|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2006 : 20:40:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are obliged to show evidence for that claim, buddy...
It was on South Park, so it must be true.
Just how all those paranoid questions you have floating in your head must mean that there is a government plot behind the 9/11 events.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 23:23:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Ergo, I think you missed the class in third grade where they taught the difference between fact and opinion. Here is a quick review.
"I like the color blue." This is an opinion.
HAHAHA That's not an opinion--it's a statement of affinity. "I think blue is the best color," is an opinion. I guess it's back to school for you.
Actually, you are kinda right. Really that is what I meant to type, you can tell by what follows it. It is not a statement of affinty, however, as affinity is a degree of closeness or bond not preference. It is a statement of preference.
Of course, you still address the semantics and not the point.
When will you learn Ergo it does not matter what your opinions, preferences, or affinities are. Only the facts matter, of which you have none. So do I need to request a third time? What is your point here? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 02:27:58 [Permalink]
|
| my point here is simple and is described iin my op. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 05:54:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
my point here is simple and is described iin my op.
Actually, ergo, it's not as simple as you claim it is. It is generally accepted that planes struck the WTC, and that the damage from that caused those buildings to collapse. You want evidence that this is the best explanation for the fact that the buildings collapsed, but you don't want it to come from the main study of that event.
The assumption is that there are scores of studies about planes crashing into buildings, and in particular, planes crashing into buildings of the same design at the WTC 1 & 2. But this just isn't the case.
Indeed, when you look at the report you see that there were hundreds of people-- many of them with significant backgrounds in science, engineering, and computers. They had no doubt access to government resources, and were presumably compensated to some extent for their time.
It is unlikely that any other person or group could have engaged in such a project, even on a much smaller scale. You'd be similarly stuck if you wanted comfirmation of the "government comspiracy theory" that Columbia was destroyed due to damage to its heat shield, rather than, say, bombs planted by Chinese agents, by using anything but NASA or government reports.
This doesn't mean that the NIST report is wrong. Nor does it suggest a government cover-up. The NIST is very open. It notes who exactly worked on it, it tells you where they get their data, why they are doing what they are doing, and so on.
So I don't think you're ever going to get the kind of material you want, ergo. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 07:55:04 [Permalink]
|
That's some leap of logic you are making. I'm not assuming anything about the volume of work out there validating NIST. If there isn't any independent validation for NIST, then there isn't any independent validation for NIST. I know it doesn't make NIST wrong. But just because people generally accept it doesn't make what it concludes true.
And given the limited scope of its investigation, NIST really isn't a valid counter argument for the cd theory--because the two theories cover different parts of the events--the official theory covering "pre-collapse" and the cd theory covering the actual collapse and "post-collapse." |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 08:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
It is generally accepted that planes struck the WTC, and that the damage from that caused those buildings to collapse.
And that's unfortunate, because NIST only models the events after the impact of the planes and only up to the point where the towers are "poised" for collapse. That people use NIST as providing an explanation for why the buildings did collapse shows how people will jump to conclusions the data in front of them don't lead to.
And see--all these pages were worth something. All of you used to believe that NIST explained why the buildings fell. Now you know NIST, as documented on pages 80 and 142 of their final report, only describes why the buildings became poised to fall. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 09:08:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
And given the limited scope of its investigation, NIST really isn't a valid counter argument for the cd theory--because the two theories cover different parts of the events--the official theory covering "pre-collapse" and the cd theory covering the actual collapse and "post-collapse."
The NIST report may not cover all the area's you think it should have but then it wasn't published to counter conspiracy arguments. Its scope was to look at the events that led to the buildings destruction that included the most plausible explanation for the buildings collapse. Essentially, they didn't need to follow the building down to the ground to establish that the events leading up to that outcome were completely consistent with what everyone saw happen. What you are not acknowledging is that further demolition beyond what was obvious, i.e. planes crashed into the buildings causing fatal damage to the buildings structural integrity that led to the buildings destruction is plausible and is therefore the most likely theory.
You waved away support of the NIST report by demolition experts by suggesting that they would have done it by making it look like the planes did it. But if the planes could have done it by themselves, you are only adding complexity to what should be the most obvious conclusion.
Therefore, it is now up to you to support your favored theory, which remains an extraordinary claim.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 09:28:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And that's unfortunate, because NIST only models the events after the impact of the planes and only up to the point where the towers are "poised" for collapse. That people use NIST as providing an explanation for why the buildings did collapse shows how people will jump to conclusions the data in front of them don't lead to.
And see--all these pages were worth something. All of you used to believe that NIST explained why the buildings fell. Now you know NIST, as documented on pages 80 and 142 of their final report, only describes why the buildings became poised to fall.
