Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 87 of 151 (417785)
08-24-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
08-24-2007 2:23 PM


Re: ok
And i find it hard to believe that fire initiated the collapse.
There was also the little matter of all the other structural damage. Like the big hole in the building. Strawman much?
Buildings have been on fire for over 24 hours, and when it does go out, the steel frame is still standing.
Except in cases where this is not true, e.g. the Madrid skyscraper fire, where the steel frame collapsed and only the concrete core remained standing.
Our friend here seems to believe that all forms of combustion are exactly the same, that fire = fire, and that a housefire or even a fire in a skyscraper under other circumstances will reach the exact same temperatures and have the same characteristics as a fire fed by jet fuel.
Here's a hint, lost: some fires get hotter than your stove or your campfire. And there's a reason blacksmiths heat metal (including steel) before they go pounding at it - it's more pliable when hot. And guess what they use to heat it up?
Pretty sure it's fire. And they don't even use jet fuel.
Your entire set of posts in this thread has been a massive argument from incredulity. You never post evidence, you simply say "that's bullshit!"
So how's this: you haven't the faintest idea of what your talking about. If you're trying to convince anyone, you might want to start posting some actual facts and numbers instead of "that doesn't look right to me" and "this one guy said that can't happen" when it quite plainly did.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2007 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by molbiogirl, posted 08-24-2007 7:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 98 of 151 (418156)
08-26-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nuggin
08-26-2007 1:44 PM


Sigh. This is just like O'Reilly and the "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" bullcrap.
I'll give you an example.
I think you are retarded.
You claim you are not.
"There is a degree to which both are true"
Therefore you are somewhat retarded.
Guess what. In the real world, it's possible for one side to be completely right and one side to be completely wrong.
This is called the "Golden Mean fallacy." The idea that the "truth always lies somewhere in the middle" is plainly wrong. The Earth is not somewhat flat and somewhat spherical. The Earth does not somewhat revolve around the Sun and somewhat vice versa.
It's true that not everything has a middle ground (which is why there is also a black/white fallacy when there are more than the two presented options), but those who always say that the truth is somehow an average of the "two" sides are idiots.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nuggin, posted 08-26-2007 1:44 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024