|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2006 : 01:49:36 [Permalink]
|
A gas-fired cupola furnace.
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2006 : 06:10:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I've spent part of the evening looking at the site you suggested I review. But I'm confused by that site--or more accurately, that you would send me there for evidence checking.
Now why doesn't that surprise me? I chose the most user-friendly and least shrill site I could think of. The fact that it doesn't carve evidence in marble is something you'll have to live with. A lot of their(his - it's mostly one man's efforts) work is simply to unask the dishonest questions. Questions that have been answered and shown to be so twisted in their wording and their omissions that they deserve to be scrapped forever.
quote:
Granted, I've only looked at a couple of sections (with all their links, too), but they don't seem to be to rigorous.
Then continue reading, and stop cherry-picking obvious errors such as the below.
quote:
I was curious about the "600,000 pound" beam that was thrown across the street. Someone here ridiculed my thinking it was 600,000 pounds--which was actually the weight of the beam as reported by FEMA... Anyway, I looked at an analysis they post on their site that claims to show how much energy it would take to do such a thing. First, they point out that 600,000 pounds must have been a typo--no analysis (like was done here), just a claim that there must have been a typo. They say it was probably 60,000 pounds or maybe even less.
I'm in shipping. I have shipped heavy-lift all over the world (been on vessels and seen them lifting structural steel and items of 50 to 250 tons. I never saw a crane on Vesey street or GZ that could've taken up that kind of weight. Thus, just from a purely subjective point of view, I'm gonna say that piece is no where near 300 tons. (Unless they just let it crash to the ground one day. Admittedly, I don't know... but the size of crane needed to lift 300 tons would've been some kind of news story, believe me. It takes up a city block by itself.)
And it's damned likely that the FEMA report is in error. Again, that's FEMA... a relatively incompetent group to start with. That piece looks like 3 of the 38' long outer steel beams. They should've weighed in at just under a ton each. Allowing for the cross-beams (I'm not an ironworker and don't have the technical names) that are connecting them, and the rather large cross-structure that's embedded in the building, you could have about ten tons there. Double or triple it if it makes you content. But it's no where near 300 tons.
(Just to put it in perspective, 300 tons is the weight capacity of about 20 shipping containers.)
quote:
Then they post the analysis they got second hand via email. They say this about it: "The following analysis, emailed to us, suggests [the event was possible via a gravity-only collapse], even though later comments suggest it originated with someone sceptical of the official story. Unfortunately the text came second-hand, with no information about the author: if this is yours, or you recognise it, please email details and we'll add the appropriate credit." Here is the page link so you can see for your self: http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html
See? Here's how we differ. I |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 07:50:05 [Permalink]
|
Ergo, I would vehemently disagree with your claim but it is a belief which does not need to be supported by evidence, which you have supplied (that is anecdotal at best) and does not support a claim but can support a belief since no evidence is needed. The supplied evidence leads you to a conclusion that yields an opinion which is consistent with a belief in a conspiracy theory that may lead to a theory in the event that the belief gives fruition to a claim. Therefore, your lack of a theory could be, and indeed may be, a result of a lack of evidence which clearly would point to a conspiracy which has suppressed the evidence. The lack of evidence based on this evidence may or may support your claim that you have a belief not a claim, but clearly your claim that you have a belief in irrefutable.
Is this what you are saying in a nut shell?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 08:20:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Ergo, I would vehemently disagree with your claim but it is a belief which does not need to be supported by evidence, which you have supplied (that is anecdotal at best) and does not support a claim but can support a belief since no evidence is needed. The supplied evidence leads you to a conclusion that yields an opinion which is consistent with a belief in a conspiracy theory that may lead to a theory in the event that the belief gives fruition to a claim. Therefore, your lack of a theory could be, and indeed may be, a result of a lack of evidence which clearly would point to a conspiracy which has suppressed the evidence. The lack of evidence based on this evidence may or may support your claim that you have a belief not a claim, but clearly your claim that you have a belief in irrefutable.
Is this what you are saying in a nut shell?
Huh? Run that by again....
If I am to understand that, the evidence which is not yet in evidence bolsters and supports a belief because no evidence is better than some that might not support the belief, and thus it incumbent upon us to believe until supporting evidence is or is not found. At which point, we can start over again.
I can't believe I wrote that gibberish. Of course, I can always just ignore it until someone tells me that I didn't.
