|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2006 : 16:24:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. MabuseThere is 6-day creationist who holds a PhD in Paleontology. He deny evolution occur, but the PhD in a relevant field of study doesn't make him right. Similarly, you present a few material engineers physicists who are mistaken. None of them seem to know much about Controlled Demolition anyway, so their opinions are outside their particular field of study anyway.
How do you know they are mistaken?
I don't, I cannot be 100% sure that they are mistaken. However, since there are Controlled Demolition experts saying that they can not find any evidence of controlled demolition, their expert opinion trumps your scholars non-expert opinion.
quote:
How do you know you aren't the one who is mistaken?
I'm certainly open to the idea that I might be wrong. In fact, if someone shows me that I'm wrong I would gladly change my mind. I'm on a quest to better myself, and try to learn where ever I can. But I do not change my mind on a whim, I want hard evidence.
quote:
You have no evidence (let alone proof) that the buildings collapsed due to fire alone.
No I don't. I live a quarter way around the world, so how could I have?
What I do have are the reports, and my own understanding of constructions (from school), physics, chemistry, basic science and logical reasoning.
There are two major competing theories: plane-crash demolition and explosives demolition. One theory holds many more assumptions without evidence than the other: Explosive Demolition, and thanks to Occam's Razor I can shave that theory off.
quote:
And they at least acknowledge that they didn't even try to describe the mechanics of the collapse of the twin towers (NIST and 9/11 CR). But because they showed that the towers became unstable, you jump to the conclusion that they musthave collapsed because they were unstable.
No, that is not true. The NIST report shows how and why the internal structure deteriorated until it could no longer support itself. I have never said that it must be because of it. The NIST report, and the conclusion that no controlled demolition was employed is the most probable and reasonable explanation for the WTC destruction.
quote:
Did explosives bring down the towers? I don't know. But the evidence at hand does not support the coincidence theory put forth by the 9/11 CR or NIST. And you ignore evidence that they did not fall due to fire alone.
Then present those evidence for us to examine!
You're say-so just does not cut it.
quote:
So I don't see how you know anything you say you know here. Your "I believe the first theory heard" approach to these events is anything but scientific.
Even scientists have to start somewhere. If enough evidence found points to another theory that better explains what is observed, then this new theory becomes interesting. For now, controlled demolition of WTC is not supported by reliable evidence, so controlled demolition are ruled out. Experts in the field of controlled demolition says controlled demolition of WTC is extremely unlikely. Even without expert knowledge of the physics involved in controlled demolition, the preparation of such an event demands logistics that are so unreasonable that even average intelligent laymen can see that a controlled demolition scenario is extremely unlikely. |
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. |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 16:29:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Can't you read? He said it would be impossible to do surreptitiously, not impossible to do period. Jeez!
Yes, I can read. Don't you understand pronouns?
I'm just a sheeple, so please enlighten me. And while you're at it, you can reconcile this sentence by you with what I was pointing out:
quote:
And even though you said it was impossible, it seems that you now agree that it would just be difficult...
But I'm probably just nitpicking at idioms or somesuch...trying to be too exact in what you say...you know, just wanting you to be correct in what you say. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 16:31:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, I don't think it was a coincidence--but people who buy the official theory must, or they wouldn't buy the official theory.
The official theory doesn't say anything about the collapses being coincidental, but instead lays out the reasons for why they occured as they did. You, ergo, are exactly like the creationists who claim that biologists claim that evolution is all a bunch of coincidences. Nothing could be further from the truth, but you prey upon people's misunderstandings of probability and coincidence in order to build and demolish a strawman version of reality.
It's a pathetic form of argumentation requiring exactly no thought, logic or science on your part, just a wild accusation that a lot of folks might find intriguing, including otherwise intelligent experts in physics and materials science.
That said, is it any coincidence that you call yourself Steve and use a lot of the same silly 9/11 arguments as the quite-famous Steven Jones, PhD? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2006 : 16:36:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Forty years ago?!?! And you don't think any new materials or techniques have been developed in the last 40 years?!?!? That's a bold and naive assumption.
New materials and explosives, same reliable old techniques and methods. Do you think that I no longer keep track?
But perhaps you know something I don't. What new methods and techniques? With references, please.
And I've heated up a many can of C-Rations over a burning chunk of C-4. Which, by the way, still goes off at some 25,000 feet per second, give or take a little. A very nice, very stable explosive.
Your style of argument is unusual. It seems to consist entirely of hand-waving. You don't reference, and that's too bad. If you tried to find reference for your claims, you would soon give up those claims as groundless.
Now then: if you wanted to blast the top of the Twin Towers down into their own footprints, how would you go about it? Just in a general sort of way. You don't have to get too technical unless you want to.
How does a shaped charge work, and how would you assemble one? What is a liniar shaped charge and how it it used? What other types of shaped charges are there, and their uses. Be precise, because shaped charges on the support structure is the only way to implode a major building.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 17:00:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
...sheeple...
