|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/03/2006 : 14:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Maybe the oddities in the official conspiracy theory don't bother you, but they send my skeptic radar into approaching bogey mode.
Turn off your Cynic-modulator and your Conspiracy-transciever. They are interfering with your Skeptic radar, creating false readings.
(Edited to fix quote) |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/03/2006 14:43:39 |
 |
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 14:52:26 [Permalink]
|
I know this is kind of obvious to those who have argued with anybody, but does it always have to be that the more "wrong" a person is, the more vehemently they argue? And the more arrogant they are?
ergo, you are unbelievable. Do you realize how goofed up your thinking is here and how you are NOT carefully reading the posts Dave and the others are making?
This is another example of how someone has been so wrong for so long that they just feel that they can't admit their mistakes and have to keep on arguing like a fool. Better to just say, "Ok, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Thanks for helping me see things clearly."
But I'm thinking that's not going to happen. Oh well, there's always the "Surface of the Sun" thread to cheer me up!
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 15:19:30 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
First, I am looking for factual support for the government's conspiracy theory
There you go again with imbecilic and inappropriate use of terminology.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 19:31:08 [Permalink]
|
Dude: Why do you have such a problem with the government's theory being called a conspiricy theory. It is, after all, a theory that involves a conspiricy--is it not?
McQ: I am happy to admit I don't know all the answers. That's why I came here. But I'm not just going to believe any answer I get to my questions. I was clear that what I was asking about was the 9/11 Commission Report. That DaveW assumed I meant the NIST report when I said the 9/11 Commission Report is really one of those things that is beyond my control.
And if I don't understand an answer I'm not just going to assume it's correct. I push back with my point of view. You and some others here seem to expect a lot of blind faith for a skeptic site--or are we to be skeptical of everyone but the longtime members here? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 19:40:51 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 asked:
quote:
Dude: Why do you have such a problem with the government's theory being called a conspiricy theory. It is, after all, a theory that involves a conspiricy--is it not?
Because the "conspiracy" ends when the hijackers crash the planes into the building.
Your continued implication that the collapse of the buildings is due to a conspiracy, rather than just being the result having planes flown into the buildings, is foolish.
You are deliberately conflating the concept of conspiracy and "conspiracy theory". The two things are very different.
Yes, 19 people conspired to hijack those planes and crash them. Your droll attempt to conflate the legitimate explanation of these events with the negative connotation of "conspiracy theory" is inapropriate and imbecilic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 19:44:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dude: Why do you have such a problem with the government's theory being called a conspiricy theory. It is, after all, a theory that involves a conspiricy--is it not?
McQ: I am happy to admit I don't know all the answers. That's why I came here. But I'm not just going to believe any answer I get to my questions. I was clear that what I was asking about was the 9/11 Commission Report. That DaveW assumed I meant the NIST report when I said the 9/11 Commission Report is really one of those things that is beyond my control.
And if I don't understand an answer I'm not just going to assume it's correct. I push back with my point of view. You and some others here seem to expect a lot of blind faith for a skeptic site--or are we to be skeptical of everyone but the longtime members here?
Well then ergo, admit you're wrong and get it over with. Two of your problems are you just don't like being wrong, or getting answers you don't like. Whether you like them or not, they're right. And it has nothing to do with just believing "long-time" members here. It has everything to do with your double standards for information and evidence. You assume all kinds of answers are correct when they jive with what you want to believe. But when faced with contradictory evidence, you run away from it like the plague.
You totally failed to understand or try to understand Dave's simple post about demolitions not making something fall faster than gravity. And you then claim that others are not understanding the laws of physics, when you clearly, in your feeble posts, demonstrate a profound lack of application of knowledge of said laws.
Pay attention and you might learn something from someone.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 20:48:55 [Permalink]
|
Dude: If you want to limit the meaning of "conspiracy theory" that is your choice. All I'm trying to do is point out that the admin's theory is also a conspiracy theory. I'm sorry if the phrase bends you out of shape. But it is what it is.
