|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2006 : 15:46:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't dismiss NIST because it is prejudicial. I dismiss NIST because it is pure speculation.
But it's not pure speculation. That's wrong.
quote:
Oh, really? And what evidence was left at the site when NIST began its investigation? And how much of that evidence was collected, handled, stored and tested in accordance with forensic protocols?
What reason would they have for treating the debris in the manner you require?
quote:
quote:
It is speculative to a degree--but it is highly focused and educated speculation which ultimately matched up with observation.
 A "degree?" Is that like being pregnant to a degree?
No, not at all. It's more like the difference between being 99% certain and "totally clueless."
quote:
And the only observations it matches up with are "planes hit" and "buildings fell." Oh, but that only accounts for 2 out of the 3 buildings that collapsed. I forget, remind me what they said about Building 7... please!
What specifically are you objecting to, and on what grounds?
quote:
quote:
There is no reason to suspect explosives were involved because no observations are unaccounted for.
Unless you took the 10 - 15 seconds to watch each building as it collapsed. Then you would have seen the observations I made above that are inconsistent with a gravity-only collapse.
Except you never provided any data that suggests the observations fail to match a gravity-only collapse. Now that is pure speculation, and it's entirely on your part.
quote:
quote:
In the absence of any compelling reasons to believe explosives must have been used, no reasonable person would assume they were.
Then why do you believe that fire brought down 3 WTC buildings when there is no evidence to support the notion that it did?
Because there is evidence. Fire, when burning at the temperature, duration, and locations observed, weakens steel. The buildings collapsed in a manner totally consistent with this explanation. Nothing else need be postulated to explain why the buildings fell.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/25/2006 15:54:43 |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 16:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't dismiss NIST because it is prejudicial. I dismiss NIST because it is pure speculation.
quote:
But it's not pure speculation. That's wrong.
I meant pure as in theoretical (like pure science). The speculations NIST came up with were based on theoretical properties and reactions...
quote:
Oh, really? And what evidence was left at the site when NIST began its investigation? And how much of that evidence was collected, handled, stored and tested in accordance with forensic protocols?
quote:
What reason would they have for treating the debris in the manner you require?
The debris was evidence at a crime scene!
quote:
quote:
It is speculative to a degree--but it is highly focused and educated speculation which ultimately matched up with observation.
A "degree?" Is that like being pregnant to a degree?
quote:
No, not at all. It's more like the difference between being 99% certain and "totally clueless."
So you think the accuracy of NIST's speculation are 99% certain?
quote:
And the only observations it matches up with are "planes hit" and "buildings fell." Oh, but that only accounts for 2 out of the 3 buildings that collapsed. I forget, remind me what they said about Building 7... please!
quote:
What specifically are you objecting to, and on what grounds?
Oh, were you the 'clueless' one you referenced above...? I'm objecting to using speculation as evidence of claims.
quote:
quote:
There is no reason to suspect explosives were involved because no observations are unaccounted for.
Unless you took the 10 - 15 seconds to watch each building as it collapsed. Then you would have seen the observations I made above that are inconsistent with a gravity-only collapse.
quote:
Except you never provided any data that suggests the observations fail to match a gravity-only collapse. Now that is pure speculation, and it's entirely on your part.
Conservation of momentum and the reaction of steel to applied heat are not "speculations." I list a few other inconsistancies in my "What I don't get" thread, as well.
quote:
quote:
In the absence of any compelling reasons to believe explosives must have been used, no reasonable person would assume they were.
Then why do you believe that fire brought down 3 WTC buildings when there is no evidence to support the notion that it did?
quote:
Because there is evidence. Fire, when burning at the temperature, duration, and locations observed, weakens steel.
But no one knows what the temperatures were--just speculation; no one knows how long the fires burned--again, we just have speculation; no one knows where the fires were except the ones that were visible from the outside of the building--there is only speculation that there were other fires. And given all the speculation about how much heat was present, how long it burned, where the fires were, all anyone can do is speculate to what degree--if at all--the steel had weakened.
quote:
The buildings collapsed in a manner totally consistent with this explanation.
No, they did not. A building that collapses due to heat-weakened steel collapses with a slow onset, after several hours and has never totally collapsed in the history of the planet. So how do you get "The buildings collapsed in a manner totally consistent with this explanation" from the facts we do know?
quote:
Nothing else need be postulated to explain why the buildings fell.
