|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:26:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I do not have to 'defend' my little story because, as far as it goes, it is factual and I put it forth as an hypothesis.
Well I just showed that many of your "facts" are wrong--so your hypothesis withers on the vine.
quote:
I find it amusing that you, who spurns the report, will not hesitate to use it when you think it's convenient.
That's one of your issues, filth. With you, it's all or nothing. With me, I can see where FEMA's logic fails and when their conclusions don't fit the data. But it's unlikely any source is 100% wrong. So I use the facts they state even while questioning the conclusions the make from them. It's kind of like how I don't believe the bible is the word of god, but I find many passages express a useful theme and tell a useful story.
quote:
By the way, smoke is also a signature of trash burning; trash such as office furniture and equipment, paneling, wire insulation, and so forth. Did you think that only kerosene was burning?
No, but whateven was burning was wasn't burning very hot.
Now, as the other thread is not a jot nor a tittle different from this one, why don't you post the 'theory' in both? Or better yet, why don't you just post it?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:32:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Splitting the atom was a huge logistical problem but that didn't invalidate the theory that said it could be split.
quote:
But here the theory that explosives were used is not one of having to figure out how to do it.
Then why are you always asking me to explain how they did it!?
quote:
It has to already have been possible to do it with current technology and current (in this case) politics and psychology. That is where the trouble for this scenario occurs.
So, whoever planted the devices could not have had a unique approach? Why not?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:40:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree.
Without a reasonable explanation and evidence, then this is just your opinion, which I do not find very compelling.
It's just my opinion that a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory?
So, CD was used because you believe it. Then what you have is idle speculation supported by faith. That the how's and what's of a CD are just an inconvenient gap for which your only response is along the lines of "God did it." |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:46:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Splitting the atom was a huge logistical problem but that didn't invalidate the theory that said it could be split.
quote:
But here the theory that explosives were used is not one of having to figure out how to do it.
Then why are you always asking me to explain how they did it!?
Let me rephrase: In atomic theory 'how to do it' was not an essential part of the theory. In this case, it is.
quote:
quote:
It has to already have been possible to do it with current technology and current (in this case) politics and psychology. That is where the trouble for this scenario occurs.
So, whoever planted the devices could not have had a unique approach? Why not?
Because the magnitude of the conspiracy and the amount of planning involved are beyond the scope of the plausible. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:49:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So are you saying that a huge logistical problem does invalidate a theory? Because if so, I totally disagree.
Without a reasonable explanation and evidence, then this is just your opinion, which I do not find very compelling.
It's just my opinion that a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory?
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 10:04:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
This claim does not improve your position since you are now revealing that you are supporting a hypothesis that you may not believe. For what possible end or benefit would you accept such a burden of proof? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 10:22:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
This claim does not improve your position since you are now revealing that you are supporting a hypothesis that you may not believe. For what possible end or benefit would you accept such a burden of proof?
My conversation with Tom was not about improving my position. Read the comments! His pov was that having to deal with a huge logistical problem invalidated the CD Theory. My pov is that while it is possible that the CD Theory is not correct, the fact that it has a huge logistical problem to deal with isn't sufficient to declare it invalid. The only way a logistical issue can invalidate a theory is if it can be proven that the logistics to overcome are impossible to overcome. Like if I said my theory hinged on me being able to walk at the speed of light--that would be a logistical issue that would invalidate my theory. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 11:29:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
His pov was that having to deal with a huge logistical problem invalidated the CD Theory. My pov is that while it is possible that the CD Theory is not correct, the fact that it has a huge logistical problem to deal with isn't sufficient to declare it invalid. The only way a logistical issue can invalidate a theory is if it can be proven that the logistics to overcome are impossible to overcome.
It is up to the person that puts forward a theory to demonstrate that it is plausible by backing it up with evidence. That has not been done with the CD theory.
The logistical issue was simply (I believe) put forward to appeal to your common sense to show you the improbability of the CD theory. Clearly that is a poor method as it presupposes you think logically.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 11:50:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
This claim does not improve your position since you are now revealing that you are supporting a hypothesis that you may not believe. For what possible end or benefit would you accept such a burden of proof?
My conversation with Tom was not about improving my position. Read the comments! His pov was that having to deal with a huge logistical problem invalidated the CD Theory. My pov is that while it is possible that the CD Theory is not correct, the fact that it has a huge logistical problem to deal with isn't sufficient to declare it invalid. The only way a logistical issue can invalidate a theory is if it can be proven that the logistics to overcome are impossible to overcome. Like if I said my theory hinged on me being able to walk at the speed of light--that would be a logistical issue that would invalidate my theory.
You are acknowledging that the logistical problems associated with planting several pounds of exposives, detonating cord, delay elements, in a number of locations makes the hypothesis that CD was used quite small. How small? 1%, 2%, 3% ? If this is correct why would you invest so much time pursuing an explanation that you consider highly improbable? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2006 : 12:29:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I do not have to 'defend' my little story because, as far as it goes, it is factual and I put it forth as an hypothesis.
Well I just showed that many of your "facts" are wrong--so your hypothesis withers on the vine.
quote:
I find it amusing that you, who spurns the report, will not hesitate to use it when you think it's convenient.
That's one of your issues, filth. With you, it's all or nothing. With me, I can see where FEMA's logic fails and when their conclusions don't fit the data. But it's unlikely any source is 100% wrong. So I use the facts they state even while questioning the conclusions the make from them. It's kind of like how I don't believe the bible is the word of god, but I find many passages express a useful theme and tell a useful story.
quote:
By the way, smoke is also a signature of trash burning; trash such as office furniture and equipment, paneling, wire insulation, and so forth. Did you think that only kerosene was burning?
