|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/13/2006 : 18:00:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Then why all the grief when I pointed out NIST is worthless when it comes to the collapses?
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.
quote:
You have provided no evidence that the first two were ever observed, so why should any analysis even try to take fiction into account?
The evidence for this is all over the internet. I'll document it--but I know you have seen it.
quote:
As to the last - the blown-out windows - why shouldn't they have blown out in a gravity-only collapse?
Um, because the windows were across the street!
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?
quote:
Mass plus gravity plus a structure incapable of resisting that force equals collapse.
That is a complete leap of faith, Dave. NIST goes to great pains to hide the fact that their analysis doesn't make that conclusion--I guess they succeeded in hiding it from you.
quote:
Why should the NIST model have bothered to analyze anything so mind-bogglingly simple?
Hmmmm. Maybe because it had never happened before!? And some of the observed fact of the events are a little mind-boggling if you think it was a gravity-only collapse.
quote:
Nobody has ever presented any evidence that the actual buildings could have remained standing after the loss of two perimeter walls and the core.
And no one has presented any independent evidence that 2 perimeter walls and the core supports were lost. It's just what NIST had to assume to get the towers to the point that they were poised for collapse.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 20:24:40 [Permalink]
|
| I'm very confused, ergo. You keep saying that the NIST doesn't make any conclusions about the collapse. But I'm reading a report now, the abstract of which clearly states otherwise. Are you reading the same report I am? |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 20:40:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Your analogies are so off the mark it kills me. The Vikings being poised for victory in no way resembles something poised for collapse.
quote:
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.
Lets play a game. Its called provide the evidence. Its your turn.
quote:
If that highly speculative and unsupported expression of opinion is true, then why all the grief over me showing the NIST conslusions are inconclusive?
Hey Ego, you haven't shown shit from shinola. The grief is over why you continue to make statements with no evidence and pretend that your opinion means something.
quote:
Then you are repressing your knowledge of the evidence for the cd theory and fooling yourselves.
I'm sure you think that, but I don't care what you think. 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 21:10:29 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 21:23:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'm very confused, ergo. You keep saying that the NIST doesn't make any conclusions about the collapse. But I'm reading a report now, the abstract of which clearly states otherwise. Are you reading the same report I am?
I don't know--I can't see what you are reading...
But you are right. In the NIST Report makes what they refer to as conclusions. But they aren't all conclusions based on actual evidence. Such is the case with any "conclusions" NIST makes regarding the actual collapse--because they did not examine or model the actual collapse. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 21:25:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
I don't know if you know this or not but gravity pulls things that are poised for collapse down. If I poise a ball above me in the air and let go it falls. Except in your world where the aliens hold it in a tractor beam.
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
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.
quote:
False statement, admission of false statement, unsupported speculation
Do you actually read the context or just read into the context what you want to. I admitted that the exact mechanics of the crash were not modeled because no non-omniscient creature can know exactly what happened. We have a good idea though since everybody and they momma caught it on video. So why model what we saw? No reason. But to show how the building got into a state that would allow gravity to pull it down that would have been nice, oh wait, that is what they did.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mass plus gravity plus a structure incapable of resisting that force equals collapse.
Originally posted by ergo123
That is a complete leap of faith, Dave. NIST goes to great pains to hide the fact that their analysis doesn't make that conclusion--I guess they succeeded in hiding it from you.
He is right Dave it totally takes faith to believe in gravity! 
quote:
Originally posted by Ergo:
Hmmmm. Maybe because it had never happened before!? And some of the observed fact of the events are a little mind-boggling if you think it was a gravity-only collapse.
How about an example.
We are finishing up on page thirteen @tomic are you poised to wipe? |
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 21:34:57 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 21:29:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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:
Your analogies are so off the mark it kills me. The Vikings being poised for victory in no way resembles something poised for collapse.
I guess you haven't seen the Vikings play in the Superbowl before...
quote:
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:
Lets play a game. Its called provide the evidence. Its your turn.