That one word is mighty funny coming from a guy who really thought that 300-ton, 30' long beams existed somewhere within the World Trade Center.
You know, Googling for "600,000 pound beam" turns up only about 10 or so websites, on many of which that claim is simply regurgitated without criticism. Most interesting of which is a USA Today photo in which they have the claim, and credit it to FEMA.
Why don't any FEMA Web pages turn up in the search? I bet it's because USA Today made a mistake in the weight of the beams being shown (probably more like 6,000 pounds, even for the two of them plus the spandrels), but their mistake fits so snugly with the "there had to be explosives involved" idea that the people (like you, ergo) who repeat the claim just don't bother to do any sort of reality checks. |
- 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 - 10/16/2006 : 17:09:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
... but their mistake fits so snugly with the "there had to be explosives involved" idea that the people (like you, ergo) who repeat the claim just don't bother to do any sort of reality checks.
Haven't you caught on yet Dave? You are my fact-checker... that's what you are for. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 17:35:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
... but their mistake fits so snugly with the "there had to be explosives involved" idea that the people (like you, ergo) who repeat the claim just don't bother to do any sort of reality checks.
Haven't you caught on yet Dave? You are my fact-checker... that's what you are for.
Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not. We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them. -- John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801 - 1890)
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/16/2006 17:40:29 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 17:46:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, I don't think it was a coincidence--but people who buy the official theory must, or they wouldn't buy the official theory.
The official theory doesn't say anything about the collapses being coincidental, but instead lays out the reasons for why they occured as they did.
Is that all you can process--things that are explicitly said or written? What kind of scientist can't see what is assumed in a given argument?! And does NIST or the 9/11 CR discuss what happened at the pentagon? I must have missed those chapters... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 18:11:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Is that all you can process--things that are explicitly said or written? What kind of scientist can't see what is assumed in a given argument?! And does NIST or the 9/11 CR discuss what happened at the pentagon? I must have missed those chapters...
Shit-- did the the Pentagon collapse, too? I must have missed that. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 18:30:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. MabuseThere is 6-day creationist who holds a PhD in Paleontology. He deny evolution occur, but the PhD in a relevant field of study doesn't make him right. Similarly, you present a few material engineers physicists who are mistaken. None of them seem to know much about Controlled Demolition anyway, so their opinions are outside their particular field of study anyway.
How do you know they are mistaken?
quote:
I don't, I cannot be 100% sure that they are mistaken.
Then why do you state they are mistaken and provide no evidence of their mistakes? Don't you complain that is what I do? I think you all react tp me as you do because you see you do the same thing as I do--but you do it out of fear of reality instead of out of a quest for reality as I do.
quote:
However, since there are Controlled Demolition experts saying that they can not find any evidence of controlled demolition, their expert opinion trumps your scholars non-expert opinion.
Maybe they say that because by the time they got to examine the site, that evidence was taken away--or maybe they were part of it. I'm not making accusations as you claim--I'm raising questions to be examined.
quote:
You have no evidence (let alone proof) that the buildings collapsed due to fire alone.
quote:
No I don't. I live a quarter way around the world, so how could I have?
What I do have are the reports, and my own understanding of constructions (from school), physics, chemistry, basic science and logical reasoning.
There are two major competing theories: plane-crash demolition and explosives demolition. One theory holds many more assumptions without evidence than the other: Explosive Demolition, and thanks to Occam's Razor I can shave that theory off.
Occam's Razor is a means to picking the "working theory." You don't just stop there... And if you are so unsure, why do you make such bold statements about what could or could not happen. You are relying on speculation just as I am at this point in my investigation. The difference between us is that I'm looking for validation of the CD theory just as vigorously as I looked for validation of the official theory. You, on the other hand, are stuck believing what you want to believe because it makes sense to you, and you don't understand the whole point of Occam's Razor.
quote:
And they at least acknowledge that they didn't even try to describe the mechanics of the collapse of the twin towers (NIST and 9/11 CR). But because they showed that the towers became unstable, you jump to the conclusion that they musthave collapsed because they were unstable.
quote:
No, that is not true. The NIST report shows how and why the internal structure deteriorated until it could no longer support itself.
But you have no idea how much they had to tweak the inputs to get to that state. They say they did not do anything physically impossible. But did they need the temperatures of the fires to be hotter than were recorded at the towers? We don't know because they won't show their inputs or their model. So you don't know--so your conclusion that NIST shows how any why is pure speculation. NIST led you to the cliff BUT you did the jumping all on your own.
quote:
I have never said that it must be because of it. The NIST report, and the conclusion that no controlled demolition was employed is the most probable and reasonable explanation for the WTC destruction.
NIST said essentially that 'they did not come across any evidence of CD.' To me, that statement is true even if they did not seek evidence of CD, or had other screen out evidence of CD from their awareness. Maybe you don't realize how our laws work. But if I was on the panel and told my underlings to never mention any info on CD to me, I've successfully covered my ass should someone complain that I tried to cover up the evidence. All I have to say is that "I never saw any evidence FOR CD." If someone finds out things were kept from me, I just say "They must have misunderstood my request," or, "I don't recall ever saying that to them."
quote:
Did explosives bring down the towers? I don't know. But the evidence at hand does not support the coincidence theory put forth by the 9/11 CR or NIST. And you ignore evidence that they did not fall due to fire alone.
quote:
Then present those evidence for us to examine!
You're say-so just does not cut it.
Keep your pants one!
quote:
So I don't see how you know anything you say you know here. Your "I believe the first theory heard" approach to these events is anything but scientific.
quote:
Even scientists have to start somewhere. If enough evidence found points to another theory that better explains what is observed, then this new theory becomes interesting.
EXACTLY! That's all I'm saying--that there is evidence (that I find hard to believe that you have not seen!) out there that make the CD theory worth looking into. Unfortunately, none of the official government reports examine the points in time where evidence of CD is relevant. The explosives in the CD--if it occurred--would have been used just after the buildings became unstable (or could be shown, with tweaked inputs, to probably be unstable...).
So one will need to read between the lines--question why omissions were omitted; why federal protocols were not followed by the federal government; why restrictions were placed on investigative bodies; why the administration balked at even having an investigation!, and so on.
It will need to be, in large part, a circumstantial evidence case. A case of looking at all the coincidence that need to be assumed if one is to believe the official story.
Frankly, I'm not sure you guys are up to that sort of task. I think you are too literal and data-bound to connect the dots. I'm not sure you are capable of moving forward (or in any direction) when you hit a gap in hard evidence. I don't think you sheeple allow yourself to know something is true unless someone has written it down for you with references.
Investigation rewquires intuition and speculation. You all do both--but unfortunately, you don't seem to realize it and furthermore, you think intuiting and speculation are to be avoided at all time at all costs.
quote:
For now, controlled demolition of WTC is not supported by reliable evidence, so controlled demolition are ruled out.
Well, someone truly looking for the truth wouldn't just stop there--only someone affraid of what pushing that theory will result in would stop there.
quote:
Experts in the field of controlled demolition says controlled demolition of WTC is extremely unlikely.
And have you never noticed that they all say "traditional CD" is very unlikely? Maybe English is not your native language (I would not want to presume that just because you live in Sweden that you are Swedish...) and these subtlties escape your attention. But here in the USA, those subtlties are what can keep you out of jail if you get caught.
quote:
Even without expert knowledge of the physics involved in controlled demolition, the preparation of such an event demands logistics that are so unreasonable that even average intelligent laymen can see that a controlled demolition scenario is extremely unlikely.
Well, no one suspected that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that sent filthy to Nam, either... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 18:32:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Is that all you can process--things that are explicitly said or written? What kind of scientist can't see what is assumed in a given argument?! And does NIST or the 9/11 CR discuss what happened at the pentagon? I must have missed those chapters...
Shit-- did the the Pentagon collapse, too? I must have missed that.
As a matter of fact, the portion that was struck by something that vaporized on impact did collapse. But the pentagon is not a steel-framed building. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 18:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Forty years ago?!?! And you don't think any new materials or techniques have been developed in the last 40 years?!?!? That's a bold and naive assumption.
quote:
New materials and explosives, same reliable old techniques and methods. Do you think that I no longer keep track?
You only can keep track of what they tell you. My guess is that they are working on--and have worked on--things you know nothing about.
quote:
And I've heated up a many can of C-Rations over a burning chunk of C-4.
Ah. That explains it.
quote:
Your style of argument is unusual.
Not really...
quote:
It seems to consist entirely of hand-waving. You don't reference, and that's too bad.
What's too bad is that you don't notice my citations and page references.
quote:
If you tried to find reference for your claims, you would soon give up those claims as groundless.
Why do you say that? Do you have references that provide evidence for the groundlessness of my claims? If so, let's have 'em gramps. Don't be coy.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 19:27:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now then: if you wanted to blast the top of the Twin Towers down into their own footprints, how would you go about it? Just in a general sort of way. You don't have to get too technical unless you want to.
How does a shaped charge work, and how would you assemble one? What is a liniar shaped charge and how it it used? What other types of shaped charges are there, and their uses. Be precise, because shaped charges on the support structure is the only way to implode a major building.
Answer those few questions, laddy, and you will have discovered that groundlessness for yourself.
You are guessing; I am not.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 19:42:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Now then: if you wanted to blast the top of the Twin Towers down into their own footprints, how would you go about it? Just in a general sort of way. You don't have to get too technical unless you want to.
How does a shaped charge work, and how would you assemble one? What is a liniar shaped charge and how it it used? What other types of shaped charges are there, and their uses. Be precise, because shaped charges on the support structure is the only way to implode a major building.
Answer those few questions, laddy, and you will have discovered that groundlessness for yourself.
You are guessing; I am not.
 |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 19:45:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Haven't you caught on yet Dave? You are my fact-checker... that's what you are for.
Oh, okay, so you lied when you said that you didn't expect anyone else to do your homework for you. Got it, I understand now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear (part 2)
