|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/02/2006 : 10:00:21 [Permalink]
|
Nice post kt!
I'm glad somebody has the energy to respond to ergoman.
H.H. asked:
quote:
P.S. What's the term for a person who turns out to be stupider than sheeple?
Answer: ergo-ish
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 10:13:59 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the thorough look you gave my post.
It is surprising that someone that would take the time to do so would end up being as gullible as you. One nice thing your post did was reveal all the other truly gullible folks out there.
Your reliance on NIST's conclusions of its own data reminds me of bible thumpers who use bible text as their proof that the bible is the word of their god. It's kind of like taking an accused murderer's word that he didn't do it.
Now before the rest of you cry “but you use NIST…” remember, using a murderer's own words against him is not faulty logic; just as using contradictions in the bible as proof that it is not the word of a perfect god is not a logical error.
In addition to a huge  to ktesibios for being so gullible, I offer the following responses to his comments: My responses will be in bold italics.
First mistake. Figure 3-11 is a photo of one of the floor assemblies used in the fire tests after the test was over and the assembly had cooled. This figure gives no information at all about the deflections incurred during the test.
Second mistake. The "3 inches" figure is wrong. If ergo had consulted Table 3.1 Results of ASTM E119 Standard Fire Tests on the same page, s/he would be aware that while tests 1 and 4 were concluded because the assembly was at the point of imminent collapse, tests 2 and 3 were concluded because the deflections exceeded the capacity of the instrumentation to measure accurately. Consulting the text describing the results of the fire resistance rating tests, which is found on pp. 43-48, shows that deflections of up to 15 inches were measured.
Regardless of the amount of deflection, the important column in Table 3.1 is the one labeled “Failure to Support Load.” Keep in mind, the “load” was twice the estimated load of a WTC Twin Tower floor. Each test (Tests 1 – 4) received the same notation in this column—DID NOT OCCUR. And that is the bottom line here—the floors simply did not fail—EVEN WITH TWICE THE LOAD FOR TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME EXPOSED TO HEAT LEVELS HIGHER THAN WERE RECORDED IN THE TOWERS. In other words, with the deck stacked totally in the favor of a floor system failure, the failures DID NOT OCCUR.
Furthermore, whether the sag was 3 or 15 inches—the real issue here is that neither 3 nor 15 = 42. And with no explanation as to why even 15 inches was entered into the simulator as 42 inches, one must at least entertain the notion that 42 was used because that was the least amount of sag that led to a floor collapse in the simulator.
Third mistake. ergo is indeed looking at it wrong, that is, trying to compare apples to bananas. In the fire resistance rating tests, heat was applied uniformly to test assemblies with completely intact insulation.
And why shouldn't the test been conducted with insulation in tact. NIST has no evidence that insulation was dislodged. My guess, given how NIST seems to work their simulators in a way as to reach the conclusion they want to report, is that the only way they could get a collapse is to heat the steel to temperatures that could only be reached in the short amount of time they had to work with (56 minutes for the South Tower) if the steel had no insulation. But their own tests showed how difficult it is to dislodge the insulation.
In the global structural simulations done by NIST, the floor assemblies were subjected to temperatures which varied as a function of location and time, due to the fact that the fires changed in location and intensity as time went by, and the simulated floor assemblies had damage to insulation derived from the aircraft impact studies. Consequently, the behavior of a floor assembly in the standard fire resistance rating test can't be assumed to be predictive of its behavior under conditions different from those of the standard test.
But the real issues here are Why did NIST |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/02/2006 10:48:39 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 10:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Thanks ktesibios! I was hoping that someone who actually knows how to read a report filled with technical information would comment. Shoot, I have no more ability to read through that stuff than does ergo which is why I didn't even try.
Which brings up a more general point. One way conspiracy advocates and creationist's (among others) work is to embellish their advocacy of what ever it is that they are pushing by using highly technical language, which really does sound great to the layperson. Sometimes there is even a grain of truth to what they are saying but they often run with it to unlikely places whether purposely or by way of a kind of twisted logic one might be subject to in the pursuit of confirmation. (Confirmation bias.) Using highly technical terminology is a great selling point.
The difficulty that we face is in choosing exactly where to place our doubts. Skeptics are pretty good at smelling out a dubious claim based on several factors. Often the claimant's style may set off some alarms. Sometimes the sheer improbability of an alternate hypothesis causes us to view a claim with some suspicion. And sometimes, admittedly, we must turn to experts to sort these things out. There is always the possibility that our initial doubts were misplaced. But on that score we have a pretty good track record.
But the layperson, those not skilled at critical thinking, often lack the tools to sort things out and are simply wowed by terminology that they know is over their head. It is that very fact that convinces them of the varsity of the claim. They often view themselves as the “real” skeptics and us as closed-minded. Just ask ergo…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
TEDPOX
New Member
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 00:46:13 [Permalink]
|
Well, now I'm all confused. A three or four hundred some odd thousand pound piece of metal slams into the side of a building at four hundred miles an hour and there are still people that can't figure out why this building collapsed? I would assume it would be pretty cut and dry.
But hey...what do I know? I'm just some hick on a porch. |
I've had about enough of me. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 01:21:05 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN, TEDPOX! Now, hush your mouth. You may upset the CD nuts by mentioning the obvious. They would prefer never to acknowledge that aircraft were even near the WTC or the Pentagon.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2006 : 02:31:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by TEDPOX
Well, now I'm all confused. A three or four hundred some odd thousand pound piece of metal slams into the side of a building at four hundred miles an hour and there are still people that can't figure out why this building collapsed? I would assume it would be pretty cut and dry.