I guess I'm reading a different report. I'm looking at this, and I find on p. 144, section 6.14.2, that as a result of their global analysis of WTC 1, they conclude that the damage sustained was enough to cause the collapse.
Am I misunderstanding something? |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 10:21:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
And given the limited scope of its investigation, NIST really isn't a valid counter argument for the cd theory--because the two theories cover different parts of the events--the official theory covering "pre-collapse" and the cd theory covering the actual collapse and "post-collapse."
quote:
The NIST report may not cover all the area's you think it should have but then it wasn't published to counter conspiracy arguments.
Indeed.
quote:
Its scope was to look at the events that led to the buildings destruction that included the most plausible explanation for the buildings collapse.
Not exactly. It did look at events that led possibly led the buildings to collapse--but since they never modeled the collapse itself (or at least never reported on modeling the collapse itself) all we know is what NIST itself says in its final report: a probable reason for the buildings to reach the point where they were poised for collapse (see NIST final report, pages 80 & 142). If you want to make the leap of faith that the buildings would completely collapse, even though no NIST model describes the collapse, that's up to you. I guess I'm too much of a skeptic to take that on faith.
quote:
Essentially, they didn't need to follow the building down to the ground to establish that the events leading up to that outcome were completely consistent with what everyone saw happen.
Really? How do you know that? How do you know that the final model NIST used would have resulted in a complete collapse of the twin towers? NIST provides no evidence of that--and they say as much on pages 80 & 142 of their final document. Why do you leap to conclusions NIST is careful to warn you not to make?
quote:
What you are not acknowledging is that further demolition beyond what was obvious, i.e. planes crashed into the buildings causing fatal damage to the buildings structural integrity that led to the buildings destruction is plausible and is therefore the most likely theory.
Plausibility, probability and reality are logically independent.
quote:
You waved away support of the NIST report by demolition experts by suggesting that they would have done it by making it look like the planes did it. But if the planes could have done it by themselves, you are only adding complexity to what should be the most obvious conclusion.
But could have and did are two completely different things. A good skeptic will always continue searching for did when all s/he is given is could have...
No witty quotes. I think for myself.
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 11:39:45 [Permalink]
|
Listen Ego, independent validation has been given to you that does support the NIST reports conclusion.
NIST report conclusions certainly do consider the collapse itself and the post collapse. Admittedly they do not cover the exact way the building would have collapsed probably for the same reasons you mentioned in your opener about models not being the only way the mechanics could work out.
The CD theory is an extraordinary hypothesis for which no extraordinary evidence has been established.
When all of the evidence has been put together the official terrorist plane theory holds up way better than the:
"Incredibly connected cigar smoking govenment officials orchestrated a plan to higher some guys to act like terrorist and blow themselves up on a highjacked plane that would kill hundreds. Then to crash that plane into two of the most expensive buildings ever and the location of the center of trade in America (and the world). But just to insure that the damage was destructive enough they implimented bombing experts to place shaped charges that would bring the buildings down for certain. These charges would make the collapses look like they were from the planes by setting them off in reverse order: the top floors then the bottom to middle. This act killing thousands more people. Of course the cigar smoking government officials care not about these numbers for they had an agenda. They would use this act to springboard a war with another country for which they justified looking for WMD's. Of course, that justification alone could have started the war minus the orchestrated terror event but may as well be safe than sorry. In order to accomplish this, the government would need thousands of cooperators but the government is evil enough and has enough money as we all know."
 |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/13/2006 11:43:30 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 12:16:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Not exactly. It did look at events that led possibly led the buildings to collapse--but since they never modeled the collapse itself (or at least never reported on modeling the collapse itself) all we know is what NIST itself says in its final report: a probable reason for the buildings to reach the point where they were poised for collapse (see NIST final report, pages 80 & 142). If you want to make the leap of faith that the buildings would completely collapse, even though no NIST model describes the collapse, that's up to you. I guess I'm too much of a skeptic to take that on faith.
So you are saying that we should consider all possibilies even without evidence forever despite the fact that we have evidence to the contrary because someway somehow it could be true. Here is a good analogy. Suppose I set up a black powder trail that leads into a black powder storage room in which an unknown amount of black powder is stored. Then I poise a match just above the black powder line. Then I ask you to guess what will happen by asking you to guess the exact location of all the pieces of debri after the collapse. When you fail to do this I say see the black powder alone could not blow up the building.
This is a special case and has never before happened. There is no data on how the crash would flow but the model does show that the fire could cause the building to fall. The pancake effect is documented and we know how that would kinda work so we can reasonably assume that it could happen the way we observed UNTIL some other evidence is presented.
quote:
Plausibility, probability and reality are logically independent.
This is true but I think you missed the point. Science does not evoke an unnecessary hypothess that requires extraordinary evidence when a simple hypothesis is plausible and probable.
quote:
But could have and did are two completely different things. A good skeptic will always continue searching for did when all s/he is given is could have...
