|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2006 : 20:20:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
So now you're calling me a liar. Unfortunately for you, we (the staff of the SFN) do indeed have a policy of locking threads when they reach 15 pages. Longer threads slow down the site. The evidence for this fact is all over our website. We lock threads due to interpersonal hostilities, violations of the registration agreement, and when they get too long. Your other thread got too long. You're free to continue any part of that discussion here, and you're free to start a "Part 2" for that thread (our all-time record so far is a thread with 12 parts to it, each about 15 pages long).
Anyway, just what it is you think I was "proven wrong" about? Your last quibble with me was about evidence for the offical theory, and you claiming that you were just here to find some. You've been presented with such evidence. Just because you think it's not substantial doesn't mean that it's not evidence.
The worst part of all this is that you think science deals in absolutes. (Well, aside from the fact that you think mass and weight are synonyms, that is.) Scientists cannot prove anything to be true. They don't even try. Your quest is in vain. You're a hopeless romantic unable to comprehend the realities of the universe. There is nobody on the planet who can provide evidence that the gravity-only collapse must be true, just as there is nobody on the planet who can provide evidence that the explosives scenario must be true. Scientists only look to which is more plausible.
And you presented nothing in your other thread but evidence-free assertions, and Ross' article, which you can't even describe properly. You're now claiming that it extends Greening's scenario, but Ross only mentions Greening in his discussion of concrete pulverization. (The article doesn't even have a second reference listed, yet Ross puts a nice "[2]" in for his discussion of Greening's figures. How sloppy!) The stated intent of Ross' article was instead to point out the massive flaws in Bazant and Zhou's "simple" model. Ross says so, but with your reading comprehension problems (like thinking that Case A in the NIST report was the least-severe case), I'm not surprised that you missed that.
But to further exacerbate your problems, you have said, at least a couple times, that Ross' paper shows that a gravity-only collapse was impossible. This shows another lie you're willing to tell, since you now claim that you only brought it up strictly in Ross' context. That's simply untrue, you brought it up to cast doubt on the "official" theory, and in that context, what is insane is to think that Ross' model - which doesn't take into account how the buildings were really built - casts doubt on anything.
And one more thing:quote:
They [the models described in the NIST report] were built before the events took place.
This is truly insane, since you're now claiming that all the NIST researchers are lying when they say that they built their models with the evidence available after the towers collapsed. You're saying that they simply used computer models of the Twin Towers that had been around (for how many years?), and just modified them to make it look like gravity could be responsible. How much of the Federal budget, in your mind, has gone into paying people off or having them killed to support this massive conspiracy to cover up some explosions? For what possible reason would all this have been done? Did Bush have some vendetta against Fuji Bank? |
- 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 - 10/07/2006 : 20:29:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"There are three types of untruths, Lies, Damn lies, and statistics" -- Paraphrases Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
OK, folks. Please stop feeding the troll. He has announced that he is not interested in presenting his evidence but instead requires us to defend his assertions for him or at the very least assume them true until proven otherwise.
I guess that's one way to interpret the request I made on the now-locked thread... It's an incorrect interpretation, though... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 20:36:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
So now you're calling me a liar. Unfortunately for you, we (the staff of the SFN) do indeed have a policy of locking threads when they reach 15 pages. Longer threads slow down the site. The evidence for this fact is all over our website. We lock threads due to interpersonal hostilities, violations of the registration agreement, and when they get too long. Your other thread got too long. You're free to continue any part of that discussion here, and you're free to start a "Part 2" for that thread (our all-time record so far is a thread with 12 parts to it, each about 15 pages long).
Anyway, just what it is you think I was "proven wrong" about? Your last quibble with me was about evidence for the offical theory, and you claiming that you were just here to find some. You've been presented with such evidence. Just because you think it's not substantial doesn't mean that it's not evidence.
The worst part of all this is that you think science deals in absolutes. (Well, aside from the fact that you think mass and weight are synonyms, that is.) Scientists cannot prove anything to be true. They don't even try. Your quest is in vain. You're a hopeless romantic unable to comprehend the realities of the universe. There is nobody on the planet who can provide evidence that the gravity-only collapse must be true, just as there is nobody on the planet who can provide evidence that the explosives scenario must be true. Scientists only look to which is more plausible.
And you presented nothing in your other thread but evidence-free assertions, and Ross' article, which you can't even describe properly. You're now claiming that it extends Greening's scenario, but Ross only mentions Greening in his discussion of concrete pulverization. (The article doesn't even have a second reference listed, yet Ross puts a nice "[2]" in for his discussion of Greening's figures. How sloppy!) The stated intent of Ross' article was instead to point out the massive flaws in Bazant and Zhou's "simple" model. Ross says so, but with your reading comprehension problems (like thinking that Case A in the NIST report was the least-severe case), I'm not surprised that you missed that.
