|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2006 : 15:00:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
To put it another way, what reason do we have for assuming explosives were used?
If there isn't any reason to suspect it, we don't.
The previously-mentioned inconsistencies between the observed ruins and a gravity-only total collapse. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 15:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The previously-mentioned inconsistencies between the observed ruins and a gravity-only total collapse.
But Dave already provided you with information showing that there was nothing inconsistent with a gravity only collapse.
Most of the "inconsistencies" have simply been errors on your part or deficiencies in the material you have cited.
If your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong.
|
"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 - 10/06/2006 : 15:07:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo123 said:
quote:
So, you are saying that the possibility that gravity alone brought the towers down (given the damage...) is proof that explosives were not used? What kind of logic is that?
That is your own illogic, as no one has suggested any such thing. Is there some reason that you lie so much? Its starting to seem pathological.
As has already been said, you are the one making the positive claim, therefore the burden of proof rests with you. Neither I, nor anyone else, is under any obligation to "prove" your imbecilic fantasy wrong.
Never the less, the "proof" that no explosives were used is easily seen when you examine the concept of controlled demolition.
As I have repeatedly stated:
1. There is no non-obvious way you could expose the support beams to set the charges. Thousands of people worked in those buildings, and you would need to expose the supports in, literally, thousands of places in each building across most of the floors, just to set the charges.
2. The ammount of material (explosives, wiring, etc) needed to drop one of those buildings would be measured in tons. There is no non-obvious way you could transport literal tons of material, obviously used for explosives detonation, into those buildings.
3. It would require a crew of hundreds of people, most with very specific skill sets, to prep the support beams, plant the charges, and run the wiring. How do you find a crew that is willing to kill Americans, has the right set of skills for this, and would remain silent afterwards?
So, before you can even reasonably put forth your "controlled demolitions theory" you need to account for those three things at a minimum. When you have accounted for them, THEN you need to provide some actual evidence that controlled demolition was actually used.
Dude, it was just a question. That's what the "?" at the end of a sentance means.
I'm sorry, did I walk into a courtroom at some point here? Burden of proof? Is this how you play Perry Mason? Or is it how you mentally masterbate?
Your supposed proof that no explosives were used is no proof at all. It's fatal flaw rests in that it merely describes how controlled demolition companies bring down buildings (at best) or, at worst, your guess at how it is done.
Yet I'm sure you'll keep on believing you are right and that it is a proof... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 15:22:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What's the tensile strength of the bolts?
What does it matter? Your implied claim that the columns were spliced together with welds is incorrect. But according to the NIST report, most of the bolts were (ASTM) A325. The ones splicing "the heaviest butt plates" were (ASTM) A490.
You just don't get it, do you. I'm on a journey. I don't care if I make errors along the way. You know, if we all worked to help each other instead of putting so much effort into making each other prove they have a valid reason for asking a question, we'd get a lot farther a lot faster. Sometimes leaps of understanding can come from asking the wrong question. But if you are busy tallying up how many errors that person makes you'll never see ray of enlightenment.
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..." |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 15:31:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You just don't get it, do you. I'm on a journey.
Perhaps it would help if you would explain where you are on a journey to.
Most of us here first assumed you wanted to end up at the truth--which would include the possibility that the goverment had no involvement whatsoever in bringing the towers down. However, instead you seem to be on a mission to prove that the goverment was involved in some way.
Which is it? Are you looking for truth? Or simply a way to indict the US goverment for personal reasons?
quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
Yeah, you're exactly like the Wright brothers. 
When can we get past the point of you comparing yourself to famous inventors and scientists to the part where you actually expend a fraction of the effort these men did to prove their ideas correct?
|
"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 - 10/06/2006 : 15:32:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What's the tensile strength of the bolts?
What does it matter? Your implied claim that the columns were spliced together with welds is incorrect. But according to the NIST report, most of the bolts were (ASTM) A325. The ones splicing "the heaviest butt plates" were (ASTM) A490.
