So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[RandomGuy]

If you go to the middle of this topic you will see Mouse already answered all your ,
in fact Chump had to sign off he was so embarrassed.

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?
----------yes
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?
-----------yes
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
------------yes
Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?
------------yes
If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?
------------what do you mean brought down at free fall?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
----------?

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)
--------?

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?
----------damage

yay. Some honest answers.
We know a plane affects a buildings ability to bear weight now.

Does it increase its ability to bear weight, not affect it, or reduce it?

[RandomGuy]

What does all that Popular Mechanics math have to do with a steel framed Building? Since no other Steel Framed Building has collapsed how do you know your is not just a theory?

Your just talking out your ass. Put away the slide ruler and talk facts Brah!

OH GOODIE!! We get to talk about facts now.

Fact:

Moving objects have kinetic energy

Fact:

kinetic energy equations are known

Fact:

Gravitational acceleration is a known constant

Fact:

Moving objects that collide with stationary objects impart energy and apply force.

Fact:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Fact:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Fact:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I could give you my views, Then I could give you the scientific evidence, and I can give you what others have found. But it will be of no use since AggieHoops says I am here just to Troll. So maybe another day when he's not around to delete my .

Hmmm, 1) I have no mod rights (nor do any of the other regular mods, Kori has taken that operation "in house" )

2) I haven't deleted any of your , because no matter how many user names you post under, and how many times you quote one of your other user names to try and back them up, you still haven't presented a tangible argument as to what went down, and it's fun to watch you talk out of your ass the whole damn time, in search of some kind of coherent thought.

[RandomGuy]

Seeing as how I am up past my bedtime, I think I will go to bed.

G'night.

p.s. physics will trump evasive bull every time.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Who wants some pissed off Ex Mod insulting their every post?

Says the poster with 5 billion aliases that has posted such gems as:

I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass

Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.

Did you fall off the crib in your trailer when you was reaching for that 1/2 empty can of Bush beer your pappy left after falling asleep while watching re runs of Dukes of Hazard? Are you acting stupid to get a rise from folks?

Really mouse, spare us all the misdirection bull and whining about being moderated, and answer the ing questions.

You always seem like a pretty cool guy on the boards, but this thread is making me question that perception.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

OH GOODIE!! We get to talk about facts now.

Fact:

Moving objects have kinetic energy

Fact:

kinetic energy equations are known

Fact:

Gravitational acceleration is a known constant

Fact:

Moving objects that collide with stationary objects impart energy and apply force.

Fact:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Fact:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Fact:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You'll have to forgive Buddy Holly.

If you want to talk about urban housing in San Antonio, he knows his . Physics, not so much.

[RandomGuy]

As I said in my first post before asking anything:

They are very simple questions, and you would be surprised at how hard they are for CTers to answer.

This is the pattern of responses I have gotten in other forums:

RG: Are rubber ducks yellow?
(notice a simple, easy to answer, yes or no format)

CT: The giant conspiracy hates ducks and here are the links with pictures of ducks being sacrificed on satanic altars.
(notice that nowhere here is the question actually answered)

They have a disturbing habit that mirrors a politician in a news interview: instead of answering a straight, honest question, they go off and talk about what they want to talk about.

Remember these questions are just starting points. I am perfectly willing to follow them where they go, and even give a few points to CTers. They just won't even be halfway honest and try. Hopefully I will get some intellectual honesty here, but I doubt it.

[RandomGuy]

You'll have to forgive Buddy Holly.

If you want to talk about urban housing in San Antonio, he knows his . Physics, not so much.

To each their own, but really do a google search under physics tutorials and see how many websites offer step by step instructions.

This is SO basic.

I have even gone so far as to purposefully put obvious errors in my calculations, just to see if anyone is actually paying attention. Care to guess if any CTer has ever noticed?

(note: I have not done so here, but if you find one, please point it out and I will fix it)

[Suns Fan]

Seeing as how I am up past my bedtime, I think I will go to bed.

G'night.

p.s. physics will trump evasive bull every time.

I hope you remember that when I bring some juicy physics facts Friday!

[ChumpDumper]

If you go to the middle of this topic you will see Mouse already answered all your ,
in fact Chump had to sign off he was so embarrassed.

mouse, I got to go out sometime -- all debunk and no play, etc....

I see you haven't posted your comprehensive alternative theory, so I'll check back later.

[smeagol]

I see you haven't posted your comprehensive alternative theory, so I'll check back later.

Don't waste your time. It's pretty clear he does not have one.

Neither has Dan not mookie.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Seeing as how I am up past my bedtime, I think I will go to bed.
G'night.
p.s. physics will trump evasive bull every time.
-------------------------------------------------
I hope you remember that when I bring some juicy physics facts Friday!

I will now make the following preditions about the "physics facts" I will be presented with.

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

2) The poster will not be able to demonstrate that he/she has grasped the underlying concepts or LOGICAL implications of what was posted.

3) They will not really address my posting concerning kinetic energy.

4) They will have been debunked somewhere by someone who knows more about science and physics that then either the poster, myself, or the person who originally wrote the "facts".

I would love to be proven wrong about any of this, but here is a theory of mine that has yet to be disproven anecdotally:

To believe in this conspiracy, you must have weak critical thinking skills or a lack of knowledge about science and logic, usually both.