I've already given the evidence that NIST did not model the actual collapse. Ergo, any events that occurred during or after the actual collapse were not modeled by NIST. Or do you need evidence that the twin towers actually collapsed...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 21:39:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
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:
Lets play a game. Its called provide the evidence. Its your turn.
I've already given the evidence that NIST did not model the actual collapse. Ergo, any events that occurred during or after the actual collapse were not modeled by NIST. Or do you need evidence that the twin towers actually collapsed...
I have said nothing about them modeling the collapse. I said that the collapse and the aftermath were considered in the formation of NIST's conclusions. You have stated that all the evidence was not considered in the final official hypothesis but have not provided evidence of this or any evidence that does not add up. Although, you have made that statement a few times and called it your opinion. |
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 21:40:32 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 21:48:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
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:
Lets play a game. Its called provide the evidence. Its your turn.
I've already given the evidence that NIST did not model the actual collapse. Ergo, any events that occurred during or after the actual collapse were not modeled by NIST. Or do you need evidence that the twin towers actually collapsed...
quote:
I have said nothing about them modeling the collapse.
I know. You always avoid mentioning that because then you would have to admit you are wrong about the value of the NIST Report.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2006 : 22:54:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Then why all the grief when I pointed out NIST is worthless when it comes to the collapses?
Because you're misrepresenting the NIST report. As I said before (and you didn't understand before), how well the NIST report matches reality doesn't matter one bit if you can't properly characterize the report at all. Your criticisms are of some fictional report that nobody has written. Nobody here is defending the NIST report as truth, they've been defending the NIST report as saying what it actually says, and not your strawman version of it.
I know you enjoy arguments by analogy, so let's try one: let's say you find yourself at a party amongst a group of people you don't know very well, who are talking about racial stereotyping. Joe says, "I don't know... none of the Japanese people I know are all that smart." And Fred responds by shouting to the whole party, "Joe just said 'Nips are stupid'!" Wouldn't you feel - in the interest of truth - like saying, "no, that's not what Joe said at all."
In this thread, you're Fred.quote:
The evidence for this is all over the internet. I'll document it--but I know you have seen it.
That'd be a first, so I'm all a-quiver with excitement at seeing you document one of these wild claims of yours. Don't forget:- "600,000 pound beams thrown hundreds of feet," and
- "molten metal at the base of each of the 3 buildings."
That's what you need to provide evidence for. The first one is rather interesting, too, since 600,000 pounds of even the most-dense steel is nearly 34 cubic meters of the stuff, which means that for even the thickest of the core beams to weigh 600,000 pounds, it would have to be nearly 198 meters long.
But you said that all the columns got snipped into neat 30' lengths. For a 30' regular box column of the densest steel to weigh 600,000 pounds, each of its four side plates would need to have a solid cross-section of nearly 10 square feet. That would be four plates each 5' by 2' by 30' welded together. No column in the Twin Towers was anywhere close to being that large - the largest single column cross-section dimension I can find is 22 inches. Even if that were a solid square cross-section (no columns in the WTC were 22" by 22" and solid), it's easy to calculate that 22 inches by 22 inches by 30 feet of dense steel is only 10,422 pounds.
How is it possible, ergo, that a 300-ton beam was found thrown anywhere from the WTC site when an unreasonably huge column limited to 30' in length would weigh only a little more than five tons?quote:
quote:
As to the last - the blown-out windows - why shouldn't they have blown out in a gravity-only collapse?
Um, because the windows were across the street!
How close would they have had to have been to be "blown out" in your understanding? 50 feet? 25 feet? Just how far was "across the street," anyway?quote:
quote:
Mass plus gravity plus a structure incapable of resisting that force equals collapse.
That is a complete leap of faith, Dave. NIST goes to great pains to hide the fact that their analysis doesn't make that conclusion--I guess they succeeded in hiding it from you.
They don't "hide" anything. They clearly spell out the fact that once their model goes unstable, a progressive collapse would occur. What do you think "unstable" means? Do you think that some equillibrium point could have been found once the top of the towers basically folded?quote:
Hmmmm. Maybe because it had never happened before!?