Unless, that is, you want to understand why they really fell... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/25/2006 16:35:26 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 16:35:53 [Permalink]
|
Ego, you are so witless, it is not even funny. Why anyone spends even a moment debating you is beyond me. You are almost totally worthless, with the exception of being an excellent example of deluded thinking at its finest.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 17:27:16 [Permalink]
|
If we saw someone throw a brick through a window, Ergo would have us believe that the "theory" the window shattered soley due to the brick penetrating it was based on pure speculation. He would vaguely remark that the shattering seemed "too quick" or that gravity alone could not explain the manner in which the shattering occured. He would complain none of the glass was tested for radiation or some other indication that the brick wasn't responsible for the breakage, and further point to the fact that the broken glass was discarded and not kept as "evidence of a crime" to mean that the true cause of the broken glass was being covered up.
Like I said earlier, ergo, no one can ever dispell such unreasonable doubts. However, since you have no plausible alternative explanation to offer, it makes little difference if you have doubts or not.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/25/2006 17:29:05 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 17:35:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Ego, you are so witless, it is not even funny. Why anyone spends even a moment debating you is beyond me. You are almost totally worthless, with the exception of being an excellent example of deluded thinking at its finest.
hey, i'm not the one who believes the official story is supported by evidence... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 20:10:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Ego, you are so witless, it is not even funny. Why anyone spends even a moment debating you is beyond me. You are almost totally worthless, with the exception of being an excellent example of deluded thinking at its finest.
hey, i'm not the one who believes the official story is supported by evidence
Well, I guess that proves McQ's point then...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 21:00:51 [Permalink]
|
MEGO (If you're not old enough to remember the war in VN, that's journalist-ese for My Eyes Glaze Over.)
Ergo, I'm trying to get this "speculation" thing down pat. You're gonna have to help me, though, 'cuz I'm accustomed to people who think logically.
Let's say, oh, five years ago, I saw a big airplane fly into the side of WTC 2. And let's say I (and 400 million other people) clearly saw the flames and debris shooting out the other side of the building from the impact. That would be "flames". Now, for me, with all the various different angles of videos and photographs, I don't have a lot of trouble "speculating" that there were fires all around the floors that were impacted. Can I prove it? No. As H. Humbert, pointed out, you can just claim there were fires around the perimeters, or that they were painted onto the windows like Christmas decorations. I, on the other hand, see pictures of fires on all sides of the buildings, and know that the debris did not shoot out of ALL sides, so knowing a little bit about fire and that it is known to spread.... I just kinda reckon (or "speculate"), that the flames moved along as flames are known to do.... following drafts and following materials that would combust - a combination of the two.
So? Do you have trouble with that sort of speculation? That should be your cup of tea. After all, it's something I observed... and you swear by observation over scientific theory.
So you have trouble with NIST speculation, but you accept blah blah and woo woo speculation that molten metal somehow proves another point (that you haven't told us yet) that will then lead to some sort of "evidence" of explosives (or, let's not forget those ever-lovin' aluminothermic reactants)?
I guess for speculation to be acceptable to you it just requires a lot more logical gymnastics. Things like gravity, inertia, and other basic Physics 101 stuff are too "theoretical". But, "Hey, I knew a guy who had a friend who got an email from an ultra secret top level guy's brother in law that a fireman heard an explosion..."? Now that's what equals the Pythagorean Theorem to the CT crowd.
Ricky summed it up nicely:
quote:
I believe this is the difference between the members of this forum and yourself. We accept indirect evidence as evidence, so long as the logic and theory behind it is sound. I believe that you don't accept such. Is this correct?
There's an oft misunderstood reliance on non-circumstantial evidence in many forums. This is generally from people who aren't aware that there are massive amounts of circumstantial evidence in thousand of courts every day. That scene when the judge accepts Perry Mason's objection because the evidence is circumstantial? Well, that's saved for when the D.A. submits a wild-eyed theory about pools of molten metal being acceptable conjecture as to the use of explosives.
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 21:13:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If we saw someone throw a brick through a window, Ergo would have us believe that the "theory" the window shattered soley due to the brick penetrating it was based on pure speculation. He would vaguely remark that the shattering seemed "too quick" or that gravity alone could not explain the manner in which the shattering occured. He would complain none of the glass was tested for radiation or some other indication that the brick wasn't responsible for the breakage, and further point to the fact that the broken glass was discarded and not kept as "evidence of a crime" to mean that the true cause of the broken glass was being covered up.
Like I said earlier, ergo, no one can ever dispell such unreasonable doubts. However, since you have no plausible alternative explanation to offer, it makes little difference if you have doubts or not.
So you are just going to ignore the fact that NIST is a package of speculation upon speculation? I'm confused. I thought you guys were skeptics, yet you accept this sack of speculation as "the most probable scenario."
Show me the data upon which NIST's report is based. You won't--because you can't. Ever wonder why they don't show you the final values of the parameters of their model?