Everyone who has relpied to you has searched for the evidence and read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I'm sure no one here has totally decided that the official stroy is definitely true only most probably true given the evidence. That is the only scientific conclusion anyone can reach since it is impossible to know all the variables in an event that has never occured before. We do not consider the CD theory plausible for the same reason we do not consider alien involvment plausible, no evidence.
quote:
Which I will endeavor to do. I will investigate the clains of the cd theory of collapse and look for independent evidence that supports those claims. It would be great if people here would help by challenging any evidence I post with evidence to the contrary.
And remember, I'm not looking to prove anyone wrong. I didn't come up with the cd theory, so I'm not trying to prove myself right, either. I'm just looking for the truth about what happened on 9-11-01.
Good because we have asked you to do that like a hundred times. Again speaking only for me. I do not care about your opinions or preferences only your evidence.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/13/2006 12:17:13 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 15:40:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Listen Ergo, independent validation has been given to you that does support the NIST reports conclusion.
If you say so... Unfortunately, the NIST conclusions (even if they were independently validated, which I haven't really seen evidence of) do not deal with the actual collapse of the buildings. So we are, in a sense, poised to understand what happened during the collapse, but NIST has left us in a state of collapsus interruptus.
quote:
NIST report conclusions certainly do consider the collapse itself and the post collapse. Admittedly they do not cover the exact way the building would have collapsed probably for the same reasons you mentioned in your opener about models not being the only way the mechanics could work out.
False statement, admission of false statement, unsupported speculation
quote:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
Simple is not always correct. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 15:58:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
This is a special case and has never before happened. There is no data on how the crash would flow but the model does show that the fire could cause the building to fall. The pancake effect is documented and we know how that would kinda work so we can reasonably assume that it could happen the way we observed UNTIL some other evidence is presented.
No, the model shows that the fire and crash damage would leave the buildings "poised to collapse." Being poised to collapse and collapsing are different physical states. Just ask the Minnesota Vikings who have been poised for victory in the superbowl several times, but managed to collapse every time.
quote:
Plausibility, probability and reality are logically independent.
quote:
This is true but I think you missed the point. Science does not evoke an unnecessary hypothess that requires extraordinary evidence when a simple hypothesis is plausible and probable.
It does when the working hypothesis does not fit with all the observed facts. And the NIST hypothesis does not fit with all the observed facts--since it leaves out the collapse of each building and observed facts on the scene as ground zero was cleaned up.
quote:
But could have and did are two completely different things. A good skeptic will always continue searching for did when all s/he is given is could have...
quote:
Everyone who has relpied to you has searched for the evidence and read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I'm sure no one here has totally decided that the official stroy is definitely true only most probably true given the evidence.
If that highly speculative and unsupported expression of opinion is true, then why all the grief over me showing the NIST conslusions are inconclusive?
quote:
That is the only scientific conclusion anyone can reach since it is impossible to know all the variables in an event that has never occured before.
But many observed variables--such as 600,000 pound beams thrown hundreds of feet, molten metal at the base of each of the 3 buildings, blown-out window on neighboring buildings--were recorded, yet excluded from the analysis. And, you keep forgetting (or not wanting to remember) that NIST does not model the collapse at all, so how can it be a scientific conclusion of the collapse?
quote:
We do not consider the CD theory plausible for the same reason we do not consider alien involvment plausible, no evidence.
Then you are repressing your knowledge of the evidence for the cd theory and fooling yourselves.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 16:20:50 [Permalink]
|
Wow. I go away for a few days, and ergo still hasn't figured out that nobody here is claiming that the NIST report is "the truth," nor has he figured out that nobody is willing to play "Champion for the Government" in his little game.quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But many observed variables--such as 600,000 pound beams thrown hundreds of feet, molten metal at the base of each of the 3 buildings, blown-out window on neighboring buildings--were recorded, yet excluded from the analysis.
You have provided no evidence that the first two were ever observed, so why should any analysis even try to take fiction into account?
As to the last - the blown-out windows - why shouldn't they have blown out in a gravity-only collapse?quote:
And, you keep forgetting (or not wanting to remember) that NIST does not model the collapse at all, so how can it be a scientific conclusion of the collapse?
Mass plus gravity plus a structure incapable of resisting that force equals collapse. Why should the NIST model have bothered to analyze anything so mind-bogglingly simple? Nobody has ever presented any evidence that the actual buildings could have remained standing after the loss of two perimeter walls and the core.quote:
Then you are repressing your knowledge of the evidence for the cd theory and fooling yourselves.
You can read his mind, to know what knowledge he has? That's way coooool. As I said, James Randi will give you a million bucks if you can demonstrate that abaility at will. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