But hey...what do I know? I'm just some hick on a porch.
Indeed. What we have here is someone who thinks that structural steel is designed to withstand 2,000 F temperatures without losing integrity, but he won't give us reference. I wonder why. Further, he thinks that some sort of controlled demolition charges were set, and even when it's been shown that such was not possible, he maintains that fantasy. You've got to admire the determination, if not the inspiration for it.
Welcome to SFN, TEDPOX!
|
"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 - 11/09/2006 : 09:12:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by TEDPOX
Well, now I'm all confused. A three or four hundred some odd thousand pound piece of metal slams into the side of a building at four hundred miles an hour and there are still people that can't figure out why this building collapsed? I would assume it would be pretty cut and dry.
But hey...what do I know? I'm just some hick on a porch.
I guess the government is also confused as they claim the twin towers would not have collapsed because of the three or four hundred some odd thousand pound piece of metal that slammed into the side of each building at four hundred miles an hour...
In fact, the government goes on to say that it wasn't even the fires, per se, that brought down the towers.
The government claims that insulation being knocked off the steel was the critical event that allowed the fires to bring down the towers--although they have zero evidence to support this "dislodged insulation" claim but do have physical test results that indicate it is extremely difficult to knock insulation off of steel. And although the government has zero evidence to support this claim but does have physical test results that indicate it is extremely difficult to knock insulation off of steel, a bunch of bone-headed, self-proclaimed skeptics believe the government story.
Many of the bone-headed, self-proclaimed skeptics here will tell you the official story is the "best story out there."
But if the "best story" is one with zero evidence to support it and existing evidence that throws doubt on the critical mechanism of that story, I'd say the "best story" is not good at all. In fact, the story that the Flying Spaghetti Monster brought down the towers with a noodly appendage has more going for it in that while there is zero evidence supporting the FSM story, there is at least no evidence against it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 09:32:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
Many of the bone-headed, self-proclaimed skeptics here will tell you the official story is the "best story out there."
Well, that is after all the story we were told to support in the secret memo sent to us by, oh dear, I may have said too much…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 10:29:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptics are pretty good at smelling out a dubious claim based on several factors.
It's the "This is my forum!" GOD syndrome. By their very titles(skeptics) they are required to uphold their mission of debunkology, where as others like ergo123 have no allegiance to anything but an examination of truth.
I dont know why skeptics would be any better than anybody else at determining if a fact is a fact.
As a matter of 'fact' they almost seem to attack with a religious fervor.
I am completely amazed than there has been no concession on even one aspect of the NIST report by the "skeptics".
Thats the equivalent of considering it a bible. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 11:01:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
quote:
Skeptics are pretty good at smelling out a dubious claim based on several factors.
It's the "This is my forum!" GOD syndrome. By their very titles(skeptics) they are required to uphold their mission of debunkology, where as others like ergo123 have no allegiance to anything but an examination of truth.
I dont know why skeptics would be any better than anybody else at determining if a fact is a fact.
As a matter of 'fact' they almost seem to attack with a religious fervor.
I am completely amazed than there has been no concession on even one aspect of the NIST report by the "skeptics".
Thats the equivalent of considering it a bible.
I agree. When the going gets tough for them, they resort to comments like "Well, that is after all the story we were told to support in the secret memo sent to us by, oh dear, I may have said too much…" to try to avoid the truth.
According to kil, they are "pretty good at smelling out a dubious claim based on several factors,"--unless the claim suits them and makes them feel cozy.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 11:58:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Upriver said:
By their very titles(skeptics) they are required to uphold their mission of debunkology
Skeptics are not by definition debunkers.
quote:
Ergo said:
I agree.
So you agree with upriver's false premise.
How surprising.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 12:10:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
I am completely amazed than there has been no concession on even one aspect of the NIST report by the "skeptics".
Thats the equivalent of considering it a bible.
Why would one conceed anything to ergo's lies and distortions? It doesn't make any difference to me whether the report's conclusions are right or wrong, but ergo's lies about it show that his statements that he's shown it to be a sham are, themselves, a joke. Again: if the report is so easy to show as being wrong, why would ergo feel the need to lie about what it says?
This stopped being about the NIST report long ago, and is now entirely about ergo's claims about the NIST report. And so the discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the report 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 - 11/09/2006 : 12:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Upriver said:
By their very titles(skeptics) they are required to uphold their mission of debunkology
Skeptics are not by definition debunkers.
quote:
Ergo said:
I agree.
So you agree with upriver's false premise.
How surprising.
Typical. First, you don't even get upriver's point. Then, you strip the rest of his comment away and pretend what's left is a false premise. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 13:25:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptics are not by definition debunkers.
Since when is a mission statement the same as a definition?
Skeptics doubt the said claims(by definition).
That is different than trying to prove someone wrong(debunking).
And that is also different than being sure someone is wrong, which are what I see here.
You don't even doubt the govenment story????????????? If you guys think everything about America is as it should be, your not doing your job.
That's your job, to doubt(maybe a little independent thinking wouldn't hurt either).
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 13:35:07 [Permalink]
|
And stop being such slaves to logic as it can, at times, be nothing more than the art of going wrong with confidence (to paraphrase J.W. Krutch).
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/09/2006 14:01:28 |
|
|
 |
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
