a more organic, interactive process, as it is more efficient.
More efficient than getting out of your way to let you make your case? How so?
I am of the opinion that I have but one lifetime.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 17:14:47 [Permalink]
|
As for what brought down the towers, we now know it was not the the impact of the planes--many scientists, even those who support the official story like thomas eagar of mit, agree that the mass of the plane was no match for the mass of the building, and the plane wasn't heavy enough to do the trick on its own once it was in the building. How they would fit in the building is a bit of mystery all its own, but we don't need to go there to prove the official story is necessarily false.
And we now know it was not the fires: We have evidence reported by NIST that none of the steel they examined reached temperatures past 250*C. While the temperature of the fires were likely much hotter than that, the fires did not burn long enough or hot enough to transfer enough heat to the heat-sink (that was the steel frame of the tower) to the point of significant weakening. This finding is supported by NIST/UL tests of the floor assemblies that did not fail after being loaded twice their normal load and for twice as long as the South Tower lasted. These findings are further consistent with the fact that aside from the alledged fire-induced collapses on 9-11-01, no other steel-framed building has ever totally collapsed. And don't even bother with the insulation angle--the steel in the towers (regardless of what filth tries to pawn off on us) was rated for several hours at 2000*F with no insulation.
As I pointed out several weeks ago, the NIST simulators, while purporting to use only physically possible inputs, did not claim to use inputs that were representative of the evidence surrounding the events of 9-11-01. I smelled something rotten back then. And recently, I found that my hunch was right. NIST translated (using some unknown translation scheme) a 3 inch observed sag obtained after twice the load for twice the time (in the UL tests), into a 42 inch sag in half the time. I'm still waiting for that to be explained... Anyone?
Some of you (those who tend to want to win at all costs) will cry foul as I have shown NIST to be invalid from the start. Well, relying on NIST data to disprove the NIST story is simply using a lier's own words to hang himself.
So I open the floor to what did bring the towers down? Now that the official story has been debunked for the outrageous conspiracy theory that it is, what are we left with?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 19:46:11 [Permalink]
|
I know why you are doing it ergo, as it is vital to employ many erroneous concepts when doing the hard work of an apologist for unevidenced and paranoid conspiracy theories. But you should not be permitted to get away with your continuing "heat sink" fallacy.
Though fairly good electrical conductors, iron and steel are poor heat conductors. This fact makes it possible to do differential tempering in even small steel objects, like a cold chisel. You can heat up one end of a short piece of steel to a bright red or yellow, while leaving the other end relatively cool. Iron has roughly only a third the thermal conductivity of aluminium, and roughly a fifth that of copper. If steel worked well as a heat sink, it would be employed widely as such by industry in that capacity, instead of the use of more expensive aluminum. But it doesn't, and isn't.
So don't try that "heat sink" trick to try to inject the fallacy that the framework of a steel-reinforced building would dissipate the heat of a fire before it could cause local areas of weakness.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/31/2006 20:03:56 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 20:39:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I know why you are doing it ergo, as it is vital to employ many erroneous concepts when doing the hard work of an apologist for unevidenced and paranoid conspiracy theories. But you should not be permitted to get away with your continuing "heat sink" fallacy.
Though fairly good electrical conductors, iron and steel are poor heat conductors. This fact makes it possible to do differential tempering in even small steel objects, like a cold chisel. You can heat up one end of a short piece of steel to a bright red or yellow, while leaving the other end relatively cool. Iron has roughly only a third the thermal conductivity of aluminium, and roughly a fifth that of copper. If steel worked well as a heat sink, it would be employed widely as such by industry in that capacity, instead of the use of more expensive aluminum. But it doesn't, and isn't.
So don't try that "heat sink" trick to try to inject the fallacy that the framework of a steel-reinforced building would dissipate the heat of a fire before it could cause local areas of weakness.
Interesting. Globalspec engineering states on their web site (www.globalspec.com): "Common heat sink materials include aluminum, copper, and steel." (emphasis added.) My dad, who was tasked with developing a heat sink for a laser mirror that that needed to reflect a beam from carbon-dioxide laser, as well as my brother the steel engineer also said that the steel in the WTC acted as a giant heat sink. Of course if the architects were tasked with building a giant heat sink they might have chosen a different, cheaper material. BUT THEY WERE TASKED WITH BUILDING A SKYSCRAPER you boob! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fucking building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...you twit. Talk about tunnel vision. Oh, I get it--"full mooner" would mean you had a full brain...
How do you sheeple manage to look at every aspect of these events backwards? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 22:02:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
... you boob! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fucking building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...you twit. Talk about tunnel vision. Oh, I get it--"full mooner" would mean you had a full brain...
How do you sheeple manage to look at every aspect of these events backwards?
Ad-Hom-O-Rama!
Hey ergo. Are you trying to set some kind of record? Let me first nicely suggest that you tone it down. We have experts on the use of insulting language here at SFN that I might sic on you if you keep it up. Oh, and I might also issue a warning…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 22:08:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
... you boob! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fucking building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...you twit. Talk about tunnel vision. Oh, I get it--"full mooner" would mean you had a full brain...
