|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A list of non-arguments, ad hominem attacks, and changing the subject offered as a substitute for proper debate:
| Quote: |
| "Under certain circumstances" = meaningless twaddle on your part. I'm surprised you even wasted the time to type such words. |
| Quote: |
No I managed to stay awake through all of it. It was crap. Disingenuous and manipulative. |
| Quote: |
Wow. I see you like to parade your ignorance for all to see...
If you seriously can't take the 2 minutes required to google these subjects and verify them as 100% factual and completely relevant then you are a troll and not worth responding to further. Period. |
| Quote: |
| Naive and foolish on your part. Calculating on MM's part. |
| Quote: |
| Actually your not knowing about engineering was never really up for debate here... |
| Quote: |
Sorry, but repeating your excuses and attempting to rationalize them won't change the fact that people like yourself are the reason the political system is broken. |
| Quote: |
Oh man. There's no scientific proof contained there at all. They just make an animation. Haven't you ever seen a Hollywood movie? |
| Quote: |
| Not adequate in your eyes = irrelevant. Let's be honest, you've already admitted you don't know squat. |
Responses of this sort demean any serious spirit of debate that might be fostered on this forum.
And of course, rather than correct any of the above with a better or more reasoned response, the poster above will instead return with further non-arguments, ad hominem attacks, and changing of the subject, most likely accompanied by a single offhand dismissal of all of the above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hugo85
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, the twin towers were designed to withstand large aircraft collisions. As buildings go they were behemoths. The top section might have fallen off, but they don't just vaporize into dust... any explanation except a controlled demolition is absurd. |
A design is only as robust as the validity simplifications made during the design process and the quality of the simulations to obtain said design. In the case of aircraft collision, I'm pretty sure they didn't do as good as a simulation as 'designed to withstand large aircraft collisions' might lead one to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Responses of this sort demean any serious spirit of debate that might be fostered on this forum.
And of course, rather than correct any of the above with a better or more reasoned response, the poster above will instead return with further non-arguments, ad hominem attacks, and changing of the subject, most likely accompanied by a single offhand dismissal of all of the above. |
Actually it's your presence that demeans this forum. You contribute nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugo85 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, the twin towers were designed to withstand large aircraft collisions. As buildings go they were behemoths. The top section might have fallen off, but they don't just vaporize into dust... any explanation except a controlled demolition is absurd. |
A design is only as robust as the validity simplifications made during the design process and the quality of the simulations to obtain said design. In the case of aircraft collision, I'm pretty sure they didn't do as good as a simulation as 'designed to withstand large aircraft collisions' might lead one to believe. |
That's fine. Still doesn't explain building 7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Even NIST admits that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed. |
That's simply false. "In the draft WTC 7 report, NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions."
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm |
That was the draft report, and nice try at obscuring the data by looking at the entire fall rather than the first half which is when the free fall occurred. In the final version, NIST was forced to admit:
| Quote: |
| Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, �This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].�[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7�s free fall descent could have occurred. |
Also from your own link:
| Quote: |
| The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. |
| Like VQ wrote: |
| Debunk that! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:55 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
Responses of this sort demean any serious spirit of debate that might be fostered on this forum. |
And of course, rather than correct any of the above with a better or more reasoned response, the poster above will instead return with further non-arguments, ad hominem attacks, and changing of the subject, most likely accompanied by a single offhand dismissal of all of the above. |
Actually it's your presence that demeans this forum. You contribute nothing. |
Any commentary would be superfluous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BaldTeacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Moore is an idiot who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. Nobody should pay him any mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BaldTeacher wrote: |
| Michael Moore is an idiot who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. Nobody should pay him any mind. |
NM,
| when you wrote: |
| the poster above will instead return with further non-arguments, ad hominem attacks, and changing of the subject, most likely accompanied by a single offhand dismissal of all of the above. |
were you talking about VQ or BT? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Under certain circumstances" = meaningless twaddle on your part. I'm surprised you even wasted the time to type such words. |
I explained my reasoning quite clearly. Your choice to ignore it rather than address it does not make it meaningless.
| Quote: |
| No I managed to stay awake through all of it. It was crap. Disingenuous and manipulative. |
We're not debating whether or not the movie itself was crap, disingenuous, or manipulative. Go back and read both of our posts so you can remember what we're debating.
| Quote: |
| If you seriously can't take the 2 minutes required to google these subjects and verify them as 100% factual and completely relevant then you are a troll and not worth responding to further. Period. |
I'm well aware of these organizations and what paranoid CTists think they do. As I said, they are not stories to anyone outside of the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd. Period.
| Quote: |
| Naive and foolish on your part. Calculating on MM's part. |
How am I "calculating on MM's part"? Observing pretty much any of his interviews or movies will show you that he doesn't "cheer on" the Democrats.
| Quote: |
| More ignorance. In the first place, no, Al Gore's connections to the energy industry were not dwarfed by Bush's. If you had taken even two minutes to research this matter, you'd know that Al Gore's family derived its wealth from the Occidental Petroleum company. |
Of which the stock was completely sold upon the closing of his father's estate.
| Quote: |
| Al Gore is also one of the most influential advocates for cap and trade in the world, as well as the chairman of GIM, which owns a substantial stake in the Chicago Carbon Exchange. He is about as connected with the energy industry as a person can get. |
The carbon exchange industry is not the energy industry. Try again.
| Quote: |
| Regardless, your speculation as to whether or not Gore would have launched an invasion or not (I for one bet he would have) - he was not the heir apparent chosen by the powers that be. Bush was the man for the job at the time, which is why he was allowed to steal the election. |
Bush stole the election because of his connections in Florida, just as Kennedy stole the election because of his connections in Texas and Illinois. This involves a very finite set of players in those states. He wasn't put into power by the Illuminati or what have you.