Humbie, your response is classic. I hit you with something that almost knocks you to your senses--but the implications are too much for you--so you pretend you never saw them. You know you have to respond--but you can't process the gravity of the fact that you have believed this story that is a pack of lies and speculation; that they've pulled one over on the great hummer. So you ignore it, make up some stupid analogy, and crawl back into the comfort of your own denial. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 21:55:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, they did not. A building that collapses due to heat-weakened steel collapses with a slow onset, after several hours and has never totally collapsed in the history of the planet. So how do you get "The buildings collapsed in a manner totally consistent with this explanation" from the facts we do know?
Where do you get this knowledge from?
Do you have any training in structural engineer?
How much Newtonian physics do you know?
Do you know how force vectors affect bending stress on a beam?
quote:
has never totally collapsed in the history of the planet.
Never in the history of the planet has there been such large buildings with that structural design hit by that size of aircrafts, so you are extrapolating from a sample size of zero. |
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. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 22:25:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So you are just going to ignore the fact that NIST is a package of speculation upon speculation?
No, I'm disputing your allegation that NIST is based on nothing but speculation. You keep repeating this, but no one accepts it.
quote:
I'm confused.
You have been from the beginning.
quote:
I thought you guys were skeptics, yet you accept this sack of speculation as "the most probable scenario."
Yes, because it is. You have been invited on several occasions to present any alternative scenarios for consideration and have refused to do so, beyond your unsourced speculation that some guys may have done "something" while installing computer connections.
quote:
Show me the data upon which NIST's report is based.
It's all cited in the report. That you refuse to follow up the references yourself is not my problem. I've already seen you mock Dave for doing your homework for you. Why would I bother?
quote:
You won't--because you can't.
I won't because I'm not your lapdog and your can't "dare" me into doing your research for you.
quote:
Ever wonder why they don't show you the final values of the parameters of their model?
Not really.
quote:
Humbie, your response is classic. I hit you with something that almost knocks you to your senses--but the implications are too much for you--so you pretend you never saw them.
You haven't done anything but make evidence-free assertions thus far. It's unimpressive to the extreme.
quote:
You know you have to respond--but you can't process the gravity of the fact that you have believed this story that is a pack of lies and speculation; that they've pulled one over on the great hummer.
Or maybe it's just that your objections have been so flimsy and easily dismissed. You know, it seems for me to go into any kind of psychological shock over this "truth" you have, I'd have to hear a coherent explanation of it first.
quote:
So you ignore it, make up some stupid analogy, and crawl back into the comfort of your own denial.
But, in accordance with your M.O., you are ignoring the most likely answer: I tire of hearing you repeat the same nonsense over and over again and don't see the need to retread old ground.
As far as my analogy goes, I think it's a perfectly accurate description of everything you've done so far.
But you just keep on thinking were all too afraid to deal with the "truth" there, Ace. Keep on fightin' the man! Don't be a slave to the system! Truth is stranger than fiction! None are so blind as those who won't see! Don't count your chickens before they hatch! A stitch in time saves nine! The truth shall overcome!!!
Good Lord, you're a basket case.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/25/2006 22:31:53 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2006 : 23:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
MEGO (If you're not old enough to remember the war in VN, that's journalist-ese for My Eyes Glaze Over.)
Ergo, I'm trying to get this "speculation" thing down pat. You're gonna have to help me, though, 'cuz I'm accustomed to people who think logically.
No, you are accustomed to people who think linearly.
quote:
Let's say, oh, five years ago, I saw a big airplane fly into the side of WTC 2. And let's say I (and 400 million other people) clearly saw the flames and debris shooting out the other side of the building from the impact. That would be "flames". Now, for me, with all the various different angles of videos and photographs, I don't have a lot of trouble "speculating" that there were fires all around the floors that were impacted.
Of course. But how extensive were the flames in the interior sections of the building? How much heat were the interior flames, if they existed, producing? How long did these un-seen, interior flames, if they existed, burn. You see, NIST had to speculate on issues like these--and then some--to use as inputs to their model. These inputs (the final, tweaked versions that NIST claims 'poised the buildings to collapse,' have not been released to the public, so we don't know what the assumptions were other than they assumed the buildings collapse only due to gravity. So they went into the modeling phase with a foregone conclusion, and worked backwards to find inputs that would result in a gravity-only collapse. Only they won't say what those inputs were. We're just to believe they came up with them...
quote:
Can I prove it? No. As H. Humbert, pointed out, you can just claim there were fires around the perimeters, or that they were painted onto the windows like Christmas decorations. I, on the other hand, see pictures of fires on all sides of the buildings, and know that the debris did not shoot out of ALL sides, so knowing a little bit about fire and that it is known to spread.... I just kinda reckon (or "speculate"), that the flames moved along as flames are known to do.... following drafts and following materials that would combust - a combination of the two.