How do you sheeple manage to look at every aspect of these events backwards?
Ad-Hom-O-Rama!
Hey ergo. Are you trying to set some kind of record? Let me first nicely suggest that you tone it down. We have experts on the use of insulting language here at SFN that I might sic on you if you keep it up. Oh, and I might also issue a warning…
It's really no worse than what have been directed toward me, kil. But I will take your words under advisement... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/31/2006 22:25:58 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 22:10:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
We have experts on the use of insulting language here at SFN...
I actually have a degree in it. My graduate thesis was on ancient Sumerian "yo mama" jokes.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 22:22:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
We have experts on the use of insulting language here at SFN...
I actually have a degree in it. My graduate thesis was on ancient Sumerian "yo mama" jokes.
See, I knew you were angry... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 22:24:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
See, I knew you were angry...
You crack me up, ergo.
So, why are you still a bed-wetter?
|
"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 10/31/2006 22:25:00 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 23:20:14 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the support, folks. But I had called ergo much worse, when I referred to him as "an apologist for unevidenced and paranoid conspiracy theories." Personally, I would have been in a murderous rage after such an accusation. "Boob" "twit," and "sheeple"? Mild, mild words by our local standards, as others tried to warn ergo.
Of course, throwing a hissy-fit can work as a brief distraction. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words won't change the poor thermal conductivity of steel one iota. Maybe by insulting ergo's steel heat sink I've touched a nerve. And you really need that heat sink, don't you, ergo?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/31/2006 23:26:57 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 00:05:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thanks for the support, folks. But I had called ergo much worse, when I referred to him as "an apologist for unevidenced and paranoid conspiracy theories." Personally, I would have been in a murderous rage after such an accusation. "Boob" "twit," and "sheeple"? Mild, mild words by our local standards, as others tried to warn ergo.
Of course, throwing a hissy-fit can work as a brief distraction. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words won't change the poor thermal conductivity of steel one iota. Maybe by insulting ergo's steel heat sink I've touched a nerve. And you really need that heat sink, don't you, ergo?
Like I said--and you completely avoided addressing...
Of course if the architects were tasked with building a giant heat sink they might have chosen a different, cheaper material. BUT THEY WERE TASKED WITH BUILDING A SKYSCRAPER! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fcuknig building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...
Does that make sense to you that the designers of the building were looking for a structure that would stand? That the steel acts as a heat sink is a bonus--but it still acts as a heat sink even if not designed for expressly that purpose.
That illustrates what is so frustrating with many of you on this site. You dismiss something like the steel acting as a heat sink because steel isn't the optimal material for a heat sink in most applications. Bit you miss the whle point of why the steel is in the building in the first place and you ignore or otherwise dismiss the fact that even though it isn't the optimal material, it still acts as a heat sink.
You take the same backwards approach to evaluating the cd notion. CDs aren't done top down, so it can't have been a cd... CDs are designed not to cause so much damage to surrounding buildings, so it can't have been a cd...
Your lack of ability to think outside the parameters of what something is designed for or what is or isn't a typical application for a particular material or technique is dumbfounding.
It's as if you don't realize that if someone or some group did use explosives (etc.) to bring down the towers they would want it not to look like it was brought down by explosives. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 01:00:04 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 wrote: quote:
Like I said--and you completely avoided addressing...
Of course if the architects were tasked with building a giant heat sink they might have chosen a different, cheaper material. BUT THEY WERE TASKED WITH BUILDING A SKYSCRAPER! The thermal conductivity of steel might not make it the ideal heat sink, but its primary role was to hold up the fcuknig building, and aluminum and copper just don't do as good a job...
Does that make sense to you that the designers of the building were looking for a structure that would stand? That the steel acts as a heat sink is a bonus--but it still acts as a heat sink even if not designed for expressly that purpose.
Just how many strawmen do you have in that bag of yours, ergo?
I'm not the one calling the steel a "heat sink," ergo, you are. You are trying that because you need it to be an excellent heat sink, for the purpose of refuting the evidence that the steel lost strength due to the fires. Nor, I suspect, did the architects even consider a "heat sink" effect when designing the WTC. I never suggested they did.
Strawman!
Also, from above: "Of course if the architects were tasked with building a giant heat sink they might have chosen a different, cheaper material." ROTF! Steel, a lousy heat sink, is dirt-cheap compared to the good heat sink materials such as aluminum, copper, or silver. So you even got that minor but telling point wrong. (Don't your Dad and brother tell you anything useful, or have they long ago given up, and now just humor you?)
Interesting how you go so ballistically ape-shit when it is merely pointed out that steel conducts heat poorly. I'm guessing this "heat sink" fallacy was absolutely central to the "theory" you were constructing. It must really hurt to have a major part of your theory demolished even before you reveal the theory!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
