|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2006 : 12:10:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
pleco: Yeah--kind of like when Galileo said Earth revolved around the sun... what an arrogant moron!
Congratulations!
That is not far from earning you 40 points on the Crackpot Index!
 |
| Edited by - Starman on 10/04/2006 12:13:21 |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 12:49:06 [Permalink]
|
| pleco: I wasn't flattering myself. And of course Galileo was attacking established scientific explanations. Those scientific explanations were established by the Roman Catholic Church--but that was the establishment back then. The parallels here are interesting though--what with our government establishing the scientific explanations of what happened on 9/11. And those with the courage to question those established explanations get treated like Galileo--even though they have far less going for them. I don't get this group here. Are you skeptical about anything that threatens the status quo? Is that what this group is about? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2006 : 13:18:00 [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.
Hi, ergo123. Unfortunately, in this case Dude is right and you are wrong. As Dude noted, a "conspiracy theory" is a term with a specific meaning. In the introduction to this filder, I wrote that quote:
a conspiracy theory asserts that an event (such as the JFK assassination, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, etc.) was caused by a secret group of extremely powerful individuals. Some such theories claim that new technologies (e.g. perpetual motion machines, cold fusion, etc.), or knowledge (e.g. aliens, cures for diseases, etc.) are being supressed by such groups. Finally, while some conspiracies are generally seen as outlandish (e.g. the moon landing hoax), others, such as the idea of an advanced knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, are conceivable and perhaps true.
This is the generally accepted meaning of the term.
The web site you link observes that quote:
The dictionary defines a conspiracy theory in this way:
quote:
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
A conspiracy theorist, therefore, is a person who formulates such a theory.
As they rightly note, though "there is a certain negative undertone to the term 'conspiracy theory' in today's society." So while they try to use the term in a "neutral" way, it is clear that this interpretation is not the norm.
Thus, all you can really say is that you're going to follow so-and-so's unconventional use of 'conspiracy theory'. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26027 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 13:26:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Obviously I get nothing from your responses since you now refuse to answer my questions. For example, where in the 9/11 Commission Report do the authors offer a theory as to the method of collapse? The fact that you won't answer my questions, however, tells me why I am not now, nor will I ever, get a "return on my invested time" from discussing these things with you: you're not actually interested in discussing them, you're only interested in making vague assertions and challenging people to convince you otherwise while you ignore what they say. For examples:quote:
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.
When did I do that? I said, correctly, that the NIST report has 1 WTC completing its collapse in somewhere between 27 and 37 seconds, total. I also correctly said that free-fall from 93 floors is 8.38 seconds (of course, it would be more accurate to use center of mass, at 101 floors, or 8.73 seconds - 9.3 seconds would be a drop from the 114th floor, which didn't exist), and that NIST clocks the collapse of the outer sections of the building at about 12 seconds, 43% longer than free-fall. You have yet to actually address those facts, except to repeat your assertions about explosives, and make the false claim that I brought the subject up (hell, I never even said that you said that explosives would bring the building down faster than gravity, that was R.Wreck).
Furthermore, you still haven't provided an answer to the question of how long it would have taken the buildings to fall without explosives, but I suspect that's because you're taking Ross' incorrect model to be fact, and thus any amount of time is - you think - incorrect. The 9/11 Commission Report could have said, "it took fifteen minutes for the roof of the towers to reach street level," and you'd still be saying that it was too fast without explosives, so your objection is meaningless in context of your beliefs.quote:
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.
I never said any such thing, you are once again making stuff up. My objection to Ross' model is that he required that the columns between the first impacted floor and what would be the second impacted floor to also buckle for there to be any impact whatsoever. If flooring is sheered off the columns (as is possible with the actual building design), then there's no need for further column buckling for floors to impact other floors.quote:
You point out that Ross' model is wrong in this respect.
And it is.quote:
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.