But to further exacerbate your problems, you have said, at least a couple times, that Ross' paper shows that a gravity-only collapse was impossible. This shows another lie you're willing to tell, since you now claim that you only brought it up strictly in Ross' context. That's simply untrue, you brought it up to cast doubt on the "official" theory, and in that context, what is insane is to think that Ross' model - which doesn't take into account how the buildings were really built - casts doubt on anything.
And one more thing:quote:
They [the models described in the NIST report] were built before the events took place.
This is truly insane, since you're now claiming that all the NIST researchers are lying when they say that they built their models with the evidence available after the towers collapsed. You're saying that they simply used computer models of the Twin Towers that had been around (for how many years?), and just modified them to make it look like gravity could be responsible. How much of the Federal budget, in your mind, has gone into paying people off or having them killed to support this massive conspiracy to cover up some explosions? For what possible reason would all this have been done? Did Bush have some vendetta against Fuji Bank?
Are you really as dense as you appear? The models don't build themselves around the evidence. Some of the evidence was used as INPUT to simulators that were built to model lots of historic events. These historic models were then modified to account for SOME--but not ALL--the evidence of the 9-11-01 collapses. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 20:59:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Are you really as dense as you appear?
Once again, you're not even going to acknowledge that you were wrong. I know you don't care if you're wrong, but that's the point: you don't care if you're wrong.quote:
The models don't build themselves around the evidence.
No, people with computers built the models around the available evidence - they even said that most of the as-built plans for the towers were destroyed with the towers. If the models predated the events, why would they be fretting over missing plans? You objection doesn't make sense.quote:
Some of the evidence was used as INPUT to simulators that were built to model lots of historic events.
The simulators are generic - they weren't created to model the towers or any other particular building. The only things built into them are raw physics - this type of steel in a girder this long under this load will behave in thus-and-such a manner. The data from the plans of the towers were what was being modeled, not some historic generic high-rise building.quote:
These historic models were then modified to account for SOME--but not ALL--the evidence of the 9-11-01 collapses.
Name some evidence that was left out. Oh, that's right - you don't do evidence. You only do conjecture and your say-so. You're worse than a preist, since at least the preist will cite chapter-and-verse. You won't even do that much. |
- 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 - 10/07/2006 : 21:05:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Are you really as dense as you appear?
Dave is one of the sharpest guys on this site, if not the smartest. The fact that you can only hand-wave away his substantial criticisms of your approach with grade school insults tells us a great deal about you, your methods, and your intelligence. None of it is good.
quote:
The models don't build themselves around the evidence. Some of the evidence was used as INPUT to simulators that were built to model lots of historic events. These historic models were then modified to account for SOME--but not ALL--the evidence of the 9-11-01 collapses.
Ah, right. They didn't take into account that special secret evidence that only you possess and are unwilling to share. Well of course they couldn't have modeled that data, as thus far it hasn't been demonstrated to exist.
|
"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 - 10/07/2006 : 21:26:53 [Permalink]
|
exactly dave. the simulators are generic--made before 9-11-01. the simulators simulate via models of material response to physical inputs. if the simulators existed before 9-11-01, so did the models. building specifications and some of the observed events were inputs to these models...
NIST doesn't say why they didn't include ALL the observed events as input. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 21:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Are you really as dense as you appear?
Dave is one of the sharpest guys on this site, if not the smartest. The fact that you can only hand-wave away his substantial criticisms of your approach with grade school insults tells us a great deal about you, your methods, and your intelligence. None of it is good.
quote:
The models don't build themselves around the evidence. Some of the evidence was used as INPUT to simulators that were built to model lots of historic events. These historic models were then modified to account for SOME--but not ALL--the evidence of the 9-11-01 collapses.
Ah, right. They didn't take into account that special secret evidence that only you possess and are unwilling to share. Well of course they couldn't have modeled that data, as thus far it hasn't been demonstrated to exist.
I've listed the evidence of explosives in at least one of my threads. But you refuse to acknowledge it.
and i'm still waiting for evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true. If all you have is NIST you really have nothing. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 21:42:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
exactly dave. the simulators are generic--made before 9-11-01. the simulators simulate via models of material response to physical inputs. if the simulators existed before 9-11-01, so did the models.
No, the simulators are not the models. If they were, you wouldn't have a job, and you know it. Unless you're lying about what you do, just like you lied about my actions.quote:
building specifications and some of the observed events were inputs to these models...
No, you are completely wrong about that, just like you're wrong about Ross. But you won't admit it.quote:
NIST doesn't say why they didn't include ALL the observed events as input.
You can repeat this all you like, but repetition won't make it true. You simply refuse to provide any evidence that the researchers left out anything that they had access to. |
- 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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 21:53:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I've listed the evidence of explosives in at least one of my threads. But you refuse to acknowledge it.