The value of any theory is in its predictive ability. I used the above theory to make my predictions.

Let's see how it pans out.

[Deadbeat Dad]

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

WTF do you expect? Do we have to get President Bush himself to come to your house and confess?

Why do you asshats keep telling everyone else to do all the work and prove the WTC had explosives, why don't you puppets get off your ass and prove they it didn't?

Since you don't like videos,eye witness reports, and do ents pasted what's left? It's like saying prove Kennedy was shot by one gunman. You guys could have been sitting right next to him and have his brains fall on your laps and you will find a way to say it was staged.

Mouse don't waste your time they will never believe anything they read.

[RIP CITY.]

I will now make the following preditions about the "physics facts" I will be presented with.

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

2) The poster will not be able to demonstrate that he/she has grasped the underlying concepts or LOGICAL implications of what was posted.

3) They will not really address my posting concerning kinetic energy.

4) They will have been debunked somewhere by someone who knows more about science and physics that then either the poster, myself, or the person who originally wrote the "facts".

I would love to be proven wrong about any of this, but here is a theory of mine that has yet to be disproven anecdotally:

To believe in this conspiracy, you must have weak critical thinking skills or a lack of knowledge about science and logic, usually both.

The value of any theory is in its predictive ability. I used the above theory to make my predictions.

Let's see how it pans out.

Translation: It doesn't matter what you say I won't listen

[=RTM=]

RandomGuy you just killed any hopes of any type of debate.

[Whottt.]

Are you serious RandomGuy You get to make all the rules on a debate so that you can win the debate? I just read your conditions it's like saying have sex but there will be no looking ,touching, and you must keep your clothes on, what kind of debate can you have on a web forum if you can't copy and paste you find?

[The Power Hour]

The with this everyone stop trying to debate with these closed minded fools. Let's turn this around.

No more posting until they start to prove some .

Prove to us a steel framed building can collapse into a pile of dust show us the evidence

Show us a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon, not a few pics of a yellow ball of flames.


I will now make the following predictions about "RandomGuy and his brokeback buddy Chump" I will be presented with.

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

2) The poster will not be able to demonstrate that he/she has grasped the underlying concepts or LOGICAL implications of what was posted.

3) They will not really address my posting concerning kinetic energy.

4) They will have been debunked somewhere by someone who knows more about science and physics that then either the poster, myself, or the person who originally wrote the "facts".

I would love to be proven wrong about any of this, but here is a theory of mine that has yet to be disproven anecdotally:

To believe in this conspiracy, you must have weak critical thinking skills or a lack of knowledge about science and logic, usually both.

The value of any theory is in its predictive ability. I used the above theory to make my predictions.

Let's see how it pans out.

[RandomGuy]

WTF do you expect? Do we have to get President Bush himself to come to your house and confess?

Why do you asshats keep telling everyone else to do all the work and prove the WTC had explosives, why don't you puppets get off your ass and prove they it didn't?

Since you don't like videos,eye witness reports, and do ents pasted what's left? It's like saying prove Kennedy was shot by one gunman. You guys could have been sitting right next to him and have his brains fall on your laps and you will find a way to say it was staged.

Mouse don't waste your time they will never believe anything they read.

You are falsely shifting the burden of proof onto me to prove/disprove YOUR theory.

This actually violates the laws of logic. Scientists didn't prove the basic laws of physics by disproving false equations. They proved the laws by observing and offering evidence that the equations they gave fit the data and that the theories/laws could be used to make predictions based on that theory.

I do believe eye witness accounts.

I do believe videos.

I do believe do ents.

I evaluate any conclusions drawn on this evidence by using critical thinking, logic, and knowable science.

If you draw conclusions about evidence, and those conclusions are not logically deducible from that evidence I will not believe the conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter what you say I won't listen

At least you're honest.

[The Power Hour]

At least you're honest.

That makes one. Until RandonGuy puts down the spam sandwich and starts answering some questions, this debate is dead in the water.

[RandomGuy]

The with this everyone stop trying to debate with these closed minded fools. Let's turn this around.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have claimed that explosives took down the towers. The burden of proof rests on you.

For you to prove your affirmative thesis, you must rule out other possibilities. My questions offer you a place to begin to do that, all you have to do is to answer them honestly, and we can go from there.

You claim to be honest people who question things because you should never just believe what you are told.

Live up to that.

[RandomGuy]

That makes one. Until RandonGuy puts down the spam sandwich and starts answering some questions, this debate is dead in the water.

I'll trade you one for one then, if you will give your word you will answer my questions as posed.

If you give your word, then you can even go first.

[RandomGuy]

(crickets)

o?

[RandomGuy]

I'll trade you one for one then, if you will give your word you will answer my questions as posed.

If you give your word, then you can even go first.

o?

(shrugs)

I will check back.

[=RTM=]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have claimed that explosives took down the towers. The burden of proof rests on you.

For you to prove your affirmative thesis, you must rule out other possibilities. My questions offer you a place to begin to do that, all you have to do is to answer them honestly, and we can go from there.

You claim to be honest people who question things because you should never just believe what you are told.

Live up to that.

I thought you just said no coping and pasting from websites?