Pouring from a shank ladle.
|
"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 - 10/23/2006 : 09:46:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I've spent part of the evening looking at the site you suggested I review. But I'm confused by that site--or more accurately, that you would send me there for evidence checking.
quote:
Now why doesn't that surprise me? I chose the most user-friendly and least shrill site I could think of. The fact that it doesn't carve evidence in marble is something you'll have to live with. A lot of their(his - it's mostly one man's efforts) work is simply to unask the dishonest questions. Questions that have been answered and shown to be so twisted in their wording and their omissions that they deserve to be scrapped forever.
But how can you contend the site does as you say when it is largely based on the gut reactions of one guy? He's not unasking (or even unmasking, if that's what you meant to type) dishonest questions. He's making siht up based on questionable, or more typically, no sources whatsoever.
quote:
Granted, I've only looked at a couple of sections (with all their links, too), but they don't seem to be to rigorous.
quote:
Then continue reading, and stop cherry-picking obvious errors such as the below.
I'm not cherry-picking. It was the first section I'd read. But the same type of issues hold true in every section I've read so far. The site is a joke.
quote:
I was curious about the "600,000 pound" beam that was thrown across the street. Someone here ridiculed my thinking it was 600,000 pounds--which was actually the weight of the beam as reported by FEMA... Anyway, I looked at an analysis they post on their site that claims to show how much energy it would take to do such a thing. First, they point out that 600,000 pounds must have been a typo--no analysis (like was done here), just a claim that there must have been a typo. They say it was probably 60,000 pounds or maybe even less.
quote:
...I never saw a crane on Vesey street or GZ that could've taken up that kind of weight. Thus, just from a purely subjective point of view, I'm gonna say that piece is no where near 300 tons.
And it's damned likely that the FEMA report is in error.
Yes--I've been convinced already that the chunk of steel was no where near 300 tons. My point was that this guy didn't even notice that his estimate of its weight was far afield of the weight estimated by the "emailed" analysis.
quote:
Then they post the analysis they got second hand via email. They say this about it: "The foll |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 09:51:35 [Permalink]
|
Aren't we ready to move on to the point of the molten metal discussion?  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 10:18:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Someone here ridiculed my thinking it was 600,000 pounds--which was actually the weight of the beam as reported by FEMA...
Do you have any evidence that it was actually reported by FEMA as 600,000 pounds, or are you relying on some other source? Sure, that number shows up on a USAToday photo caption, and also in the 9/11 Digital Archive, but I can't find any FEMA sources saying "600,000 pounds." In chapter 7 of the World Trade Center Building Performance Study, they have the following to say about those particular columns (and their figure 7-2):Exterior column trees from WTC 1 were found hanging from the southeast corner of WFC 3 (Figure 7-2)... A three-story section of exterior column trees from WTC 1 hung from the base of the collapsed area at floor 20, as shown in Figure 7-2, with approximately 25 feet of the column hanging outside the building. No mention of the weight of the columns. The 9/11 Digital Archive credits the photo to "FEMA News" and a particular photographer (whose name is all over the place), but there's no hint as to the source of the caption itself. |
- 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 - 10/23/2006 : 10:34:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Someone here ridiculed my thinking it was 600,000 pounds--which was actually the weight of the beam as reported by FEMA...
Do you have any evidence that it was actually reported by FEMA as 600,000 pounds, or are you relying on some other source? Sure, that number shows up on a USAToday photo caption, and also in the 9/11 Digital Archive, but I can't find any FEMA sources saying "600,000 pounds." In chapter 7 of the World Trade Center Building Performance Study, they have the following to say about those particular columns (and their figure 7-2):Exterior column trees from WTC 1 were found hanging from the southeast corner of WFC 3 (Figure 7-2)... A three-story section of exterior column trees from WTC 1 hung from the base of the collapsed area at floor 20, as shown in Figure 7-2, with approximately 25 feet of the column hanging outside the building. No mention of the weight of the columns. The 9/11 Digital Archive credits the photo to "FEMA News" and a particular photographer (whose name is all over the place), but there's no hint as to the source of the caption itself.
I was reporting what the source yoda directed me to said about it. The first time I mentioned it was also from a non-FEMA source. After seeing yoda's source attribute it to FEMA, I checked out their report and--as you can imagine--found no mention of the weight. Maybe it was in a draft of the report? But, in the end, it doesn't really matter--it's not in there now. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 12:03:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I was reporting what the source yoda directed me to said about it.
Well, that certainly wasn't clear from your words. |
- 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 - 10/23/2006 : 12:28:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I was reporting what the source yoda directed me to said about it.