And given the NIST report says the floors "progressively collapsed," on any given vertical member on the bowed side of either tower, how much room would it have to bow inward before the bolts were loaded to the max? I.e., how far would the box column bend in going from looking like this, ][ , to this )) ? And how long would it take to deform the steel that much on the parts that were weakened by fire and on the parts that were not weakened by fire?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 15:40:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You just don't get it, do you. I'm on a journey.
Perhaps it would help if you would explain where you are on a journey to.
Most of us here first assumed you wanted to end up at the truth--which would include the possibility that the goverment had no involvement whatsoever in bringing the towers down. However, instead you seem to be on a mission to prove that the goverment was involved in some way.
Which is it? Are you looking for truth? Or simply a way to indict the US goverment for personal reasons?
quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
Yeah, you're exactly like the Wright brothers.
When can we get past the point of you comparing yourself to famous inventors and scientists to the part where you actually expend a fraction of the effort these men did to prove their ideas correct?
Exactly, my journey is for truth, and a truth that which could include that the goverment had no involvement whatsoever in bringing the towers down. And it is my hope that this is the truth I reach--cuz while I like visiting canada, I'm not sure I want to move there.
And what's with you thinking I am comparing MYSELF to famous inventors? I was talking to Dave about Dave--pointing out that his lack of imagination limits his thinking. And that if a known inventor had Dave's lack of imagination, they wouldn't have been a famous inventor. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/06/2006 15:41:42 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 15:57:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
many of dave's questions deal with issues other than energy transfer--the issue i'm focusing on first; specifically whether the collapse would continue past the first impacted floor.
By focussing on the energy transfer first, you are jumping over a some really important steps: Making sure that the numbers you are using in your energy transfer calculations are correct.
Dave has already raied questions regarding the veracity of Ross' numbers such as the strengt and energy absorbing capability of the floors. Those need to be resolved before moving forward. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 16:16:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123......
You just don't get it, do you. I'm on a journey. I don't care if I make errors along the way. You know, if we all worked to help each other instead of putting so much effort into making each other prove they have a valid reason for asking a question, we'd get a lot farther a lot faster. Sometimes leaps of understanding can come from asking the wrong question. But if you are busy tallying up how many errors that person makes you'll never see ray of enlightenment.
If you have a "theory" that explosives or some kind of controlled demolition was used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings, provide some evidence. So far you haven't brought a single piece of evidence into this conversation, none, zero. And any time anyone has asked you for evidence, you've bailed out. Your continued effort to shift the burden of proof is a flagrant display of your dishonesty, ergo123. So far you've got no case, no integrity, and no balls. You've got a big mouth and a closed mind.
quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
Another shitty analogy on your part. Flight clearly existed in an observable way. The Wright brothers had kites and gliders available as examples. Or maybe your lack of knowledge about the Wright brothers is equal to your demonstrated lack of knowledge about the World Trade Center towers.
If you think there was some kind of controlled demolition, you determine how much of what kinds of explosives would be necessary to take down the towers, and you determine where and how those explosives must have been placed to get the job done. You can scientifically determine those things using physics. Then if there is any practicality to that possibility, given the physical requirements, then you can develop your conjecture regarding the methods used to surreptitiously haul all that demolition material into those buildings and get it into place. After you determine how much explosive power was necessary and explain, for example, how many man hours would be required to do the set up. You come up with the rational and practical methods for the timing and locations of those necessary explosions as they relate to the locations and timing of those aircraft which clearly did crash into those buildings. And those are just the first requirements. There's much much more involved in developing and presenting a legitimate theory.
You see, for you to claim you have a theory, you've got an awful lot of work to do to even start to describe it. That's a lot of work, and you haven't even begun. So are you as lazy as you are dishonest? Do you have any balls at all, ergo123, or are you just the mouthy troll you appear to be?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2006 : 16:24:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You just don't get it, do you.
No, we don't get it.
You call yourself a skeptic, but you are unwilling to question your own belifs. Even though we present you with arguments that seriously question the reliability of "your facts" and your method.
quote:
I'm on a journey.
Yes, you implied as much, because you've said you destination is a conspiracy theory where the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.
The route you're taking seems to be railroad, because you are ignoring and travelling straight by most of our arguments that contradict the necessary conditions that needed to be met in order to have your conspiracy theory confirmed.
quote:
I don't care if I make errors along the way.
