Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

Maccy- I am cheered by your reply. I appreciate your interest in finding out what the NIST report actually says. You may find it hard to believe, but I am willing to research information suggested by the other side. Additionally, I plan to request some office time with some of the local engineering professors at Junior colleges ( I don't know if you guys have these), and at the state college. I mention this only because believe it or not, I really am interested in the facts.

A good philosopher should have some awareness of his prejudicial feelings towards certain subjects, and do his best to be objective in his analysis of said subject. Or in the simplest of terms "being objective". I would suggest that I am aware of my prejudice in not believing the official story of 9-11, and I am sure that it does cloud my analysis of facts at times. However, when some of you on this list insisted that global collapse calculations could not be seen as simply as I had suggested ( I had initially claimed that the lower part of the towers should still have the same ability to support the portion above after collapse initiation as it had had when it was undamaged) I considered that I might be mistaken. So perhaps I was too simplistic in that suggestion, and I did consider that maybe I am wrong. Maybe these guys are really going to show me that the collapse was explainable, but for me that didn't happen.

I mention this not to point to the fact that I remain unconvinced, but rather that I felt it was possible that I might be mistaken. and that indeed the towers did come down from airplanes alone. I know that many of you will see this as simply weakness in my belief, and therefore my argument. A good philosopher recognizes that contradictions such as this abound in the world of logic and belief (the contradiction is how do you remain objective and have well researched convictions at the same time). Some have used the expression of "strong convictions loosely held" as a way out of the problem.

As for you that insist there is no weakness in the NIST report. NIST states only that "instability would spread throughout the building" after initial collapse began. In my opinion this is a wholly inadequate explanation of the collapse. We are given no paramaters on how many of the trusses failed, or in what sequence. So I am not certain whether those of you who keep asking what is wrong with the NIST report are not aware of this, just think this is adequate, or believe they had more to say. So please clarify your questions in this regard

As far as the NIST report for initial collapse, I do have lingering questions. Hopefully having questions isn't proof that I am a hopeless skeptic that will never accept any answers. But if the answers continue along the vain of we are the experts just trust us, then I think we will continue to get nowhere.

And as far as the lawyers who ask about what it is I am saying regarding law, what don't you read the thread? I am getting a little tired of repeating the answers to the same questions over and over. The main point that I will repeat for you Mr. Lash is that expert witnesses have to be able to explain to a jury what it is that there talking about. I know this is wholly undignified that the holders of the truth in their ivory towers must come down and be involved with the common folk, but that is the system we have in this country and you just have to deal with it. So this serves as an illustration that discussions of matters of this import must be brought before the public.

Horaitsist- Do you even listen at all. I made the quote about calculus a ways back. Why don't you go and look for it?

Johnny F- As I have said repeatedly, at the moment I am trying to stay on track on the official version of the collapse of the building. Until we have a clear picture of what that story is, I am not willing to compare to a demolition theory. though you should know that it makes you appear weak that you are not able to adequately explain your version of events before attacking the other sides version
 
Non Believer said:
Johnny F- As I have said repeatedly, at the moment I am trying to stay on track on the official version of the collapse of the building. Until we have a clear picture of what that story is, I am not willing to compare to a demolition theory. though you should know that it makes you appear weak that you are not able to adequately explain your version of events before attacking the other sides version
Click to expand...

Why should we have to continually the same work over and over because you can't trouble yourself to read the NIST report or any other technical material on the collapse? There are many explanations of the official version of events, and your response here is tantamount to "I don't feel like reading".

This has been explained to you, in this thread, by at least one person with relevant experience. I agree with his explanation, and believe it accurately represents the situation as I saw it unfold, and as the NIST report describes. I will not indulge your vanity by posting the same kind of detailed point-by-point analysis, as I am not qualified to do so.

By the way, NIST does not only state that "instability" would spread throughout the building. There is a very detailed explanation of how the experts working for NIST believe the collapse initiated.

I haven't attacked your theory because I don't need to. You haven't provided one piece of evidence for it, so it's a non-entity at this point. I might as well say I believe invisible space monsters destroyed the tower because the NIST report "doesn't feel right" or some other BS. Until I provide some evidence it's just another wild theory.

Your unwillingness to examine the evidence for the official theory does not make such evidence nonexistent.

Present evidence for your theories, or they will not be taken seriously here.
 
Flabergasted

I had foolishly assumed that whilst I was back in hospital (an unexpected surprise) this thread might have moved on. How wrong I was. NB posts the same empty rhetoric whilst comprehensively failing to address any of the technical points put to him previously.

NIST have explained the collapse at length in their comprehensive full report, and most certainly to a level acceptable to the construction professionals best placed to understand it. NB, despite his utter lack of any relevant technical expertise, disagrees with the report findings but unable - or unwilling - to produce any technical response instead dresses up his doubts as "questions".

NIST do not have a duty to produce a report so simplified that even a layman can follow it, any more than your doctor has to explain the complexities of human anatomy when diagnosing your heart murmur. NB is spamming this site with pseudo philosophical claptrap in an attempt to divert attention away from the matter at hand; he has no substantive arguments to support his grand conspiracy.
 