Well, that certainly wasn't clear from your words.
That is most unfortunate. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 13:12:40 [Permalink]
|
I see you're still running your mouth and stringin' 'em along, ergo. Have you figured out what the anecdotal molten metal was yet? Have you discovered the temperatures found in the holes? Have you verified the accuracy of the melting temperatures of metals on the list I posted back yonder? Did you find any errors in it?
Have you found a way to demonstrate that high explosives or thermite could have been planted surreptitiously and coordinated to go off when the planes hit?
Are you going to show us your "theory" or are you just going to continue to wave your hands and spout garbage? Or is it all the same thing?
Have you done any study at all?
Pouring from a counter-weighted ladle.
|
"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 - 10/23/2006 : 14:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Aren't we ready to move on to the point of the molten metal discussion?
I've already told you cunie--the point was to establish the molten metal as observed evidence. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 15:08:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I've already told you cunie...
I before E, except when spelling "cuneiformist."quote:
...the point was to establish the molten metal as observed evidence.
When are you going to begin to accept "yes" answers? Since human bodies were dug out of the rubble heap, not everything in the buildings was pulverized or vaporized or burned. The ground was also hot. Since not everything was pulverized or vaporized or burned, and because the ground was hot, we can be sure that some bit of some low-melting-point metal melted, somewhere below the ground floor. Therefore, we know that there existed liquid metal in the basement(s) of the Twin Towers for some non-zero length of time. When are you going to move on to the next evidenciary step? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 15:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I've already told you cunie...
I before E, except when spelling "cuneiformist."quote:
...the point was to establish the molten metal as observed evidence.
When are you going to begin to accept "yes" answers? Since human bodies were dug out of the rubble heap, not everything in the buildings was pulverized or vaporized or burned. The ground was also hot. Since not everything was pulverized or vaporized or burned, and because the ground was hot, we can be sure that some bit of some low-melting-point metal melted, somewhere below the ground floor. Therefore, we know that there existed liquid metal in the basement(s) of the Twin Towers for some non-zero length of time. When are you going to move on to the next evidenciary step?
Well, Dave, there are almost 2000 members of SFN, almost half of which have posted. So even if the few of us who have bothered to take this thread to 12 pages (!) agree, as you so well stated, that "we know that there existed liquid metal in the basement(s) of the Twin Towers for some non-zero length of time," he might be waiting for the other 880 or so SFNers to agree, as well... |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 16:13:03 [Permalink]
|
Ergo, do I have to use little piles of pooh-pooh? Oooh, you said a naughty! Sorry, but I can't locate my "sophomoric dipstick" smiley, so I'll stick with words. How old are you, anyway?
Dave, Cunei, Filthy, et al....
Thanks for letting me run with the "Reasonable Voiced Guy" for a while. I thought, as I said, I'd "take the bait" and see where it led. As I surmised in the post prior to that one, though, this was just an aww-shucks tactic by Ergo. The fuzzy-headed lad was just catching his breath before going back to defensive shell mode. Ah well, back to the loon-bashing, I guess!
Ergo, you're not looking for answers. You're looking for support of your doctrinaire view. We accept that there are some "yes" answers, some "no" answers, and still a few "maybe" answers. You want a single authoritative site with all the answers. There is none.
No one's written the Big Book of 9/11, yet. Maybe the grandchildren of Will and Ariel Durant will find the time to do it about a generation from now, but for the moment you have to accept that there are multiple sources. And every time the CT bratpack digs out another ludicrous theory (Five Dancing Jews, Multiple Drones, Missiles at Pentagon or Shanksville, Elders of the Protocol of Zion, Lauro Chavez, Colonel Donn De Grandpre, Delmart Mike Vreeland, Stand Down, Liquid C4 Coated Rebar, Insider Trading, 4000 Israelis Didn't Go To Work, etc.. etc.. ad infinitum), it just wastes more time to have to refute.
One "Yes". There was molten METAL at GZ. So what?!?! Where does that lead you? Please explain how that supports your OP, which I've asked you to do time and again, already. How does "really hot" equate to "must've been explosives"? We're waiting. You see, we think we've heard all that crap before, and we're just waiting with baited breath to see your exciting proof (which again, you state in the OP) that there were explosives or a.r. involved.
(BTW I said "unasking" on purpose. My math is in question, not my language skills. And you didn't do enough reading at 911Myths if you think that they just add more questions.)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Molten metal