For the third time I'll ask you what part(s) of the building - in your opinion - could have stopped the collapse. If there's no reason to think that the collapse could have been halted, then what does it matter that it had never happened before?quote:
And some of the observed fact of the events are a little mind-boggling if you think it was a gravity-only collapse.
You have yet to provide any evidence of any observed facts of any events.quote:
And no one has presented any independent evidence that 2 perimeter walls and the core supports were lost. It's just what NIST had to assume to get the towers to the point that they were poised for collapse.
You think that the NIST concocted all the evidence they used? That none of them that they credited to independent sources are actually from independent sources?
(Holy crap! This is the first time I've seen valdalism at Wikipedia before it's been corrected. All that the linked entry says as I type this is "Jews did WTC. That is all.") |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2006 : 00:59:08 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
I've already given the evidence that NIST did not model the actual collapse. Ergo, any events that occurred during or after the actual collapse were not modeled by NIST
Again, so what?
|
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 - 10/14/2006 : 03:51:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
since 600,000 pounds of even the most-dense steel is nearly 34 cubic meters of the stuff
Thanks for that info. That's the kind of help I've been asking for all along.
quote:
They clearly spell out the fact that once their model goes unstable, a progressive collapse would occur.
But they don't model the collapse so how do they know it would be progressive and complete? They just assume it would be because that's what we saw. But we don't know if their model inputs would lead to a progressive and complete collapse because they didn't model the collapse.
quote:
What do you think "unstable" means?
I'm not sure--how does NIST define 'unstable?'
quote:
For the third time I'll ask you what part(s) of the building - in your opinion - could have stopped the collapse.
What does my opinion matter?
quote:
You think that the NIST concocted all the evidence they used?
They admit to this--that they modified input to get the results they wanted. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2006 : 08:39:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Thanks for that info. That's the kind of help I've been asking for all along.
What utter nonsense: I did not provide any evidence or verification of any governmental theory of collapse. All I did was question your sanity, and you have (once again) refused to provide the references you said that you would provide.quote:
But they don't model the collapse so how do they know it would be progressive and complete?
What part(s) of the building could possibly have stopped it?quote:
They just assume it would be because that's what we saw.
That is factually incorrect.quote:
But we don't know if their model inputs would lead to a progressive and complete collapse because they didn't model the collapse.
You are very confused.quote:
quote:
What do you think "unstable" means?
I'm not sure--how does NIST define 'unstable?'
You don't know, but you're sure that NIST is just making assumptions about the collapse. Good for you.quote:
quote:
For the third time I'll ask you what part(s) of the building - in your opinion - could have stopped the collapse.
What does my opinion matter?
You're the one asking the questions, so it's important that you understand the implications.quote:
quote:
You think that the NIST concocted all the evidence they used?
They admit to this--that they modified input to get the results they wanted.
Unresponsive to my point, I will rephrase: do you think that NIST created a fraudulent photo of the south side of WTC 1 bowing inward, for just one example? For another, do you think that the design plans that they display are forgeries? For a third, do you think that their tests of the recovered steel were lies? |
- 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 - 10/14/2006 : 11:42:28 [Permalink]
|
I don't understand why this goes over your head--you seem like a smart enough person...
The notion that explosives were used does not need to include the notion that damage to the building was not inflicted by the planes. The official theory and the cd theory are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, it is possible that the damage from the planes was enough to bring down the buildings. But that doesn't mean that explosives were not used.
Does that mean all potential collapse theories need to be tested? No. But there is evidence (that i will present after i review and investigate it) that explosives were used. So that theory should be considered and examined. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2006 : 12:05:29 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
But there is evidence (that i will present after i review and investigate it) that explosives were used. So that theory should be considered and examined.
Only if you consider the ravings of stupid people to be evidence.
|
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 - 10/14/2006 : 12:56:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
But there is evidence (that i will present after i review and investigate it) that explosives were used. So that theory should be considered and examined.
Only if you consider the ravings of stupid people to be evidence.
What evidence do you have that they are stupid people? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