No, but whateven was burning was wasn't burning very hot.
Now, as the other thread is not a jot nor a tittle different from this one, why don't you post the 'theory' in both? Or better yet, why don't you just post it?
The theory, ergo. Let's have it.
Research what I have written and you will see that it is dead accurate. My hypothesis stands.
Perhaps I should give you a couple more links to ignore, but it seems a waste of time.
I never said that the reports were dead accurate, but none of any the millions of words written on the disaster in any way empirically supports a controlled demolition.
You have anything that does? I haven't seen much beyond blather thus far.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 12:36:03 [Permalink]
|
What I don't get about the active members of SFN who regularly post on my threads is:
I'm not an active member, and I don't regularly post on your threads, but here's my answer if you care to read it (or even if you don't).
You dismiss the possibility that the WTC towers collapsed with the help of explosives because you have seen no evidence to support that theory—
Worse than that. Not only is there no evidence for it, but the evidence we have is unlike controlled explosive demolition, which takes many weeks of very obvious preparation and causes buildings to fall in a mannner unlike that observed at WTC. It also requires us to swallow a whole host of other things which not only lack evidence, but also make no sense whatsoever.
The dumbest of these is the very notion of using explosives to deliberately destroy the buildings in addition to flying aircraft into WTC 1 and 2. The 9/11 CTists keep telling us how obvious it is that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed by explosive demolition. If it is so easy to figure out, why would the conspirators attempt it knowing that discovery would mean arrest, imprisonment, and certain execution? Why would you go through such horrible chancy machinations when you already have so many Americans killed and billions of dollars of destruction simply by crashing airliners into the buildings? Why would you destroy the two most symbolic builldings using airliner impacts as cover, then blow up a building with no symbolic importance or name recognition in a way guaranteed to attract extra scrutiny because no aircraft were directly involved? And so on and so on.
yet you find the official story credible, even though you've seen no evidence to support it.
I've seen imagery and accounts of heavy, fuel-laden aircraft flying at high speed into two buildings, causing massive structural damage and fires. I've seen imagery and accounts of massive debris damage and heavy fire in WTC 7. This is most certainly evidence.
Now, mind you, I haven't done much reading of the various accounts or reports. So I'm not proclaiming myself an expert, or pretending that I know the answer to all of your statements. But what I have seen and read, combined with the lessons learned in 42 round trips around the Sun, a sense of skepticism, and my experience as an aerospace engineer (paid) and firefighter (volunteer), tells me that the mainstream notion of what caused the collapses (impacts and fires) is by far the most likely version.
All these things (in addition to living in the D.C. area  ) also have contributed to a pretty good BS meter that often pegs out both on 9/11 CTs and campaign ads. So I don't claim to have exhaustively debunked all 9/11 CTs - far from it. It's just that I've figured out the "pull it" category is not worthy of further attention from a reasonably sane individual. At least not until some sensible evidence is produced and most of the more ridiculous and contradictory issues with the CTs are explained.
For example fire fighter observations that the south tower had only 2 small fires was obviously ignored in favor of the ‘blazing fires' that would have needed to be there to ensure their pre-conceived conclusion would be supported. Fire fighters' assessments of fires are probably very accurate--why were they disgarded?
Firefighters, especially those who just ran up several dozen flights of stairs and see only a slice of the whole picture, can be mistaken in their assessments. We have plenty of evidence of heavy fire in the WTC towers - including the observations of other firefighters with a better look at the big picture. (Rather like the FDNY crews who observed collapse indicators on WTC 7 before it went down.)
If you think all FFs at a scene have the same idea of what's going on in the fire, you're quite mistaken. You can be inside knocking down one room while outside someone sees the wall cracking and fire comin |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 13:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
This claim does not improve your position since you are now revealing that you are supporting a hypothesis that you may not believe. For what possible end or benefit would you accept such a burden of proof?
My conversation with Tom was not about improving my position. Read the comments! His pov was that having to deal with a huge logistical problem invalidated the CD Theory. My pov is that while it is possible that the CD Theory is not correct, the fact that it has a huge logistical problem to deal with isn't sufficient to declare it invalid. The only way a logistical issue can invalidate a theory is if it can be proven that the logistics to overcome are impossible to overcome. Like if I said my theory hinged on me being able to walk at the speed of light--that would be a logistical issue that would invalidate my theory.
You are acknowledging that the logistical problems associated with planting several pounds of exposives, detonating cord, delay elements, in a number of locations makes the hypothesis that CD was used quite small. How small? 1%, 2%, 3% ? If this is correct why would you invest so much time pursuing an explanation that you consider highly improbable?
I'm not saying the cd theory is quite small. I'm saying the cd theory (or any theory for that matter) is not invalidated by a huge logistical problem that is possible to solve. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/30/2006 13:25:26 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 13:27:41 [Permalink]
|
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
|
"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 - 10/30/2006 : 13:40:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
I'm sure all your 'facts' are as accurate.  |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 14:06:49 [Permalink]
|
I'd have to refresh my memory on specific values, so I'll just make the general remark that structural steel begins losing strength at common structure fire temperatures. Steel structural members also expand significantly when subjected to such temperatures.
The combination of these two factors is responsible for many a building collapse, and in classes on building construction familiarization we've seen plenty of images of drooping I-beams and walls pushed out by an expanding steel beams. (Interestingly, light wood frame structure collapses in fires are often also due to steel properties - the gusset plates tying the wood trusses together heat up, expand, and pop off.) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