That is also glaringly obvious, because if you cared about the errors you made, you would have improved your reasoning by eliminating the errors you have done instead of continuing to ignore them.
quote:
But if you are busy tallying up how many errors that person makes you'll never see ray of enlightenment.
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.
The above quote is the SFN mission statement. Perhaps I need to translate it for you.
The whole truth is like a jigsaw puzzle, consisting of several smaller pieces of truths. Breaking them down further, we comes to "assertions". If the truth-value of an assertion cannot be assessed, then the assertion has no place in the puzzle.
You have made a lot of assertions, of which Dave has listed some.
In order to complete your puzzle we have to insist that the pieces you are bringing to the table are valid. Thus far, practically all your pieces have been false, or uncertain because you have refused to help us evaluate the truth value of them.
In any case, you don't have many pieces that we agree on. That is not our fault, but yours. You are the one bringing extraordinary claims to the table, and when we examine them we find them wanting. Show us your evidence.
quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
That is a gross misrepresentation of our position.
We are skeptics, not cynics. That you can't tell the difference only proves that you have no clue what skepticism is all about.
Besides, man-made devices flew long before the Wright brothers, so your little straw-man example is even more ludicrous, and only serves to entertain us when you should be struggling to convince us that anything you have to say have any merit. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 16:40:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And what's with you thinking I am comparing MYSELF to famous inventors? I was talking to Dave about Dave--pointing out that his lack of imagination limits his thinking. And that if a known inventor had Dave's lack of imagination, they wouldn't have been a famous inventor.
Dave's current mission is analyzing your statements. He is not trying to invent a theory as you do. He's got imagination enough, but imagination does not solve logical problems such as "is ergo's statement x internally, logically consistent?", or problems like "Ergo claims statement 'y' was made in the 9/11-report, but statement 'y' cannot be found in the 9/11-report".
Right now, all I can see is BS and misdirection coming from you, and after 14 pages of it, I'm starting to think that you are not worth the effort.
Prove me wrong by starting to own up to the claims you have made. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 20:05:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You just don't get it, do you. I'm on a journey.
I understand that just fine - to extend your metaphor, I'm pointing out that you're not going anywhere because you refuse to discard any of your baggage.quote:
I don't care if I make errors along the way.
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that you've made errors.quote:
You know, if we all worked to help each other instead of putting so much effort into making each other prove they have a valid reason for asking a question, we'd get a lot farther a lot faster.
Your questions are complex, in that the premises themselves raise more questions. Could a gravity-only collapse result in the columns all shearing into 30' lengths? The question itself presupposes that "the columns were all 30' lengths" is true. But is it? You won't even ask that question, you just assume it's true. But if it's false, then your original question is meaningless, and you might as well be asking if a gravity-only collapse could happen if leprechauns are brown.quote:
Sometimes leaps of understanding can come from asking the wrong question.
Indeed, but many of your questions have been asked and answered, definitively. Continuing to ask the same questions, over and over again in the face of an answer isn't a sign of a seeker, it's a symptom of madness.quote:
But if you are busy tallying up how many errors that person makes you'll never see ray of enlightenment.
I'm not tallying your errors, I'm quantifying your inability to engage in a two-way discussion of the points you bring up. It's fine to romantically set yourself on a quest for truth, but if you're not going to treat the people you ask for help as they treat you, then you'll be on a quest for truth all by yourself.quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
Nope, Orville would have shown him kites, discussed actual power-to-weight ratios, and they would have moved forward together. |
- 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 - 10/06/2006 : 20:13:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123......
You just don't get it, do you. I'm on a journey. I don't care if I make errors along the way. You know, if we all worked to help each other instead of putting so much effort into making each other prove they have a valid reason for asking a question, we'd get a lot farther a lot faster. Sometimes leaps of understanding can come from asking the wrong question. But if you are busy tallying up how many errors that person makes you'll never see ray of enlightenment.