Architect said:
NIST do not have a duty to produce a report so simplified that even a layman can follow it, any more than your doctor has to explain the complexities of human anatomy when diagnosing your heart murmur. NB is spamming this site with pseudo philosophical claptrap in an attempt to divert attention away from the matter at hand; he has no substantive arguments to support his grand conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Well said. We've been trying to keep him on point, but he continually insists that we have to first establish the official story or some rubbish. When it's pointed out to him that there is plenty to establish the official story, he simply ignores it.

Until he posts some kind of evidence or attempts to address the technical issues head-on, this isn't going anywhere at all.

Of course, sometimes when the CTists attempt to address the technical issues directly it has hilarious results, such as 28th K's truly awful comprehension of physics.
 
Non Believer said:
( I had initially claimed that the lower part of the towers should still have the same ability to support the portion above after collapse initiation as it had had when it was undamaged) I considered that I might be mistaken. So perhaps I was too simplistic in that suggestion, and I did consider that maybe I am wrong. Maybe these guys are really going to show me that the collapse was explainable, but for me that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

So you think that because the underlying support of the floors below the impact held the weight before the collision, they should have done so afterwards? That the falling mass of the upper floors should have been stopped by the main "undamaged" body of the towers?

If you place a bowling ball on your desk, will your desk collapse? If you drop that same bowling ball from a distance above your desk, will your desk collapse?


I mention this not to point to the fact that I remain unconvinced, but rather that I felt it was possible that I might be mistaken. and that indeed the towers did come down from airplanes alone.
Click to expand...

They didn't come down "from airplanes alone", as you'll notice that the towers withstood the plane collisions for several hours. NIST is quite explicit in this fact that the plan collisions caused damage to the fire-proofing which allowed the resulting fires (fuelled by the huge amounts of jet fuel and the burning contents of the WTC offices) to cause enough weakening of the steel superstructure to initiate the collapse sequence. Even reading the NIST FAQ will spell that out to you in great detail.



Johnny F- As I have said repeatedly, at the moment I am trying to stay on track on the official version of the collapse of the building. Until we have a clear picture of what that story is, I am not willing to compare to a demolition theory. though you should know that it makes you appear weak that you are not able to adequately explain your version of events before attacking the other sides version
Click to expand...

We do have a very clear, very long report giving the "story", which "adequately" explains the events to every structural engineer who's ever read it. What's wrong with it? You still haven't said.
 
mattlodder said:
We do have a very clear, very long report giving the "story", which "adequately" explains the events to every structural engineer who's ever read it. What's wrong with it? You still haven't said.
Click to expand...


Don't forget:

1. Architects

2. Fire Engineers

3. Controlled Demolitions Experts

4. Materials specialists

5. Building Contractors

6. Surveyors
 
mattlodder said:
We do have a very clear, very long report giving the "story", which "adequately" explains the events to every structural engineer who's ever read it. What's wrong with it? You still haven't said.
Click to expand...

Clearly we haven't developed the right logic framework to talk about it yet. Or something.

Alternatively, NB has nothing and can't admit it to himself or others.
 
Architect said:
Don't forget:

1. Architects

2. Fire Engineers

3. Controlled Demolitions Experts

4. Materials specialists

5. Building Contractors

6. Surveyors
Click to expand...

7. People with an understanding of university-level physics and math.

8. People with an understanding of high school-level physics and math.
 
Non Believer said:
*SNIP* As far as the NIST report for initial collapse, I do have lingering questions. Hopefully having questions isn't proof that I am a hopeless skeptic that will never accept any answers. But if the answers continue along the vain of we are the experts just trust us, then I think we will continue to get nowhere.*SNIP*
Click to expand...

You're doctor is an expert...do you trust him/her?
House builders are experts...do you trust to live in what they build?
Car makers are experts...do you trust in what you drive?
Lawyers are experts...would you put your life in their hands to defend you?
NIST is a group of experts...yet you don't trust them?

Why?
 
Non Believer said:
Horaitsist- Do you even listen at all. I made the quote about calculus a ways back. Why don't you go and look for it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I listen. I even remember.

Non Believer said:
Horatius- what has Arch given me to evaluate past it is too complicated, and we all know that this would happen

...

As for the calculus explanation, some of you have threatned to the on the degree of analysis I will be facing. And since I have problems with such authority I have chosen to give the absolute simplest description first, and then slowly move up from there. This of course emphasizes the nature of gradient understandings, of apparently which you are all unaware. So the basic concept of calculus is to build mathematical models that most closely approximate the infinities we approach when measuring motion. Remember a bloody Ct er said this , so you sure better find it ridiculous.
Click to expand...


You said that what was given to you was too complicated. You then gave what you considered to be "the absolute simplest description" of calculas, which description would be entirely useless for allowing an untrained or under-trained individual to evaluate the work of a mathemetician or physicist who was presenting a calculas-based proof. As such, your answer was complete useless to us as well, as we still have no idea what level of detail you need.

