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
 What I don't get 2...
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2006 :  08:59:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kil

quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Good grief, man, don't you see it?!?

"Global leadership." This is a bold and unhidden reference to the single worldwide government mentioned in the Revelation of John. PNAC, as a part of the New World Order, plans to bring Armageddon as early as it can. What's amazing is the number of conservative Christians who are NeoCons who have been suckered into doing the work of Satan by this latest incarnation of the Knights Templar. Get your mind off the NeoCons, they're simply pawns in this deadly game. Had the Democrats been in power, they would have been the ones ordering the rigging of explosives into the WTC before the planes crashed.

But... what I don't understand is why they bothered to fly those planes into the already explosive-rigged towers, when all they had to do is have the FBI and CIA say "Osama did it."

Oh. Yeah, I see now. Any conspiracy with its salt must be wildly, fiendishly complex, or face future derision in the annals of evil. A simple conspiracy would be comtemptible kids' stuff.



PNAC and the Illuminati take their walking orders from aliens. (Six foot shape shifting alien lizards to be exact.) No mere human could have pulled off such a complicated plan.

And you know what that means? Osama and Bush take their orders from the very same aliens! Their goal? Reduce the worlds population by 60% to something a bit more manageable.

Davey? Is that 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!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2006 :  10:25:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

...the thread where I prove the official story is wrong.
What thread was that? You've got no evidence that sample temperatures of columns were representative of mid-floor temps. You're wrong that 35' lengths of truss were "full scale." You put forth a "coincidence theory" to hand-wave away the inward bowing observed in the perimeter walls of both towers. You misrepresented the testing performed. You demonstrated your failure to understand the simulations. And then you claimed that the evidence that you used to "prove" something is unreliable, shooting many of your own arguments in the feet. You proved absolutely nothing, and assuming that you've already put forth your best possible arguments, you managed to show that your ego knows no bounds.

- 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 - 11/04/2006 :  13:02:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

...the thread where I prove the official story is wrong.
What thread was that?


It's called "What did cause the Towers to collapse?"

quote:
You've got no evidence that sample temperatures of columns were representative of mid-floor temps.


NIST has no evidence of mid-floor temps, but you accepted the results of their simulator that needed mid-floor temps as an input. So why do you accept the official story that is based on a simulator that is based on inputs that have no evidentiary base? I've asked you that before and never saw an answer...

quote:
You're wrong that 35' lengths of truss were "full scale."


Well, that's how I saw them referenced by NIST.

quote:
You put forth a "coincidence theory" to hand-wave away the inward bowing observed in the perimeter walls of both towers.


How is NIST building computer model of a 9-story wall floating in space with magical forces pulling on it to make it bow a "coincidence theory?" The only hard evidence we have of bowing comes from photos--which are easily doctored or innocently misinterpreted effects of the distortion all lenses have.


quote:
You misrepresented the testing performed.
How?

quote:
You demonstrated your failure to understand the simulations.


I doubt that, as I do simulations.

quote:
And then you claimed that the evidence that you used to "prove" something is unreliable, shooting many of your own arguments in the feet.


No, I said the conclusions they drew were invalid given the data they started with. It's like they say 'the water temperature of the lake was 80*F, so the victim obviously froze to death.'

quote:
You proved absolutely nothing, and assuming that you've already put forth your best possible arguments, you managed to show that your ego knows no bounds.



No, I proved that the Twin Towers could not have fallen due to the fires and impact damage. It's your ego that can't handle the truth, dave.

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

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2006 :  15:59:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Interesting link, including a lot I hadn't considered.

I remain curious about the 2,000 F that that the structural steel is said was designed to withstand with no loss of integrity. Reference please.

Kil, I don't know why I'm still bothering. Perhaps it's because as I look stuff up, I learn something. But damn!, I haven't been around in this many circles since I quit flat-tracking motorcycles!




"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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2006 :  21:49:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

It's called "What did cause the Towers to collapse?"
There's no "proof" of anything in that thread.
quote:
quote:
You've got no evidence that sample temperatures of columns were representative of mid-floor temps.
NIST has no evidence of mid-floor temps, but you accepted the results of their simulator that needed mid-floor temps as an input.
You didn't provide any evidence that the mid-floor temps were an "input" to the simulation.
quote:
So why do you accept the official story that is based on a simulator that is based on inputs that have no evidentiary base?
When did I ever say that I "accept" the official story? Why, if your arguments are so good, do you feel the need to lie about your critics? Are you still angry?
quote:
I've asked you that before and never saw an answer...
Another falsehood, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you've got a link to you asking "So why do you accept the official story that is based on a simulator that is based on inputs that have no evidentiary base?" in a previous post.
quote:
quote:
You're wrong that 35' lengths of truss were "full scale."
Well, that's how I saw them referenced by NIST.
Perhaps that's how they refered to them for that fire-rating test which had nothing to do with any actual conditions inside the Towers on 9/11, but the fact is that the sides of the buildings which bowed in had 60' floor trusses. The 35' "short sides" didn't undergo the bowing failure.
quote:
quote:
You put forth a "coincidence theory" to hand-wave away the inward bowing observed in the perimeter walls of both towers.
How is NIST building computer model of a 9-story wall floating in space with magical forces pulling on it to make it bow a "coincidence theory?"
It isn't (see below), it's just a bold and obvious strawman about NIST's simulator. Why don't you try to disprove the real thing?
quote:
The only hard evidence we have of bowing comes from photos--which are easily doctored or innocently misinterpreted effects of the distortion all lenses have.
There's the coincidence theory again: camera lenses which coincidentally distort only the areas of the buildings which would bow inward if the NIST's theory is correct. How lucky for you. Oh, but now you've added the extra "doctoring" hand-wave in, without a shred of evidence that any photo of bowing has been doctored. How is that "proof" of anything? It isn't, it's just wild speculation that we're supposed to accept because you said so.

Unless, of course, you've got evidence in the form of some photo of one of the Towers on 9/11 which shows clear bowing in some other location, say a dozen floors below the fires, or on some other side of the buildings than the ones that NIST points to. Then you'd actually prove that "the distortion all lenses have" is a plausible explanation for the bowing observed. Do you have such evidence?

After all, I know you don't have any evidence that any photo used by NIST was doctored, so by bringing that possibility into the discussion, you've effectively made it impossible for you to prove anything. Changing text is even easier than doctoring photos, so if you seriously want me to entertain the fraud explanation, then any evidence you care to provide must be assumed to have been faked, and you'll now have to demonstrate its veracity.

I know you like playing these sorts of games, but you've now set yourself a challenge at which you can't possibly hope to succeed. So, even if you can provide a photo of a lens distortion that looks like bowing in, say, the west side of one of the Twin Towers, you'll now have to provide evidence that said photo has not been doctored. If, that is, you really want to play the "it might have been doctored" game (in which case the discussion will stop altogether amid questions of veracity). If not, you can retract that statement and continue the discussion like an adult.
quote:
quote:
You misrepresented the testing performed.
How?
You've already been told how. Your memory really is bad, isn't it? But just for kicks, why don't you cite the page number(s) in the NIST report where it says that the U/L testing was done without fire insulation on the trusses?
quote:
quote:
You demonstrated your failure to understand the simulations.
I doubt that, as I do simulations.
Then why would you think that the fire temperatures were an "input" to this one?
quote:
quote:
And then you claimed that the evidence that you used to "prove" something is unreliable, shooting many of your own arguments in the feet.
No, I said the conclusions they drew were invalid given the data they started with. It's like they say 'the water temperature of the lake was 80*F, so the victim obviously froze to death.'
No, you quite clearly meant that one would be a fool to believe anything NIST said in the first place, which must include everything you used as "evidence" against the report.
quote:
No, I proved that the Twin Towers could not have fallen due to the fires and impact damage.
No, you proved that if the NIST report were built around your lies, distortions and unevidenced speculation, then the Twin Towers couldn't have fallen due to impact damage and fire. But NIST didn't use your ideas as a basis for their work, so you've done nothing to prove them wrong.
quote:
It's your ego that can't handle the truth, dave.
My only concern is that you put forth correct arguments, ergo, whether I agree with your conclusions or not. You shouldn't have to lie about the report if the NIST's conclusions are as bad as you suggest. But here you are, making all sorts of claims which are easily checked and found to be false. Your version of "truth" certainly is something I can't handle, because your "truth" is in fact your own personal fiction, and I don't see a need to have blind faith in you.

- 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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2006 :  21:50:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

But damn!, I haven't been around in this many circles since I quit flat-tracking motorcycles!
You'd still be dizzy if you'd participated in Mozina's threads.

- 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 - 11/05/2006 :  09:30:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

It's called "What did cause the Towers to collapse?"
There's no "proof" of anything in that thread.
Sure there is, dave. Try reading it.
quote:
quote:
You've got no evidence that sample temperatures of columns were representative of mid-floor temps.
NIST has no evidence of mid-floor temps, but you accepted the results of their simulator that needed mid-floor temps as an input.
quote:
You didn't provide any evidence that the mid-floor temps were an "input" to the simulation.


Well, NIST was modeling the fires in the towers. To suggest or need proof that they needed the mid-floor temps as input is insanity, dave. It's like saying you need to prove a food critic tasted the food at a restaurant when his review discusses the combination of flavors in the recipes.
quote:
So why do you accept the official story that is based on a simulator that is based on inputs that have no evidentiary base?
quote:
When did I ever say that I "accept" the official story? Why, if your arguments are so good, do you feel the need to lie about your critics? Are you still angry?


Are you saying you do not accept the official story? Or are you just trying to split hairs again...?
quote:
I've asked you that before and never saw an answer...
quote:
Another falsehood, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you've got a link to you asking "So why do you accept the official story that is based on a simulator that is based on inputs that have no evidentiary base?" in a previous post.
Again, the stance of a 2-year old, dave--hiding behind the fact that I didn't use those exact words in my previous inquiries as to why you believe the official story
quote:
quote:
You're wrong that 35' lengths of truss were "full scale."
Well, that's how I saw them referenced by NIST.
quote:
Perhaps that's how they refered to them for that fire-rating test which had nothing to do with any actual conditions inside the Towers on 9/11, but the fact is that the sides of the buildings which bowed in had 60' floor trusses. The 35' "short sides" didn't undergo the bowing failure.
What does bow failure have to do with the 35' trusses being considered full scale? NIST didn't do any physical testing to see if bowing would occur. Only that made-up 9 story wall, floating in space.
quote:
quote:
You put forth a "coincidence theory" to hand-wave away the inward bowing observed in the perimeter walls of both towers.
How is NIST building computer model of a 9-story wall floating in space with magical forces pulling on it to make it bow a "coincidence theory?"
quote:
It isn't (see below), it's just a bold and obvious strawman about NIST's simulator. Why don't you try to disprove the real thing?
You have no physical evidence of actual bowing.
quote:
The only hard evidence we have of bowing comes from photos--which are easily doctored or innocently misinterpreted effects of the distortion all lenses have.
quote:
There's the coincidence theory again: camera lenses which coincidentally distort only the areas of the buildings which would bow inward if the NIST's theory is correct. How lucky for you. Oh, but now you've added the extra "doctoring" hand-wave in, without a shred of evidence that any photo of bowing has been doctored. How is that "proof" of anything? It isn't, it's just wild speculation that we're supposed to accept because you said so.
It's proof that there is no verifiable evidence of bowing, dave.

quote:
Unless, of course, you've got evidence in the form of some photo of one of the Towers on 9/11 which shows clear bowing in some other location, say a dozen floors below the fires, or on some other side of the buildings than the ones that NIST points to. Then you'd actually prove that "the distortion all lenses have" is a plausible explanation for the bowing observed. Do you have such evidence?


No, but I can make one in about 30 seconds...

quote:
After all, I know you don't have any evidence that any photo used by NIST was doctored, so by bringing that possibility into the discussion, you've effectively made it impossible for you to prove anything.
My proof that there is no physical evidence of bowing does not hinge on photos of anything. You have yet to show any physical evidence of bowing--and you never will be able to do so. So in your way of thinking, there was no bowing.

quote:
Changing text is even easier than doctoring photos, so if you seriously want me to entertain the fraud explanation, then any evidence you care to provide must be assumed to have been faked, and you'll now have to demonstrate its veracity.
I don't need you to entertain anything, dave. I need you to show me physical evidence of this bowing you keep referring to.

quote:
I know you like playing these sorts of games, but you've now set yourself a challenge at which you can't possibly hope to succeed.


Yes--getting you to produce physical evidence of this supposed bowing is like pulling teeth!
quote:
So, even if you can provide a photo of a lens distortion that looks like bowing in, say, the west side of one of the Twin Towers, you'll now have to provide evidence that said photo has not been doctored. If, that is, you really want to play the "it might have been doctored" game (in which case the discussion will stop altogether amid questions of veracity).


That's the point you seem to miss here, dave. You can't prove your photos of bowing were not doctored. We know it is possible to doctor photos--so you need to prove the ones you've seen of bowing were not doctored. Otherwise they can't be considered evidence of bowing.

quote:
quote:
You misrepresented the testing performed.
How?
quote:
You've already been told how. Your memory really is bad, isn't it?
HAHAHAHA Nothing like dodging the issue, eh dave?
quote:
quote:
You demonstrated your failure to understand the simulations.
I doubt that, as I do simulations.
quote:
Then why would you think that the fire temperatures were an "input" to this one?
Because if they were simulating the reaction of the structure to the fires, they would need to input the temperature of the fires (along with fire type and fire duration).
quote:
quote:
And then you claimed that the evidence that you used to "prove" something is unreliable, shooting many of your own arguments in the feet.
No, I said the conclusions they drew were invalid given the data they started with. It's like they say 'the water temperature of the lake was 80*F, so the victim obviously froze to death.'
quote:
No, you quite clearly meant that one would be a fool to believe anything NIST said in the first place, which must include everything you used as "evidence" against the report.
No, that might be what you wanted me to say--but it isn't what I said.
quote:
No, I proved that the Twin Towers could not have fallen due to the fires and impact damage.


quote:
It's your ego that can't handle the truth, dave.
quote:
My only concern is that you put forth correct arguments, ergo, whether I agree with your conclusions or not.
Oh, dave. If you can't see you have other motivations here you clearly do not understand yourself well enough to participate in a discussion like this with any sort of honesty.

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

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2006 :  09:52:39   [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:
Oh, dave. If you can't see you have other motivations here you clearly do not understand yourself well enough to participate in a discussion like this with any sort of honesty.

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 - 11/05/2006 :  10:59:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
No. And I guess you found a reason to continue this thead, eh kil?

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

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2006 :  11:19:47   [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:
Originally posted by ergo123

No. And I guess you found a reason to continue this thead, eh kil?


Not really. But for as long as this goes on, I will comment when the mood strikes me.

Here is the reason I think you are projecting just in case you want to know. You need the conclusions of the NIST report to be wrong. You need the accepted theory to be wrong or your favored hypothesis must be wrong. I mentioned conformation bias in another thread.

This statement ”If you can't see you have other motivations here you clearly do not understand yourself well enough to participate in a discussion like this with any sort of honesty” could just as easily apply to you.

Of course, you will deny it. There is probably nothing I could ever say to get you to do a bit of soul searching and look at your own bias. I have tried.

