|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:19:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Jerome you are quote mining. The first time I was able to pass it off as a simple mistake. I myself have misunderstood others before. But that you continue to do it when it's clear that you are doing so, I have no choice but to start thinking you're just being dishonest.
Again, BPS said that it was traveling closer to 700MPH than 1100MPH. This is a true statement, there is no way around it. He did not say it was traveling close to 700MPH which seems to be the way you are interpreting it.
Furthermore, Dave did not say that the planes were constantly buffeted by 700MPH winds. He said:
| Even with entirely-aluminum construction (which it isn't), the wings are still designed to support several times the plane's full weight, and to be constantly buffeted by 700-MPH winds. |
|
We already established the standard bullets of a .45 do not travel at 1100mph. Apparently both levels of speed in the comparison were incorrect. So what am I mining? All the data presented was wrong.
Any reference to the "fact" that a 767 wings are designed to counter a constant 700mph wind?
I thought facts with references in support were the SOP here.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:27:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way tests were done to show how the fire proofing was dislodged allowing the steel to heat to the point of failure. I am surprised this researcher did not know this.
Do you usually believe research that has a fatal know flaw? |
Do you believe that the researcher thought that there was no fireproofing when the plane hit the building? If you do, I'd like to see your evidence. After all, he only said that there was none installed when the tower was originally built, and he is correct in saying that. The fireproofing was an afterthought, not included in the original designs. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:29:38 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner said "Yes! You finally got it! Soft lead bullets travel real fast, and do punch through steel. Likewise, an aluminum and titanium jet aircraft travels real fast, and can punch through even thicker steel. Great! You're learning!"
The wings are my issue. The aluminum wings, are you stating that they are similar to a lead bullet in both density, strength, and weight such that they will act the same on steel?
The simulation presented the out most portions of the wings slicing the inner steel columns after slicing through the outer steel columns. How many columns of steel can a lead bullet pass through? And, is an aluminum wing similar enough in both density, strength, and weight to pass through several steel columns?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:31:55 [Permalink]
|
Jerome Da ---- wrote: | We already established the standard bullets of a .45 do not travel at 1100mph. Apparently both levels of speed in the comparison were incorrect. So what am I mining? All the data presented was wrong. |
As you know perfectly well, I said the planes were flying at about the speed of a .45 bullet. Based on the speeds of the planes, and of the standard load military .45 ACP round, I was right, though you stubbornly refuse to admit it and instead insult me and others.
That someone else referred to an actual "hotter" .45 ACP round is interesting, but irrelevant to what I wrote. Selectively conflating the statements of separate people as though they had been one statement is yet another example of the quote-mining you do.
|
“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 06/21/2007 21:36:00 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way tests were done to show how the fire proofing was dislodged allowing the steel to heat to the point of failure. I am surprised this researcher did not know this.
Do you usually believe research that has a fatal know flaw? |
Do you believe that the researcher thought that there was no fireproofing when the plane hit the building? If you do, I'd like to see your evidence. After all, he only said that there was none installed when the tower was originally built, and he is correct in saying that. The fireproofing was an afterthought, not included in the original designs.
|
You do realize that NIST stated the towers would not have fallen if the fire proofing was left intact? Meaning that there was fireproofing.
He said "One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures,"
Sound like he thinks his work will now cause fireproofing of steel buildings that was not in place (in his mind) in the towers. If he had read the NIST report he would have known that there was fireproofing.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:37:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave said "constantly buffeted by 700-MPH winds."
Wrong data
No reference
Retraction? |
If you don't think that 767 wings are designed to withstand much stronger winds that they would experience at even their top speed, then you've got a world of education before you'll understand how it is "right" data. A reference or two won't begin to fill your ignorance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:38:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave said "constantly buffeted by 700-MPH winds."
So, the plane CONSTANTLY travels at 590mph into a CONSTANT wind of 110mph.
By the way what level of hurricane is 110mph winds? |
Good grief, Jerome, you don't know the difference between a design specification and real-world performance, do you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:42:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If he had read the NIST report he would have known that there was fireproofing. |
You have presented no evidence in favor of your claim that the researcher did not know that there was fireproofing within the building at the time of the crash. No data, no reference. Retraction? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:50:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You do realize that NIST stated the towers would not have fallen if the fire proofing was left intact? Meaning that there was fireproofing.
He said "One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures,"
Sound like he thinks his work will now cause fireproofing of steel buildings that was not in place (in his mind) in the towers. If he had read the NIST report he would have known that there was fireproofing.
|
Or he could just be saying that fireproofing is essential, stressing it for emphasis, and implying that more should be done to create better fireproofing that stays in place. (Which is how I read it.)
But go ahead, make only the assumption that benefits your case and ignore all other possibilities. I doubt most here expect any less by now.
|
"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 06/21/2007 21:50:46 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:55:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If he had read the NIST report he would have known that there was fireproofing. |
You have presented no evidence in favor of your claim that the researcher did not know that there was fireproofing within the building at the time of the crash. No data, no reference. Retraction?
|
I have presented his words. There is no other explanation.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 21:59:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I have presented his words. There is no other explanation. |
It's quite interesting that in your last quote from him, you left out many words, including the word "originally." Once again, Jerome, you are making it crystal clear that you are simply unwilling to examine all of the evidence, and prefer to cherry-pick that which agrees with your arrogant presumptions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 22:04:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
From the article: ""One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."
I thought according to NIST the impact knocked the fireproofing off. Did Hoffman read the NIST report? This statement makes no sense.
|
Here is the original post I made Dave. Stop calling deception, when you know its not true. Please have some respect for yourself.
Make an honest argument.
Answer the question posed.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 22:11:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Here is the original post I made Dave. |
And I was referring to the last quote you provided, not the first.| Stop calling deception, when you know its not true. Please have some respect for yourself. |
Sheer projection.You are the one making the claim, now, not I.| Answer the question posed. |
I already did. You ignored my response in favor of ranting and raving about the irrelevancies of bullet speeds, demonstrating your inability to make an honest argument while demanding that I do so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 22:14:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
From the article: ""One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."
I thought according to NIST the impact knocked the fireproofing off. Did Hoffman read the NIST report? This statement makes no sense.
|
Here is the original post I made Dave. Stop calling deception, when you know its not true. Please have some respect for yourself.
Make an honest argument.
Answer the question posed.
|
You do realize, of course, that the elipsis (...) indicates that text was left out, right? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 22:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
From the article: ""One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."
I thought according to NIST the impact knocked the fireproofing off. Did Hoffman read the NIST report? This statement makes no sense.
|
Here is the original post I made Dave. Stop calling deception, when you know its not true. Please have some respect for yourself.
Make an honest argument.
Answer the question posed.
|
You do realize, of course, that the elipsis (...) indicates that text was left out, right?
|
Yes, and that is generally done because it is not relevant to the point. One must also take into account his other quote in the same paragraph.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Purdue U study supports 9/11 report