You also said you were presenting this definition "first", and that you would "then slowly move up from there", which implies there wil be a second definition forthcoming. One might hope there will be a third as well, if needed.

So yes, I listen. I remember. Unfortunately, you don't really say much. Unfortunately, only you can fix that last problem, so, please, do get on with it.

Or, you know, just admit you're blowing smoke. We'd accept that, and it might even make us respect you a little. Not a lot, but a little.
 
Non Believer said:
...(I had initially claimed that the lower part of the towers should still have the same ability to support the portion above after collapse initiation as it had had when it was undamaged) I considered that I might be mistaken. So perhaps I was too simplistic in that suggestion, and I did consider that maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...
That such a thing is even a question in one's mind is remarkable.

Note also how it isn't a question in the mind of the world-wide body of structural engineers.

I mention this not to point to the fact that I remain unconvinced, but rather that I felt it was possible that I might be mistaken. and that indeed the towers did come down from airplanes alone...
Click to expand...
The towers did not "come down from airplanes alone."
 
Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.
 
Non Believer said:
Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.
Click to expand...


So maybe all the engineering textbooks and physics papers should include a version for people who don't study engineering or physics?

It might come as a shock to you to learn that the scientific process is different to the democratic process.

People don't vote on scientific theories, they either stand or fall on their merits. The NIST report stands because people who understand it agree with it. If they didn't agree with it, they would say so and prove themselves to the satisfaction of science and reason, not popular opinion.

You can't claim a valid opinion on a subject which you don't understand.
 
How about one direct quote from NIST on the subject at hand gents. I hear how you know all about the report, but you can speak of it in only the vaguest terms possible. Specifics are certainly an endangered species in your guys world, but why don't you try resurrection of a few and quote a specific someday. Would anybody like to quote in the section of NIST that deals with the collapse of the towers, or should I do it for you?

Don't forget-

1- Fear

2-Compliance

3-Ignorance

4-Secrecy

5-Trust in authority
 
Indeed.

And that's beside the fact that the NIST report is available, in full, for download, for free, and that there's a non-technical FAQ on the website to boot.

What else do you want, NB? Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it not true!

ETA: What was the "subject at hand" again?

ETA2:
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

If you want to read them and nitpick, do. If you don't want to do that, shut up.

I haven't read all the report because frankly, I don't have time. Because of this, I have to defer to someone who has read it, and compare their analyses with the analyses of others who have also read it. In the same way as when I'm ill I don't rush down to my university and enrol on a medical degree, but instead ask one (or maybe even more than one) doctor what he thinks is wrong with me.

That said, I have read the FAQ which explains in laymans terms what the "official story" is, and I also know that enough qualified people who have read both the full report and the FAQ would be up in arms and straight to the journals if there was even the slightest flaw in the report's findings. That's how academia works.
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the most important date in the history of the US be July 4, 1776?

But maybe I'm just a stupid drunk Canuck.....
 
Non Believer said:
Architect - It reads over here as government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We as democracy tell what NIST and any other panty-waist dictator that comes along is our servant sir. The citizenry should not have to fight for the right to access information on the most important day in it's history. Your suggestion that NIST has no duty to the average citizen is an outrage, and completely antithetical to what this country was founded on.
Click to expand...
Are you really this stupid, or just amazingly lazy?

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Read. If you don't have the appropriate and adequate knowledge to understand what was written, it's up to you to acquire that knowledge... not have it spoon-fed to you.
 
Last edited:
Nonbeliever. In a democracy it is the majority who determine if they are being properly served. Since the majority of citizens are satisfied with the research of professional architectural and civil engineers, laboratory scientists, material specialists, etc, and agree with the report. It will stand. The MINORITY. which is a group you belong to. Do not determine weather a re-write is necessary simply because you cannot grasp or have faith in its content. You have been out voted. It is a waste of taxpayers resources to satisfy you in a do-over. You have insuffciant evidence to disprove what already has been researched. In a democracy you will accept this. You have no other choice. Accept it. you lose.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Are you really this stupid, or just amazingly lazy?
Click to expand...


In NB's case, the two are not mutually exclusive.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Read. If you don't have the appropriate and adequate knowledge to understand what was written, it's up to you to acquire that knowledge... not have it spoon-fed to you.
Click to expand...

Like most twoofers, he refuses to read anything that does not originate from conspiracy websites and he refuses to read anything that would force him to acknowledge that he hasn't a clue about the reality of the events that he ascribes all manner of tinhat theories to. In other words, he knows not of whence he speaks - and he has to keep it that way for fear that his fellow twoofers will recognize him for the fraud that he is.

He's out of his depth and simply will not take the time or expend the effort to try to comprehend even the FAQ which is a very short and very simplified version designed specifically to provide a "layman's version" if you will.

It's ever so much simpler to just plug his ears and chant "lalalalalala-i can't hear you", while remaining wilfully ignorant of facts, evidence and reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom