|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, Dave. That's not the coincidental part.
Then what is?
The things I actually mentioned in my "coincidence theory" post. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:34:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Am I to assume that this means:
A( You are too lazy to look up the answers
B( Afraid of what you might find
C( Are here just to troll?
Assume what you like, filth. But the reason I don't bother answering your questions or looking at your wikipedia links is that they are irrelevant because they deal with conventional or traditional controlled demolitions--which are designed to cause no collateral damage to property or people.
If the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 were assisted by a controlled demolition, it would appear that those design issues were not really accounted for.
Uh-huh. No curiosity, I guess.
Ok, lemmee tell you how to find out if a building was dropped by controlled, explosive demolition. It's very easy: You examine every piece of steel structure in the rubble looking for the ends of some of it to appear as if was cut by a laser. That is the signature of a linear shaped charge. Capise?
And shaped charges are the only way major buildings are intentionally dropped into their own footprints.
I suppose that the Bush Administration could be in contact with aliens from the planet Piscivorus and they arranged for a special, invisible ray bomb to do the Twin Towers, for whatever purpose might be in their idiotic agenda. It's a cosmic possibility, yes. But so is the Cottingsly Faeries, the existence of God, and the possibility that the Hypnotoad convinced us all that it happened when it really didn't.
Oh, and controlled demolitions are designed, very carefully, to cause exactly no damage beyond the objective sought. Of course, mistakes are sometimes made, and sometimes a part of the blasting sequence misses or hang-fires, and it doesn't always work that way.
Do open the links. There's nothing scary in them, I promise.
|
"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 - 10/17/2006 : 09:54:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm not following your logic here dave. How does doing the fact checking myself save me time...
You wouldn't waste time believing them to be true. You wouldn't waste time arguing about the collapses as if the things you've said are true. You spent some time here (for example) saying that Ross' article shows that the government's theory defies the laws of physics, when it does no such thing. That's time you wasted. I don't know how many times you typed "30' lengths" (or words to that effect) and then tried to defend it, but you wouldn't have had to if you'd invested in two minutes of skepticism beforehand.quote:
...versus having a genius like you do it for me?
It doesn't take a genius to apply common sense to your arguments, so I leave it to 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 - 10/17/2006 : 10:12:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Am I to assume that this means:
A( You are too lazy to look up the answers
B( Afraid of what you might find
C( Are here just to troll?
Assume what you like, filth. But the reason I don't bother answering your questions or looking at your wikipedia links is that they are irrelevant because they deal with conventional or traditional controlled demolitions--which are designed to cause no collateral damage to property or people.
If the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 were assisted by a controlled demolition, it would appear that those design issues were not really accounted for.
Uh-huh. No curiosity, I guess.
Ok, lemmee tell you how to find out if a building was dropped by controlled, explosive demolition. It's very easy: You examine every piece of steel structure in the rubble looking for the ends of some of it to appear as if was cut by a laser. That is the signature of a linear shaped charge. Capise?
Oh, and controlled demolitions are designed, very carefully, to cause exactly no damage beyond the objective sought. Of course, mistakes are sometimes made, and sometimes a part of the blasting sequence misses or hang-fires, and it doesn't always work that way.
Do open the links. There's nothing scary in them, I promise.
It would have been great if investigators had been allowed to examine the crime scenes before all the steel was shipped out for scrap or burried... (and it's "capisce"--pronounced ka-peesheh in Northern Italy and ka-peesh in the south, where they tend to drop the final vowel sound)
And I'm sure you are right about traditional CD trying to limit or completely prevent damage to toher buildings. But that wouldn't be the effect that the conspiritors would be looking for here...
And I did open the links--but they weren't relevant. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 11:11:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123: Based on my experience with people like you (people who make those leaps of faith, typically out of some need to have "an answer") those little assumptions are sympomatic of a closed mind--a mind that needs closure on a topic to move on. The problem with that kind of mind is that its subconscious tries to defend those assumptions and turns a blind eye to evidence that counters those assumptions. Read some Freud to fully understand what I'm talking about.
Leap of faith? Don't make me laugh. As I said, all conclusions are tentative. It is not a leap of faith to conclude that, with what we know at this time, the official explanation is the best working theory going. It may not be perfect but what is? What irks you is that people like me expect people like you to provide some evidence for your favored theory so that people like me feel that it is worth our time to explore other explanations. I have no emotional investment to either theory, as you have implied.
As for your contention that I favored one theory over another or that I have made any leap of faith, baloney. I tentatively accept a version of the events is all. If you really want to get into a discussion about what Freud would make of mine or your views, bring it on. I can't even begin to tell you how happy that would make me. But before you do that, I suggest you read some old posts on this subject that I wrote in responce to the last time you decided to place your psycho-babble-ad-homs into the discussion.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 12:27:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The things I actually mentioned in my "coincidence theory" post.
I don't see any evidence of those things being explained by the government as coincidences. Suggesting that the government chalks all that stuff up to coincidence is to say that the government is full of inept morons which, if your speculation as to the government's real "script" is accurate, is certainly not the case. Which is it, ergo? Is the Bush administration better characterized as Agent Smith from The Matrix or as Wile E. Coyote? |
- 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 - 10/17/2006 : 13:29:19 [Permalink]
|
But ergo, does it not seem inconsistent to you that the terrorists might try to simply drop the building(s)? I would think that the goal would be to topple, not drop them. Of course, while that could be done, it would be very difficult requiring a lot of set-up. People might notice the activity.....
The links are perfectly relevant to the discussion. They nicely demonstrate what it would take to set the necessary charges for a blasting job of that magnitude.
I don't know what inspections were or were not carried out but at this point, that is not relevant. a controlled demolition could not be set up surreptitiously. It's simply too big a job involving too many people, and all too obvious. They'd have been busted before morning coffee break on the first day.
I read somewhere some time ago, (no link, sorry) that the bin Laden and his underlings expressed surprise that the buildings fell in entirety.
I ask again: if you were to set up an explosive demolition coordinated with a plane crash in such a building, how would you go about it? How would any of the myriad conspiracy theorists out there do it?
|
"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 - 10/17/2006 : 14:55:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123: Based on my experience with people like you (people who make those leaps of faith, typically out of some need to have "an answer") those little assumptions are sympomatic of a closed mind--a mind that needs closure on a topic to move on. The problem with that kind of mind is that its subconscious tries to defend those assumptions and turns a blind eye to evidence that counters those assumptions. Read some Freud to fully understand what I'm talking about.
quote:
Leap of faith? Don't make me laugh. As I said, all conclusions are tentative.
Well, you talk the talk but you don't walk the walk...
quote:
It is not a leap of faith to conclude that, with what we know at this time, the official explanation is the best working theory going.
It is when you consider the official explanation has a couple of different versions and both NIST and the 9/11 commission ignored testimony of experts that disagreed with what they wanted to report (as I have documented earlier). And the way they ignored the last 10 to 15 seconds of the events--and all the related evidence. These factors, to me, make the official theory the worst available because it smells of fabrication and coverup. In my experience, though, people like you who need an answer will latch on to one no matter how outrageous it is, just to have the answer. Then they go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are open to other ideas--when really they want to stick to the one they originally believed.
quote:
What irks you is that people like me expect people like you to provide some evidence for your favored theory so that people like me feel that it is worth our time to explore other explanations. I have no emotional investment to either theory, as you have implied.
It doesn't irk me in the least to provide evidence. And if you don't have an emotional attachment to either theory you are not human. The fact that you are human yet don't acknowledge your emotional attachment to the official theory is evidence that you are unaware of that attachment--which, in turn means you are under emotional influence you are not even aware of...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 15:00:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The things I actually mentioned in my "coincidence theory" post.
I don't see any evidence of those things being explained by the government as coincidences.
Let me try to cut it up into smaller pieces for you...
If one is to believe the official story of all the events of the "9-11-01 attacks," one needs to, at least by implication, believe all the things I listed in the coincidence theory post were coincidences. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 15:10:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Let me try to cut it up into smaller pieces for you...
If one is to believe the official story of all the events of the "9-11-01 attacks," one needs to, at least by implication, believe all the things I listed in the coincidence theory post were coincidences.
I would have to be an idiot to believe that the terrorists failed to take the military exercises into account (or I would have to believe that the terrorists were idiots). It's not a coincidence that most fighter jets were busy. That's just one example. As far as I can tell, every one of your other "coincidences" aren't coincidental, either (if they happened at all - I see no evidence of any airplanes "vaporizing"). |
- 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 - 10/17/2006 : 15:11:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The links are perfectly relevant to the discussion. They nicely demonstrate what it would take to set the necessary charges for a blasting job of that magnitude.
...if it was being set up as a traditional CD...
quote:
I don't know what inspections were or were not carried out but at this point, that is not relevant. a controlled demolition could not be set up surreptitiously. It's simply too big a job involving too many people, and all too obvious. They'd have been busted before morning coffee break on the first day.
Hmmm... But maybe not if the security company was in on the job... Do you remember who ran the security company?
quote:
I read somewhere some time ago, (no link, sorry) that the bin Laden and his underlings expressed surprise that the buildings fell in entirety.
Which is a laugh in and of itself. I can just hear it... "Oh you infidels--you should all die! Er, but about the towers actually collapsing? My bad. I had only wanted to dent them! I'm serious. Please believe me. I want you all to die, but I didn't want to bring those beautiful towers down."
You can't seriously believe that was ben Laden! LOL HAHAHA
quote:
I ask again: if you were to set up an explosive demolition coordinated with a plane crash in such a building, how would you go about it? How would any of the myriad conspiracy theorists out there do it?
Answered elsewhere...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 15:14:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Let me try to cut it up into smaller pieces for you...
If one is to believe the official story of all the events of the "9-11-01 attacks," one needs to, at least by implication, believe all the things I listed in the coincidence theory post were coincidences.
I would have to be an idiot to believe that the terrorists failed to take the military exercises into account (or I would have to believe that the terrorists were idiots). It's not a coincidence that most fighter jets were busy. That's just one example. As far as I can tell, every one of your other "coincidences" aren't coincidental, either (if they happened at all - I see no evidence of any airplanes "vaporizing").
And how would the terrorists know about the military exercises? Are they on the DOD email list?
The official story is that the plane that hit the pentagon, and the plane that went down in Penn. vaporized on impact. That is the explanation as to why only a few plane parts were recovered at either scene. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 17:33:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And how would the terrorists know about the military exercises? Are they on the DOD email list?
Back when I had a few friends in the military, I knew every time they'd go on exercises, 'cause they told me so. If you think the terrorists weren't engaged in basic intelligence gathering for years before the attack, you're as naive as you claim we are.quote:
The official story is that the plane that hit the pentagon, and the plane that went down in Penn. vaporized on impact.
A statement of fact that you'll need to provide evidence for, since your batting average on getting "the official story" correct is very low.quote:
That is the explanation as to why only a few plane parts were recovered at either scene.
And yet I see thousands of airplane parts in the photos of both crashes. What's the boiling point of aluminum, anyway...? Oh, wait, it's up to you to do your own homework from now on, so nevermind. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 17:50:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
In my experience, though, people like you who need an answer will latch on to one no matter how outrageous it is, just to have the answer. Then they go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are open to other ideas--when really they want to stick to the one they originally believed.
You are absolutely clueless in your assessment of “people like me.” But I have an idea. Read this. While the subject matter is not appropriate to this thread, it should give you a window into how I think. If, after reading the linked essay, you still think the above quote fits me, that would be an indication that you are unable to absorb any evidence contrary to your preconceived beliefs in any meaningful way. In short, it would mean that you are projecting again…
quote:
ergo123:
…And if you don't have an emotional attachment to either theory you are not human. The fact that you are human yet don't acknowledge your emotional attachment to the official theory is evidence that you are unaware of that attachment--which, in turn means you are under emotional influence you are not even aware of...
The attachment I have to the official explanation is that I think its conclusions are correct. As I said earlier, it would be a big bummer if your favored theory were the correct one. But that would not stop me from changing my mind if I could be shown convincing evidence that supports it. Again, I have no emotional investment in being correct about either theory in the sense that it would keep me from accepting the one that has the most support and makes the most sense to me. Why do I have to say this a second time? Was I not clear enough the first time? Are you projecting again? Perhaps you should explore that possibility.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 18:58:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The links are perfectly relevant to the discussion. They nicely demonstrate what it would take to set the necessary charges for a blasting job of that magnitude.
...if it was being set up as a traditional CD...
quote:
I don't know what inspections were or were not carried out but at this point, that is not relevant. a controlled demolition could not be set up surreptitiously. It's simply too big a job involving too many people, and all too obvious. They'd have been busted before morning coffee break on the first day.
Hmmm... But maybe not if the security company was in on the job... Do you remember who ran the security company?
quote:
I read somewhere some time ago, (no link, sorry) that the bin Laden and his underlings expressed surprise that the buildings fell in entirety.
Which is a laugh in and of itself. I can just hear it... "Oh you infidels--you should all die! Er, but about the towers actually collapsing? My bad. I had only wanted to dent them! I'm serious. Please believe me. I want you all to die, but I didn't want to bring those beautiful towers down."
You can't seriously believe that was ben Laden! LOL HAHAHA
quote:
I ask again: if you were to set up an explosive demolition coordinated with a plane crash in such a building, how would you go about it? How would any of the myriad conspiracy theorists out there do it?
Answered elsewhere...
You have answered nothing at all. Why is that? Don't you know? As for the bin Laden thing, I don't know. Do you, and can you prove that it was not?
I repeat: The floors where the charges would have to be set would have to be virtually razed to get at and charge the support structure. Saying that the security units were possibly in on it is utterly ridiculous -- you've got to do better than that.
And the "traditional" method is the only one there is; the only game in town. Unless you can come up with a better one. Which you will not do simply because neither you or your fellow believers in woo-woo have one.
Here's another site you can not bother open but claim that you have: Link
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear (part 2)