I just call it as I see it…

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 - 11/05/2006 :  11:51:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kil

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

No. And I guess you found a reason to continue this thead, eh kil?

quote:

Not really. But for as long as this goes on, I will comment when the mood strikes me.
That's an odd way to say yes, kil. If you had no reason to post on this thread you wouldn't post on this thread. Maybe you are so out of touch with your motives and yourself in general to realize that.

quote:
Here is the reason I think you are projecting just in case you want to know. You need the conclusions of the NIST report to be wrong. You need the accepted theory to be wrong or your favored hypothesis must be wrong. I mentioned conformation bias in another thread.
You also, obviously, don't
understand what projection is.


quote:
This statement ”If you can't see you have other motivations here you clearly do not understand yourself well enough to participate in a discussion like this with any sort of honesty” could just as easily apply to you.


Yes, it could. But I understand my motives and so can approach and participate in discussions like this honestly.


[quote]Of course, you will deny it.



Wrong again...


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

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2006 :  14:07:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by filthy

But damn!, I haven't been around in this many circles since I quit flat-tracking motorcycles!
You'd still be dizzy if you'd participated in Mozina's threads.

I dropped by some few times. Hoo-boy!




"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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 11/05/2006 :  17:08:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Sure there is, dave. Try reading it.
I did read it, and your posts in it contained no proof of anything.
quote:
Well, NIST was modeling the fires in the towers. To suggest or need proof that they needed the mid-floor temps as input is insanity, dave.
Oh, you almost had the correct logic in there, but then you dashed it away with the "insanity" comment.
quote:
It's like saying you need to prove a food critic tasted the food at a restaurant when his review discusses the combination of flavors in the recipes.
Actually, you've got that analogy all screwed up, since you're the one saying that based upon the critic's review, you can prove that he didn't eat at the restaurant he claimed to have.
quote:
Are you saying you do not accept the official story? Or are you just trying to split hairs again...?
Neither one - my position on this matter has been clear from day one. The fact that you feel compelled to lie about it in an attempt to score psychological points tells me that you know just as well as I do how non-existant your "proof" was.
quote:
Again, the stance of a 2-year old, dave--hiding behind the fact that I didn't use those exact words in my previous inquiries as to why you believe the official story
So now you are acknowledging that your own previous use of that same tactic was an example of you being childish. It is important to know that you, ergo, can't take what you dish out on a regular basis.
quote:
What does bow failure have to do with the 35' trusses being considered full scale? NIST didn't do any physical testing to see if bowing would occur.
Thanks for admitting that the U/L testing had nothing to do with the failure theory offered by NIST, and so your stated conclusions and questions about 3" (or 15") of sagging were just attempts at distraction from the fact that you didn't prove anything.
quote:
Only that made-up 9 story wall, floating in space.
Your continued misrepresentation of the NIST model is not making any of your arguments stronger.
quote:
You have no physical evidence of actual bowing... The only hard evidence we have of bowing comes from photos--which are easily doctored or innocently misinterpreted effects of the distortion all lenses have.
Prove it.
quote:
It's proof that there is no verifiable evidence of bowing, dave.
By that logic, there is no verifiable evidence of molten metal in the basements of any buildings, anywhere, anytime.
quote:
No, but I can make one in about 30 seconds...
Prove that it isn't doctored after you've made it, why don't you?
quote:
My proof that there is no physical evidence of bowing does not hinge on photos of anything. You have yet to show any physical evidence of bowing--and you never will be able to do so. So in your way of thinking, there was no bowing.
Only if you want to play the "it might have been doctored" game, in which case you will find it impossible to prove any assertion about anything. If that's what you want to be seen as "the truth," have fun.
quote:
I don't need you to entertain anything, dave. I need you to show me physical evidence of this bowing you keep referring to.
Well, given the idea that any sort of evidence can be faked, what sort of "physical evidence" would you accept?
quote:
Yes--getting you to produce physical evidence of this supposed bowing is like pulling teeth!
I won't bother providing anything until you tell me what sort of evidence you would accept, since otherwise it'll be a waste of my time. Like this isn't already, given the fact that you want to play the "it might be fake" game, and so nothing will be acceptable to you. You've got your conclusion, and are now disqualifying evidence pathologically in order to keep your conclusion intact. It's a real pity that by following your logic here, you will never be able to present "the truth" as you see it.
quote:
That's the point you seem to miss here, dave. You can't prove your photos of bowing were not doctored. We know it is possible to doctor photos--so you need to prove the ones you've seen of bowing were not doctored. Otherwise they can't be considered evidence of bowing.
I didn't miss that point, I specifically spoke of your desire to play the "it might be doctored" game, in which case you haven't provided verifiable evidence of anything in any of your 614 posts. You certainly haven't proven the NIST report mistaken in any way, since what you claim to have quoted from it might have been doctored, and you've got no way to prove otherwise.
quote:
HAHAHAHA Nothing like dodging the issue, eh dave?
I'm not the one who dodged anything, ergo - you're the one who neglected to answer the question I posed after the sentences which prompted your laughter: "But just for kicks, why don't you cite the page number(s) in the NIST report where it says that the U/L testing was done without fire insulation on the trusses?" Way to dodge that bullet, ergo. Since you're also still playing your "if you didn't address it, you find it irrefutable" game, I'll take your non-response as indicative of your full acknowledgement of the fact that there is no place in the NIST report where they say that the U/L testing was done without the insulation.
quote:
quote:
Then why would you think that the fire temperatures were an "input" to this one?
Because if they were simulating the reaction of the structure to the fires, they would need to input the temperature of the fires (along with fire type and fire duration).
Is it your assertion that the fires (the temperature, type and duration of them) were not a part of the simulated physics?
quote:
No, that might be what you wanted me to say--but it isn't what I said.
It was clearly what you meant, but now you're just acting like your proverbial two-year-old (see above).
quote:
No, I proved that the Twin Towers could not have fallen due to the fires and impact damage.
Why did you quote yourself here? Do you think that repeating this assertion will magically make it come true?
quote:
Oh, dave. If you can't see you have other motivations here you clearly do not understand yourself well enough to participate in a discussion like this with any sort of honesty.
Oh, I know I have other motivations for participation in these threads, but I am concerned right now with your inability to present both the NIST report and the opinions of your critics in a factual manner. Your lying about both of them, and then trying to distract away from your lies by talking about my motivations (rather than face up to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about when you claimed to have "proof" that the NIST's conclusions are faulty), really shows just what kind of religious mindset you have about the government's story: you want it to be wrong so badly that you're willing to engage in wholesale fabrication rather than face the possibility that it might be correct.