Yes. Very reasonable. And all you would need it the goal was to discuss the presence of fire. But to conduct the simulation, you need to enter values for amount of heat, location of heat and duration of heat (all KEY inputs to a model of the reaction of steel to heat). With no data, you are left to speculate those inputs.
quote:
So? Do you have trouble with that sort of speculation? That should be your cup of tea. After all, it's something I observed... and you swear by observation over scientific theory.
I don't swear by observation over scientific theory. But the foundation of a scientific theory is observation. What we all lack is detailed observations of what went on INSIDE those building post-impact but prior to collapse.
quote:
So you have trouble with NIST speculation, but you accept blah blah and woo woo speculation that molten metal somehow proves another point (that you haven't told us yet) that will then lead to some sort of "evidence" of explosives (or, let's not forget those ever-lovin' aluminothermic reactants)?
No--I never said the molten metal proved anything with regard to the CD Theory.
quote:
Ricky summed it up nicely:
quote:
I believe this is the difference between the members of this forum and yourself. We accept indirect evidence as evidence, so long as the logic and theory behind it is sound. I believe that you don't accept such. Is this correct?
no, what I reject is speculation as evidence. Indirect or circumstantial evidence is often stronger than physical evidence in proving a case. I also reject "black box models" where inputs are kept secret as evidence.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 00:00:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, they did not. A building that collapses due to heat-weakened steel collapses with a slow onset, after several hours and has never totally collapsed in the history of the planet. So how do you get "The buildings collapsed in a manner totally consistent with this explanation" from the facts we do know?
quote:
Where do you get this knowledge from?
Do you have any training in structural engineer?
How much Newtonian physics do you know?
Do you know how force vectors affect bending stress on a beam?
I got a lot of this knowledge from my brother--a mechanical engineer who worked in the steel industry (LTV among other companies) for about 20 years. Some I got from my dad--a structural engineer who has worked on the Minute Man missile, the Saturn V booster, the Huey Cobra and SDI (that's the real star wars, yoda). And I do have some college physics under my belt. Force vectors bending steel--that's my dad's area.
quote:
has never totally collapsed in the history of the planet.
quote:
Never in the history of the planet has there been such large buildings with that structural design hit by that size of aircrafts, so you are extrapolating from a sample size of zero.
And NIST is speculating with the same base of historic information. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 00:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So you are just going to ignore the fact that NIST is a package of speculation upon speculation?
quote:
No, I'm disputing your allegation that NIST is based on nothing but speculation. You keep repeating this, but no one accepts it.
And that's what confuses me. How do you see what NIST uses as inputs to their simulator as anything other than speculation. Show me the data their inputs are based on. Yes we saw fires. But "there were fires" is not an input to the simulator--you need to enter amount of heat, duration of heat, location of heat at a minimum. As there was no evidence available for NIST to use to develop inputs, they had to speculate.
quote:
I thought you guys were skeptics, yet you accept this sack of speculation as "the most probable scenario."
quote:
Yes, because it is.
But there is an equal amount of evidence supporting the notion that god farting caused the towers to collapse as there is in the NIST story. Given that, I would think a real skeptic would hold off on believing either the official or the god-fart notion (neither is really a theory as they are not based on observation). So tell me, why do you prefer the NIST story over the god fart story?
quote:
You have been invited on several occasions to present any alternative scenarios for consideration and have refused to do so, beyond your unsourced speculation that some guys may have done "something" while installing computer connections.
So? What possible connection does that have with NIST being a sack of speculation?
quote:
Show me the data upon which NIST's report is based.
quote:
It's all cited in the report. That you refuse to follow up the references yourself is not my problem. I've already seen you mock Dave for doing your homework for you. Why would I bother?
Because you are the one claiming it is there. I can't show you where it is because it is not there.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2006 : 00:38:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And that's what confuses me. How do you see what NIST uses as inputs to their simulator as anything other than speculation. Show me the data their inputs are based on. Yes we saw fires. But "there were fires" is not an input to the simulator--you need to enter amount of heat, duration of heat, location of heat at a minimum. As there was no evidence available for NIST to use to develop inputs, they had to speculate.
No one is saying educated guesses weren't made. I'm sure they had a range of temperatures and various other parameters which they examined and compared to observation. The problem is you conflate this rigorous and methodical process to wild guesswork, which is nothing more than a strawman. It's that sort of dishonest misrepresentation on your part that clearly signals your biases.
quote:
Because you are the one claiming it is there. I can't show you where it is because it is not there.
Then write the authors and ask for them. Because I am at last uninterested in your questions. Good luck on your search for answers. Maybe one day you'll find your irrational distrust of anything "official" rewarded, though I doubt it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/26/2006 00:39:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunk or Just Bunk