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but repeating your excuses and attempting to rationalize them won't change the fact that people like yourself are the reason the political system is broken. |
Sorry, but ignoring rational explanations rather than addressing them, along with advocating useless conspiracy theories that distract people from the real crimes of the government, won't change the fact that people like yourself are the reason the political system is broken.
| Quote: |
| Actually your not knowing about engineering was never really up for debate here... |
I have a hard time believing that an expert engineer would be posting in a forum for English teachers in Korea. I have no problem admitting my non-expertise in the field. You seem to be like most CTists who cling to the notion that they know about engineering after watching Loose Change.
| Quote: |
| What a cop out. As if your "peer reviewed" make-belief means a thing (anthopogenic global warming mean anything to you)?? Which facts? Peer reviewed by whom? |
Congratulations, you have discovered why the global warming debate is only a debate in the political arena and not in the scientific community. Peer review is essential to the credibility of a study or article. It requires that articles published in serious academic journals are checked by experts in the narrowly specified relevant field to make sure that the logic and methodology of each author are appropriate and correctly applied. In other words, peer review ensures that studies that employ flawed logic or methodology are not published. So far, the official side has managed hundreds of independent peer reviewed studies, while the truther side has managed zero.
| Quote: |
| Oh man. There's no scientific proof contained there at all. They just make an animation. Haven't you ever seen a Hollywood movie? |
Yes, structual engineers, computer scientists, and graphics technology experts collaborated on a project that was nothing more than a random animation, and had their study published in a respected scientific journal.  I should have remembered that CTists are never persuaded by actual science or logic when it comes to their theories. They make their conclusions first, and then cherry-pick whichever evidence they can find to support their conclusion while ignoring everything else. Because it's not about the conspiracy, it's about them. They get a high off of the feeling that they know information that ordinary people don't know and that they get to be condescending to everyone else who isn't in the know. If there were no conspiracies, there would be nothing left to make them feel special. It's just a very addictive form of narcissism that clouds any impartial judgment that they may have had.
Come on man, that's just embarrassing. The truthers can't get any studies published in a REAL scientific journal, so one of them founds their own "journal" where they can publish anything they want and pretend it's a real scientific journal. I wouldn't be flaunting that if I were a truther, I would be hiding it in shame.
| Quote: |
| Let's be honest, you've already admitted you don't know squat. |
Let's be honest? If you teach English, you should know that "let's" is a first-person plural imperative, meaning that the speaker is encouragng that both he and the listener perform the relevant action. So far, only one of us has been up-front about their lack of expertise in engineering. The other one only wants to make an issue of his opponent's lack of expertise while ignoring his own lack thereof.
| Quote: |
| And yet countless other (weaker) buildings have been consumed by fires and never collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints. Debunk that... |
Oh yes, the beloved "first time" fallacy. First of all, studies have shown that it wasn't at the speed of gravity. Second, while truthers love to focus on the fact that WTC 7 was the first building to collapse primarily from fire, they prefer to ignore the other first-time factors, such as the fact that no high-rise fire has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its BOTTOM floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. The Windsor Tower did not have a 40-story load weighing on the damaged area and also did not have a 20-story gash in its corner after being hit by another building. Also, never mind the several firefighters who testified that they were predicting its collapse well before it occurred. That's another fact that needs to be withdrawn from your backward "scientific" inquiry.
| Quote: |
| That was the draft report |
The final report said the exact same thing.
| Quote: |
| nice try at obscuring the data by looking at the entire fall rather than the first half which is when the free fall occurred. |
"Even NIST admits the WTC7 fell at free-fall speed" means even NIST admits the WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed. If you wanted to convey the message that NIST admits the upper floors fell at free fall speed for 8 stories, you would have written "even NIST admits the upper floors fell at free fall speed for 8 stories." Talk about obscuring the data.
| Quote: |
| However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7�s free fall descent could have occurred. |
Not true. If you weren't engaging in your typical quote-mining, you would see that NIST explains that the free fall stage occurred after a period of slow descent in which the exterior columns in the lower stories were buckled. These buckled columns were not able to provide any resistence to a load of that mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And yet countless other (weaker) buildings have been consumed by fires and never collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints. Debunk that... |
Oh yes, the beloved "first time" fallacy. First of all, studies have shown that it wasn't at the speed of gravity. |
Umm, free-fall IS the speed of gravity (actually, the acceleration).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| That was the draft report |
The final report said the exact same thing. |
Yes, and that was admitting "the WTC7 fell at free-fall speed." Btw, that's the speed of gravity.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| nice try at obscuring the data by looking at the entire fall rather than the first half which is when the free fall occurred. |
"Even NIST admits the WTC7 fell at free-fall speed" means even NIST admits the WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed. If you wanted to convey the message that NIST admits the upper floors fell at free fall speed for 8 stories, you would have written "even NIST admits the upper floors fell at free fall speed for 8 stories." Talk about obscuring the data. |
A meaningless distinction. Talk about nitpicking! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, seeing as that building probably didn't have the fire/heat proofing benefit of 1000+ tons of asbestos (as the WTC towers did), I'd say it fared relatively well... that is to say, it managed not to collapse into its own footprint at free fall speed (surprise surprise)...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
Nice pictures though. Gives you a pretty good idea of what a concrete/steel tower should look like after being consumed by fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