No, just about everyone has acknowledged your claims that there is evidence of explosives, but we're still waiting for you to present actual evidence of it.quote:
and i'm still waiting for evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true. If all you have is NIST you really have nothing.
That's not what you said in your OP to this thread. You just listed some uncertainties. But since you've presented no evidence at all for any competing theory, the most-plausible (NIST's) is the front-runner, even though it - like every other theory - has some unknowns in it. You still don't have a clue as to how science is conducted, do you? |
- 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 - 10/08/2006 : 00:19:44 [Permalink]
|
i never said the simulators were the models. it appears that the only way you can prove me wrong is to make up what i said and then point out these made-up things are wrong. when you use that tactic to stroke your frail ego i'm not going to waste my time repeating or defending what i actually said.
why is nist's the most plausible? If you knew anything about the scientific method you would know that ssuch a claim can't be made until all feasible competing hypotheses are tested.
and you are correct--i didn't ask for evidence of the official conspiracy theory in the op of this thread. i asked for it in the thread you locked... but you didn't give me anything except the inconclusive nist report--so im still waiting ... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 02:23:19 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
why is nist's the most plausible? If you knew anything about the scientific method you would know that ssuch a claim can't be made until all feasible competing hypotheses are tested.
It is always amazing to me when ignorant people continue to defend obviously wrong things they say.
You, with that sentence, prove that you know nothing about the scientific method.
I don't know if I should laugh or feel sorry for you.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 03:57:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
HAHAHAHHA That's rich!! And completely unfounded. Nice try HAHAHAHA
No, that is not completely unfounded. That is actually how scientists write. Read any other scientific report or article.
quote:
See my other thread.
Present it here again. I have no intention of wading through 15 pages again. You can summarize it here.
quote:
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
So you're a lying bastard. As Dave stated, all threads on this forum are locked after 15 pages. Yours is not the only one that has been locked after this length. You're free to link to the locked thread in a new thread and continue the discussion there.
quote:
But they weren't BUILT with the evidence in mind. They were built before the events took place. They were MODIFIED to fit SOME of the observed events--but NOT the ones that pointed to explosives being used.
Because there were no events pointing to explosives used. No evidence for them --> not modeled.
quote:
If you can't see it in what I've presented to date, I'm not going waste my time trying to convince you of it--because if you can't see it based on what I've presented so far, it means you are unwilling to look...
No, it means you haven't presented any. Now, if you have any very compelling evidence, feel free to present it. So far you delivered nothing. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 05:29:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo123 said:
quote:
why is nist's the most plausible? If you knew anything about the scientific method you would know that ssuch a claim can't be made until all feasible competing hypotheses are tested.
It is always amazing to me when ignorant people continue to defend obviously wrong things they say.
You, with that sentence, prove that you know nothing about the scientific method.
I don't know if I should laugh or feel sorry for you.
you keep making this claim but never provide evidence to back it up... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 05:58:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
[q uote]Originally posted by ergo123
HAHAHAHHA That's rich!! And completely unfounded. Nice try HAHAHAHA
quote:
No, that is not completely unfounded. That is actually how scientists write. Read any other scientific report or article.
but you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim...
quote:
See my other thread.
quote:
Present it here again. I have no intention of wading through 15 pages again. You can summarize it here.
i have no intention of wading through 15 pages again either. i'm sure you can understand that... i don't care if you think i'm wrong on this issue. being wrong shouldn't preclude you from providing more evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true or even the most probable.
quote:
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
quote:
So you're a lying bastard. As Dave stated, all threads on this forum are locked after 15 pages. Yours is not the only one that has been locked after this length. You're free to link to the locked thread in a new thread and continue the discussion there.
more unsubstantiated claims. i'm neither lying nor a bastard. consider how behavior is overdetermined...
quote:
But they weren't BUILT with the evidence in mind. They were built before the events took place. They were MODIFIED to fit SOME of the observed events--but NOT the ones that pointed to explosives being used.
quote:
Because there were no events pointing to explosives used. No evidence for them --> not modeled.
but of course you know there IS evidence for explosives being used.
quote:
If you can't see it in what I've presented to date, I'm not going waste my time trying to convince you of it--because if you can't see it based on what I've presented so far, it means you are unwilling to look...
quote:
No, it means you haven't presented any. Now, if you have any very compelling evidence, feel free to present it. So far you delivered nothing.
i'm tired of re-presenting things on this site. you guys clearly don't want to acknowledge the official conspiracy theory might be wrong, and you can't seem to provide evidence that it's right. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/08/2006 07:20:56 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 07:48:04 [Permalink]
|
Not even man enough to admit he was wrong as to why the original thread locked.
What a pathetic joke. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