I'm not assuming anything, Dude. I'm not assuming my pov is correct. I'm just not convinced it's wrong. And nothing DaveW has said has convinced me it's wrong. I didn't fail to understand his point on demolition. But I never said demolition makes things fall faster than free-fall. So I'm not sure why he even brought it up. He seems to want things both ways--the floors get sheared off their supports, yet transfer enough energy to buckle the supports. Believe in magic if you must. I will not. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 22:39:16 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
Dude: If you want to limit the meaning of "conspiracy theory" that is your choice. All I'm trying to do is point out that the admin's theory is also a conspiracy theory. I'm sorry if the phrase bends you out of shape. But it is what it is.
I'm not limiting it, you are expanding it inappropriately. It makes you seem stupid. If you can't fathom that, then you should perhaps seek some education in basic generative and prescriptive grammar (thats smart people talk for how to construct sentences that actually mean what you intend them to mean).
No debate is possible until the debating parties agree to the definition of terms. I, and no one else that I am aware of, accepts your use of "conspiracy theory" as an accurate portrayal of the description of the events of 9/11.
I reject your inept attempt to conflate the two different meanings of "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory", and properly label it the poorly constructed straw-man it is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 23:38:51 [Permalink]
|
A while back Dude said
quote:
As for how I know what it takes to demo a building that size? I carried out an email exchange with the lead demolitions manager of one of the largest demolition companies in the US on the subject.
The bottom line is simple. In order to carry out controlled demolition, even if you didn't care if anyone died, you would need to expose the support beams in hundreds of places, carry in a few tons of explosives, and route the control wires to every individual charge you placed. It also would require a crew of hundreds of people to accomplish.
So please, I'd like to hear your explanation of how this could have been done without any of the 10K people in each building noticing it and without any of the hundreds of people who set it up talking about it.
This has not been answered yet. Apparently you find this huge conspiracy more probable than Islamic extremists crashing aircarft into the buildings.
When the attachments between the floor sections and the vertical members failed, this would have applied a lateral load to the columns making thme buckle.
BTW I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 01:57:16 [Permalink]
|
Dude: Maybe you should check out www.scholarsfortruth911.org. There are lots of smart people there who consider any theory that involves a conspiracy a 'conspiracy theory.' I don't see how such a consideration "expands" the term's definition.
Ghost: One step at a time. Why waste time speculating on who and how until 'if' is determined.
And when the attachments between the floor sections and the vertical members failed, would the lateral load shear the attachments AND snap said vertical members? On a structure as flexible as those towers, don't bet on it. But if it is possible, show me the math.
As for "Believing in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupidity," I guess anyone who thought the administration was lying about Iraq still having WMD was stupid... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 05:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dude: Maybe you should check out www.scholarsfortruth911.org. There are lots of smart people there who consider any theory that involves a conspiracy a 'conspiracy theory.' I don't see how such a consideration "expands" the term's definition.
Ghost: One step at a time. Why waste time speculating on who and how until 'if' is determined.
And when the attachments between the floor sections and the vertical members failed, would the lateral load shear the attachments AND snap said vertical members? On a structure as flexible as those towers, don't bet on it. But if it is possible, show me the math.
As for "Believing in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupidity," I guess anyone who thought the administration was lying about Iraq still having WMD was stupid...
Smart people, yes. Experts in the field? Overwhelmingly, no.
Out of the 40 or so founding memebers you only have one archetect and one physics professor. Neither of them contributed or were consulted on the explosion theories. Some of the stories on the main page are complete fabrications (towers fall and do not damage nearby buildings).
And the crack about the administration lying about WMD's ignores the strong evidence given by UNMOVIC and a majority of foreign nations which questioned the existance of WMD's in Iraq prior to invasion. But that is a seperate argument altogether.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 10/04/2006 05:06:56 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 07:33:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I was clear that what I was asking about was the 9/11 Commission Report. That DaveW assumed I meant the NIST report when I said the 9/11 Commission Report is really one of those things that is beyond my control.
Nice dodge. You kept talking about the "government's conspiracy theory" about the collapses. Clearly, if one wishes to review the physics of the government's story, the 9/11 Commission Report is the wrong source. It uses the word "pancake" only once:...the North tower began its pancake collapse, killing some of these men.
- page 308 The report doesn't mention anything about concrete being pulverized (and in fact, doesn't use "pulverized" at all). The report mentions "dust" only twice in one footnote, mentions "columns" only twice in another footnote, and uses the word "concrete" only four times: once in describing Tarnak Farms; once in detailing the radio problems the responders were having, and twice as an adjective ("concrete objectives" and "concrete goals"). The Report also only uses the word "steel" four times: in the radio problems discussion, and three times in the footnote about the columns (which is simply descriptive of the buildings' construction). The 9/11 Commission Report appears to present no theory whatsoever about why the towers fell.