By the way, I'll take your non-response to the following two sections as your full and complete acknowledgement that I spoke the truth:
No, you proved that if the NIST report were built around your lies, distortions and unevidenced speculation, then the Twin Towers couldn't have fallen due to impact damage and fire. But NIST didn't use your ideas as a basis for their work, so you've done nothing to prove them wrong.
and
You shouldn't have to lie about the report if the NIST's conclusions are as bad as you suggest. But here you are, making all sorts of claims which are easily checked and found to be false. Your version of "truth" certainly is something I can't handle, because your "truth" is in fact your own personal fiction, and I don't see a need to have blind faith in you.
That's still a great game, ergo, I'm glad that you suggested that we play it.

- 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 - 11/05/2006 :  23:42:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
dave, it's not worth my time going through the above post item by item--so much of it is the games you like to play for some sort of points you apparently keep track of...

but as to evidence of bowing, photographic representations are out--since they are easily doctored, and shots with long lenses are easily misinterpreted; eye witness accounts are out as so many were tossed out by nist, fema and the 9-11 commission. So i guess that leaves physical evidence--i.e., bowed steel.

RE: simulations. To simulate the structure's reaction to the fires, fire inputs must have been entered into the simulation. if, as you claim, no data existed regarding mid-floor temps, what did nist use as inputs for mid-floor fire conditions?

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

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  01:58:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally projected by ergo123

dave, it's not worth my time going through the above post item by item--
Not worth your time?

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 1.7 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000