You're making stuff up again. Prior to the buckling that caused the collapse, each perimeter column was basically a 390-meter long column, made from bolting together lots of smaller columns). When it (the 390-m composite column) buckled, it no longer held up the top 16 floors of itself. Each composite column would eventually get sheered at some point, but for some percentage of the collapse twisted and buckled as a single unit. Ross' analysis treats every 3.7-meter length of column as an independent item, which is simply wrong given any interpretation of how the towers were actually built.
And you never did offer up a source for your 30' claim, either.quote:
So it seems you are inconsistent with thinking Ross' model is incorrect.
No, you're not paying attention to what I've been saying.quote:
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.
No, I specifically told you that they don't have to all hit at the same time. I certainly never said that they would or could. You made it up.quote:
You are the one who said the 16 floors hit the first impacted floor.
Not at the same time, I didn't.quote:
Yet you suddenly don't know what I'm referring to.
No, I know quite well what you're referring to: you're referring to a strawman that you built.quote:
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.
Those things above most certainly aren't the answers that I gave 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
26027 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 13:36:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
pleco: I wasn't flattering myself. And of course Galileo was attacking established scientific explanations. Those scientific explanations were established by the Roman Catholic Church--but that was the establishment back then.
The idea that the Church's edicts were scientific is ludicrous, and completely demolishes any pretense you might have been attempting at being interested in the science of the towers' collapse.quote:
The parallels here are interesting though--what with our government establishing the scientific explanations of what happened on 9/11. And those with the courage to question those established explanations get treated like Galileo--even though they have far less going for them. I don't get this group here. Are you skeptical about anything that threatens the status quo? Is that what this group is about?
You don't even know the science that's been established by the government. You're attacking some mythical something-or-other that you claim is in the unscientific 9/11 Commission Report (but can't be verified). You haven't addressed anything in the NIST report, the scientific report.
Comparing yourself to Galileo will only work if Galileo's argument was that the Church's claim that the Sun goes backward around the Earth is wrong. Of course such a claim is wrong, but that's not what the Church was claiming. Likewise, you and Ross claim that the "pancake theory" is wrong, and so does NIST, so what's your real agenda here? Just to attack your own personal perceived version of the "status quo," whether it's right or wrong, and regardless of whether it is the status quo or not? I suspect that sort of romantic idealism about being the scientific underdog has at least a small part to play in why you're arguing about this at all. |
- 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 : 13:43:06 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks Dave - saved me the trouble. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 14:23:06 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
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.
Your Argumentum ad Populum is rejected as the fallacious argument it is.
You, and your small little group of delusional friends, don't get to redefine language. Even if you were trying to do it legitimately, instead of doing it for the purpose of discrediting evidence that doesn't fit into your delusional worldview.
There is a distinct difference between a series of events that involves a conspiracy, and a "conspiracy theory".
Your continued use of inappropriate terminology, again, makes you seem stupid and detracts from any legitimate point you may actually have.
|
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 - 10/04/2006 : 14:44:32 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist: Wouldn't you consider a group of 19 people able to foil all the defenses of the strongest nation in the world "powerful?" And sure, there is a negative connotation to the phrase--but so what? "Online forum" has a negative connotation is some circles, but that doesn't mean all online forums are negative. but yes--I am using the term in an unconventional way. But is it wrong to do so? Is being unconventional wrong?
pleco: You shouldn't let DaveW speak for you--it's embarrassing. Of course the church's established explanations were scientific. Science just hadn't realized what Galileo figured out. The science of the time calculated extremely complex movements of the planets to accommodate their apparent, periodic back and forth movement. The church liked the idea that Earth was the center of all things. It seemed to fit their notion of of being chosen by god. So that was that. To consider Earth to not be the center was to suggest we were not chosen by god. Galileo even contributed to the science of the church--so much so that he was not killed over the whole heliocentric universe thing. Or are you suggesting because the church sponsored his research it wasn't really science? Sure, the church, like the current administration, cherry-picked what scientific tidbits were allowed to be sanctioned and also determined which would get you burned at the stake.
