DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Ah intellectual debate there's nothing more refreshing for the soul.
*cough*
*cough*
911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
- Status
editor said:
I really obviously don't mate, no.
You really are just too clever for me mate.
What's it like being so internationally famous and so clever and so, err, so... BIG??
You really oughta recognise olive branches when they appear. Instead all you do is show up your bruised ego.
You should quit while you're just behind.
Coz if you don't you'll really embarrass yourself.
Either way, enjoy your day coz i'm off.
Categorically I don't agree with this at all. Steel I-sections can take the most extraordinary forces along their length.MikeMcc said:
Think how hard you would have to whack a nail with a hammer to get it to fail (and indeed, just fail by bending, never mind shattering). Now bear in mind that I-sections are far, far stronger than rods. Now, imagine a giant hammer which you could wallop the world trade centre with, and you get an idea of the kind of force those steels could take, and take easily.
editor
hiraethified
So, are all these people wrong then?Jazzz said:
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/041021.asp
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3354
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021209g.asp
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm
http://www.archrecord.com/InTheCause/0402FDNY/fdny.asp
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/AR/20020110r.asp
www.asce.org/emerg_document_pub.cfm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-1.html
Forgive me editor, but I don't have the inclination to wade through that lot, could you direct me to the bit which addresses how the central steels below the impact floors failed and shattered?
If you can find that bit, I will tell you whether I think they are wrong or not.
Alternatively, if you can find a bit in any of those links which addresses any of the points made by Steve Jones, I would consider that a useful contribution to the discussion.
If you can find that bit, I will tell you whether I think they are wrong or not.
Alternatively, if you can find a bit in any of those links which addresses any of the points made by Steve Jones, I would consider that a useful contribution to the discussion.
editor
hiraethified
How about you get off your lazy conspiraloon arse and actually do your own fucking research?Jazzz said:
I've given you page after page after page of peer-reviewed analysis and expert research yet you only seem interested in one single paper created by an individual whose methodology raised such extreme doubts that his own university felt compelled to release a statement distancing themselves from his findings!
Your head in sand, ignore-anything-that doesn't-fit version of research is a fucking joke.
You claim to be a "truth seeker", so how about you carefully read and research the vast volume of high quality research available and then point out its flaws?
But I've already pointed out the main reason (simply one of many) which disprove the hypothesis referred to. And truth is, none of those links contain a rebuttal of the point I mention, it's not addressed. I also doubt you will find anything to rebut Steve Jones' points.
I don't consider that putting up a load of links in itself constitutes either discussion or research, no matter how abusive you may be, sorry.
I don't consider that putting up a load of links in itself constitutes either discussion or research, no matter how abusive you may be, sorry.
bristol_citizen
Well-Known Member
Um, isn't the "truth movement" supposed to be inclined to wade through the evidence? You sound more like the "can't-be-bothered-with-the-truth movement".Jazzz said:
editor
hiraethified
FFS: by definition they rebut his points because using the same information they don't arrive at the same conclusion as him.Jazzz said:
Several departments in his own university have pointed out the flaws in his research.
Perhaps you might be kind enough to read and explain the flaws in the overwhelming body of available, peer reviewed expert analysis that doesn't agree with the findings of this one, solitary, disputed paper?
No, incorrect.editor said:
There are surely countless scientific models on which much is written, when someone comes along and refutes that model, those papers - no matter how many there are - don't rebut the refutation, simply because they assumed their model. For examples, how about light travelling through an ether (Einstein) or indeed the world being round (Galileo).
But I guess those guys were wrong, eh?
brixtonvilla
should be Oslovilla, really
You think you're winning this one do you, Jazz? And are you really claiming this guy as a modern-day Galileo? Go down to the corner shop & buy yourself a clue, wouldja. Oh, and look at the poll results while you're at it...
Jazzz has NEVER won this shit - though no doubt he believes he does all the time... maybe the lizards tell him...
editor
hiraethified
It's sheer exasperation at your stubborn refusal to face the truth.Jazzz said:Oh and do go easy on the 'FFS', and the rest of the abuse, it's generally a sign of losing the argument, and you wouldn't want others to notice that.
You can't even be bothered to read the reams of high-quality, peer reviewed expert analysis from a variety of credible sources when it's presented to you, preferring to cling on to one piece of research that has been practically disowned by the university it came from!
"Truth seeker" my fucking arse!
brixtonvilla said:
frankly, yes, though I confess, with editor, you never get to the end of the fight, he just starts up again at round 1.
Yes. When Galileo was around, the scholars of the day in the church had done a hell of a lot of work on the 'planetary bodies go round the earth' model. They had worked out all the orbits and everything. He came along and said, look you must consider that the earth goes round the Sun, something they weren't considering. He got a hell of a lot of shit for it, although no-one could counter any of his points - exactly what is happening to Steve Jones.
However, he's hardly the first, he's just the first to breach the topic academically. I guess that was the same with Galileo also.
"All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is regarded as self-evident" - Schopenhauer
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Jazzz said:
Thanks for that J
Very close to Ghandis:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.
In the interests of logical balance I must point out though that being attacked / laughed at etc. doesnt neccessarily make one right.
Jazzz said:
Perhaps you might stop ignoring me when I say that the forces imposed when the upper stories collapsed will have been far greater than the steel could have withstood. That's without considering any weak points such as the rivet holes because each section will only be as strong as it's weakest point (rivet holes, stress fracture ends, etc). It's because of the high stresses around the ends of stress fractures acting as propagation paths that you drill the ends out before repairing the fracture.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99164.htm
http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/projects/Interaction.html
It's only the third time that I've mentioned it.
editor said:
Sounds just like you then. You've already accepted the one truth, that which the USG have told you. Furthermore you accept it on their say so.
Wow, that sure is a credible source and a credible reason for accepting the 'truth'.
How easily you are satisfied.
- Status
Similar threads