Perhaps you can correct me on this, and provide some page numbers where I can find a theory of collapse within the 9/11 Commission Report?quote:
And if I don't understand an answer I'm not just going to assume it's correct. I push back with my point of view.
Instead of pushing back with strawmen, you might consider saying, "I don't understand, could you elaborate?"quote:
You and some others here seem to expect a lot of blind faith for a skeptic site...
No, McQ and others are capable of reading the cited reports, and understanding the differences between Ross' model and the way the buildings were actually constructed.
Later on...quote:
And nothing DaveW has said has convinced me it's wrong. I didn't fail to understand his point on demolition. But I never said demolition makes things fall faster than free-fall.
No, you didn't. You said,As for my comment about it being impossible for the buildings to have fallen so quickly, I meant that if it was a gravity-only collapse. The sources I've seen conclude that the only way they could have fallen as fast as they did was via controlled demolition.
- Page 1 The buildings didn't fall close to free-fall speed, and you've never stated how fast they would have fallen without demolition, so there's nothing left to discuss there.quote:
So I'm not sure why he even brought it up.
And now we get revisionist history, since it is you who brought up the speed with which the towers collapsed, not me.quote:
He seems to want things both ways--the floors get sheared off their supports, yet transfer enough energy to buckle the supports. Believe in magic if you must. I will not.
I see: if you don't understand someone else's point, you dismiss it as "magic" and refuse to make an attempt at understanding. You can't even characterize my argument correctly, since the floors didn't get sheared off their supports until after they'd already buckled the south columns and the top floors began their plunge.
Later still...quote:
And when the attachments between the floor sections and the vertical members failed, would the lateral load shear the attachments AND snap said vertical members? On a structure as flexible as those towers, don't bet on it. But if it is possible, show me the math.
We already have shown you the math. You have yet to criticize the math in any way, but instead simply mischaracterize the sequence of events. And without floors, the columns would have lost quite a lot of their lateral stabilization. You'll have noticed, of course, that only a thin 26-story piece of the strongest columns remained standing after the collapse was complete, and it was leaning on a pile of rubble.
Hey, are you ever going to present a valid criticism of the actual official "government conspiracy theory" of how the towers fell, or are we just going to sit here and swat at your strawmen? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 07:43:03 [Permalink]
|
| Why is it that creationist "arguments", crackpot "theories", and conspiracy "theories" all share a lot of commonality in the way they are presented, defended, and the way they attack the established scientific explanations? Hmmm.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 11:48:09 [Permalink]
|
pleco: Yeah--kind of like when Galileo said Earth revolved around the sun... what an arrogant moron!
DaveW: It's obvious from our comments to each other that we are just on different wavelengths--we just don't seem to understand what the other is saying. I say the building could only fall nearly as fast as free-fall (the 9/11 CR clocks them at about 10 sec; free-fall would be 9.2 sec) if the collapse is aided with explosives. You convert that to me saying explosives make it fall faster than free-fall. You say the 16 floors above the crash zone, when they hit the first impacted floor, would cause the floor to shear off its attachments to the vertical support members--so there is no need to account, like Ross did, for the buckling of those members. You point out that Ross' model is wrong in this respect. Yet when I ask you how the vertical members came to be sliced into 30' sections during the collapse, you say it was from the buckling of the members when the floors were knocked off their attachments. So it seems you are inconsistent with thinking Ross' model is incorrect. And when I ask you how all 16 floors hit the first impacted floor at the same time, you act like you don't know what I am talking about. You are the one who said the 16 floors hit the first impacted floor. Yet you suddenly don't know what I'm referring to. Again--you have an answer for everything, but the answers can't all happen in the same dynamic system. So, to me, they are not really answers.
I appreciate the time you take to comment on my posts, but I'm not sure you are getting any return on your invested time. I know I don't get any return on the time I take to read them. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 11:56:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
pleco: Yeah--kind of like when Galileo said Earth revolved around the sun... what an arrogant moron!
Don't flatter yourself. You are no Galileo. Galileo had a lot more going for him than you and your ilk. Besides, he wasn't attacking established scientific explanations. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