But just because it was wrong to think of the Earth as the center of all things didn't make it unscientific. At one time, science thought the atom was unsplittable, that human flight was impossible and that little men in out guts caused us to feel sick at times. So don't confuse being scientific with being right. Science is a process that allows our understanding of the universe to build upon itself--new replaces old when old is shown to be less accurate than new. Science is an open-ended process--not an end-state. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26027 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 14:55:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Science is a process that allows our understanding of the universe to build upon itself--new replaces old when old is shown to be less accurate than new. Science is an open-ended process--not an end-state.
Which is exactly why the Church's decree that the Earth was the center of the universe was unscientific. It was dogma for which observations were twisted to match the Bible. The fact that a lot of people jumped through hoops trying to make the Church's version of reality seem scientific didn't make what they did science, either. Otherwise, you'll next be telling us all that there really is such a thing as scientific creationism. |
- 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
26027 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 14:56:26 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and you still haven't bothered to point out where in the 9/11 Commission Report the authors present a theory of the collapse of the towers. |
- 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 - 10/04/2006 : 15:12:00 [Permalink]
|
Conspiracy Theory:
From Wikipedia--A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Researchers who advocate the conspiratorial view claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
From American Heritage Dictionary--conspiracy theory, n., A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
As such, the government's descriptions of what occurred on 9-11-01 qualify.
I'm still not sure why some of you get so bent out of shape over that. It makes you look silly. I don't get why you get stuck on the term. Why not just get over it and move on? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 15:18:43 [Permalink]
|
| Yes Dave. The DECREE was unscientific (but it was based on the known science of its time). The theory (which is what I was talking about) that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and the universe, WAS scientific. It was wrong (unless you consider the universe as being infinite, in which case any given point can be considered its center), but scientific. I never mentioned the DECREE--that's you inventing things to fit the way you think, again... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 15:20:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
pleco: You shouldn't let DaveW speak for you--it's embarrassing.
I'll take my chances. 
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 16:19:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123...
Conspiracy Theory:
From Wikipedia--A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Researchers who advocate the conspiratorial view claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
From American Heritage Dictionary--conspiracy theory, n., A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
As such, the government's descriptions of what occurred on 9-11-01 qualify.
No, ergo123, you are flat out wrong here. The NIST Report and the 9/11 Commission Report are the official explanations. You are the one proposing that the World Trade Center collapse occurred due to some kind of "plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence."
quote:
I'm still not sure why some of you get so bent out of shape over that.
So we're sticklers for clear and accurate communication. We tend to avoid hijacking terminology for the purpose of increasing the emotional impact of our arguments. You are the one doing that. We try to avoid misusing perfectly good words and phrases then expecting others involved in the conversation to understand what we mean. That would be your modus operandi.
quote:
It makes you look silly.
When we understand the definition of terms, and you're the one insisting on using them inappropriately, we look silly? Maybe to someone who isn't an effective enough communicator to understand and use proper terminology we look silly, but certainly not to each other we don't.
quote:
I don't get why you get stuck on the term. Why not just get over it and move on?
Why don't you learn to communicate more clearly and refer to your notion of how the World Trade Center buildings came to be destroyed as the "conspiracy theory", which would be appropriate usage of the phrase. And why don't you use the phrase "official explanation" to mean the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report, and other such material which supports, well, the official explanation? Then move on.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 16:26:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes Dave. The DECREE was unscientific (but it was based on the known science of its time).
No, the decree wasn't based on any science at all. It was based on an interpretation of the bible.
quote:
The theory (which is what I was talking about) that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and the universe, WAS scientific.
No, it wasn't. You already said science is a process. Since that process wasn't used to determine that the earth was the center of the solar system, geocentrism can't have been a scientific theory.
quote:
It was wrong (unless you consider the universe as being infinite, in which case any given point can be considered its center), but scientific.
No, it was wrong and unscientific. Scientific theories can be wrong, of course. You just picked a really bad example.
quote:
I never mentioned the DECREE--that's you inventing things to fit the way you think, again...
The fact that you never mentioned the decree can only be considered an oversight on your part. Dave kindly corrected you. Persisting under the error that geocentrism was a scientific theory as you currently are can only be termed denial. That would be you "inventing things to fit the way you think, again..."
|
"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 10/04/2006 16:28:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