If you have a "theory" that explosives or some kind of controlled demolition was used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings, provide some evidence. So far you haven't brought a single piece of evidence into this conversation, none, zero. And any time anyone has asked you for evidence, you've bailed out. Your continued effort to shift the burden of proof is a flagrant display of your dishonesty, ergo123. So far you've got no case, no integrity, and no balls. You've got a big mouth and a closed mind.
quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
Another shitty analogy on your part. Flight clearly existed in an observable way. The Wright brothers had kites and gliders available as examples. Or maybe your lack of knowledge about the Wright brothers is equal to your demonstrated lack of knowledge about the World Trade Center towers.
If you think there was some kind of controlled demolition, you determine how much of what kinds of explosives would be necessary to take down the towers, and you determine where and how those explosives must have been placed to get the job done. You can scientifically determine those things using physics. Then if there is any practicality to that possibility, given the physical requirements, then you can develop your conjecture regarding the methods used to surreptitiously haul all that demolition material into those buildings and get it into place. After you determine how much explosive power was necessary and explain, for example, how many man hours would be required to do the set up. You come up with the rational and practical methods for the timing and locations of those necessary explosions as they relate to the locations and timing of those aircraft which clearly did crash into those buildings. And those are just the first requirements. There's much much more involved in developing and presenting a legitimate theory.
You see, for you to claim you have a theory, you've got an awful lot of work to do to even start to describe it. That's a lot of work, and you haven't even begun. So are you as lazy as you are dishonest? Do you have any balls at all, ergo123, or are you just the mouthy troll you appear to be?
Can no one here think on a conceptual level? You are so concrete. Even when I explain the conceptual content of my posts you can't process it.
Do you really not see that I'm looking for evidence that the towers were brought down by gravity alone? And that so far you have all failed to convince me?
It's all there in my op. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 20:20:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You just don't get it, do you.
No, we don't get it.
You call yourself a skeptic, but you are unwilling to question your own belifs. Even though we present you with arguments that seriously question the reliability of "your facts" and your method.
quote:
I'm on a journey.
Yes, you implied as much, because you've said you destination is a conspiracy theory where the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.
The route you're taking seems to be railroad, because you are ignoring and travelling straight by most of our arguments that contradict the necessary conditions that needed to be met in order to have your conspiracy theory confirmed.
quote:
I don't care if I make errors along the way.
That is also glaringly obvious, because if you cared about the errors you made, you would have improved your reasoning by eliminating the errors you have done instead of continuing to ignore them.
quote:
But if you are busy tallying up how many errors that person makes you'll never see ray of enlightenment.
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.
The above quote is the SFN mission statement. Perhaps I need to translate it for you.
The whole truth is like a jigsaw puzzle, consisting of several smaller pieces of truths. Breaking them down further, we comes to "assertions". If the truth-value of an assertion cannot be assessed, then the assertion has no place in the puzzle.
You have made a lot of assertions, of which Dave has listed some.
In order to complete your puzzle we have to insist that the pieces you are bringing to the table are valid. Thus far, practically all your pieces have been false, or uncertain because you have refused to help us evaluate the truth value of them.
In any case, you don't have many pieces that we agree on. That is not our fault, but yours. You are the one bringing extraordinary claims to the table, and when we examine them we find them wanting. Show us your evidence.
quote:
If the Wright brothers had your mentality they never would have invented a way to fly. Wilbur would have said to Orville, "What evidence do you have that we could make a device that could fly? Show me another man-made device that can fly! Just as I thought, you've got nothing..."
That is a gross misrepresentation of our position.
We are skeptics, not cynics. That you can't tell the difference only proves that you have no clue what skepticism is all about.
Besides, man-made devices flew long before the Wright brothers, so your little straw-man example is even more ludicrous, and only serves to entertain us when you should be struggling to convince us that anything you have to say have any merit.
Well, you've got a way to on the thinking part... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 20:22:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Can no one here think on a conceptual level? You are so concrete. Even when I explain the conceptual content of my posts you can't process it.
I can state with certainty that no one here has ever corrected you due to a misunderstanding of your intended meaning. Rather, it is you who have consistently not understood the replies you have been given.
And BTW, you don't need to quote someone else's long, thought-out reply in its entirety if you are only going to respond with some irrelevant smart ass comment. Besides being in poor taste, it needlessly takes up space.
|
"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 10/06/2006 20:24:43 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
