Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And NB's choice to "[not] trust anything related to the government doesn't mean that what they present automatically becomes invalid and we have to listen to you! " is just a way of embracing an argumentum ad hominem as a core component of NB's belief system.

 

[JonnyFive]

And NB's choice to "[not] trust anything related to the government doesn't mean that what they present automatically becomes invalid and we have to listen to you! " is just a way of embracing an argumentum ad hominem as a core component of NB's belief system.

Indeed. The fact of the matter is that the government, as well as private individuals not connected to the government, have presented ample evidence for their side. NB seems to believe that simply by virtue of the fact that those sources do not agree with his views/have some connection with the government investigation, he can toss them out and expect us to feed him the simplest possible version of events like sweet, sweet baby food.

The fact that there is considerable dissent within the US government about how well 9/11 was handled is of no consequence (and thus "the government" is not the monolithic entity that CTist seem to fancy it is). It's all part of the plot, which NB has no evidence for.

I'm sure he's certain it's (the evidence) out there somewhere, but he seems to be jumping the gun a bit in that he raises questions without evidence, when there are already excellent answers if he would only care to read the damn reports.

Hell, he could read excellent summaries of the problems with various CT theories by the likes of Gravy linked on this very board. All these things cite sources and explain why they disagree with the CTists. Of course, this is probably no good either, because those people disagree with the CTists are government disinfo agents and thus can also be discounted.

Never mind actually producing positive evidence, a bunch of vague accusations are enough for anyone, right?

 

[Non Believer]

Objectivity-not going to go there are we?

A rhithim- could you tell me what other threads you think this might be appropriate for (not that I am appropriate for any of you for that matter). Otherwise I personally am thinking of starting a new thread that is not under the Bush quote.

Your word problem is always a challenge philosophically, but I don't see it has much relevance. I already mentioned Godel's theorem and that logic has its contradictions, so what's your point? But to give a partial answer, you probably could give the problem an upper and lower bound just by some common sense real world applications. For instance, you could set the upper bound as the likely maximum tank of gas (or other fuel source), and the distance that could be traveled on one tank. The smallest scale would be bound smallest amount of acceleration allowable within the auto technology. In other words, what we imagine is the slowest amount of acceleration a car manufacturer could predictably construct into his vehicles. So unless you want to say your example is not bound by real world constraints, I would say that there are solutions to your problems. They may include a large range, but they are not infinite.

Mr. D - It's like this. The reference to the jury is not about anything specific to what happened on 9-11. It is not about me personally presenting a case for government involvement. The jury system defines the spirit of our legal system. Do you not get that? You are tried in front of your fellow citizen's regardless of whether they're laymen or not, and experts are required to explain it those citizens.. This is the basic function of our legal system, and those basics still apply to congressional investigations. Why the U. S citizenry, media or congress have not opened a new investigation is not the point here. The point is what are the principles of our legal system, and how should they apply to experts who wish to stifle public discussion.

You did actually put some facts (numbers) together, and that is a good start. I would disagree that this a low estimate since the amount of material being blown free of the collapse zone would reduce the overall mass.

Arch- I know you don't have much to do know that you have risen above it all. I expect your main purpose is to wear me down, so that I will move on. Then you may ascend further, and exalt on your chicken making sound throne. You were quoted as making chicken sounds were you not?

Jonny- I don't even read them anymore, so don't waste both of our's time. Though, I think I am about ready to move onto some of the other collapse stuff, and this would include the plane alone Vs demolition comparison. But I want to take that to a new thread

 

[Regnad Kcin]

To summarize the post #543 above...

No, I have no evidence of an "inside job."

 

[aggle-rithm]

Your word problem is always a challenge philosophically, but I don't see it has much relevance. I already mentioned Godel's theorem and that logic has its contradictions, so what's your point? But to give a partial answer, you probably could give the problem an upper and lower bound just by some common sense real world applications. For instance, you could set the upper bound as the likely maximum tank of gas (or other fuel source), and the distance that could be traveled on one tank. The smallest scale would be bound smallest amount of acceleration allowable within the auto technology. In other words, what we imagine is the slowest amount of acceleration a car manufacturer could predictably construct into his vehicles. So unless you want to say your example is not bound by real world constraints, I would say that there are solutions to your problems. They may include a large range, but they are not infinite.

So which would you trust -- someone who has the necessary data and is able to come up with exact numbers (for instance, NIST) or someone who doesn't have them and can only come up with a range?

If all you can come up with is a RANGE of numbers, then how can you know with certainty that the towers should not have collapsed?

And, do you really think common sense applies to uncommon situations like 1,000-foot skyscrapers collapsing?

 

[Mr.D]

You did actually put some facts (numbers) together, and that is a good start. I would disagree that this a low estimate since the amount of material being blown free of the collapse zone would reduce the overall mass.

And?

I hugely oversimplified the numbers to come up with a result that poses a question any layperson could answer (whether or not they come up with a sensible answer is another question).

explain how much of the structure of the 93rd floor you'd expect to remain intact after being hit with energy exceeding that of 2/3 ton of exploding TNT.

And after all your blather, all you can come up with is a thoroughly pathetic attempt at deflecting the question, and a lame dismissal of the numbers you've insisted on having with a wave of your hand.

But let's push on shall we?

Assume that the top 16 floors were completely empty. Also assume that we've overestimated the mass of the top section by a full 25% (or if you prefer, thrown clear of the area by a force having no other affect). How much of the structure of the 93rd floor would you expect to remain intact after being impacted with energy exceeding that of 500kg of exploding TNT?

Don't forget to apply your own standards for evidence and ensure your answer is understandable to a hypothetical jury of laypersons.

I think I am about ready to move onto some of the other collapse stuff, and this would include the plane alone Vs demolition comparison. But I want to take that to a new thread

Pssst. If you cannot answer my question, then you cannot meaningfully discuss the effects of a "plane alone" or "demolition," nevermind make any comparison between them whatsoever.

 

[Architect]

Arch- I know you don't have much to do know that you have risen above it all. I expect your main purpose is to wear me down, so that I will move on. Then you may ascend further, and exalt on your chicken making sound throne. You were quoted as making chicken sounds were you not?

Translation: Actually I have hee-haw evidence or technical knowledge and can't answer Architect's posts, so I will ignore him and run away whilst failing to realise that I made a fool of myself.

Well, that's that cleared up then.

 

[Gravy]

Nonbeliever, since you are unable to back any of your claims with evidence, here is some gibberish that you can cut and paste to make up the substance of your future posts. It should save you considerable time.

Donec sit amet ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse at lacus. In felis neque, aliquet nec, bibendum vel, elementum vel, sem. Praesent feugiat purus a augue. Nullam aliquam enim sed felis. Nullam lobortis, tellus nec facilisis sodales, arcu mi laoreet pede, sed adipiscing magna libero non ligula. Praesent porta lacus. Donec in neque. Sed malesuada imperdiet arcu. Donec congue. Nam venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis sodales leo ac nulla. Cras consequat varius libero. Aenean vitae orci quis urna aliquam blandit. Aliquam in erat id nibh pharetra cursus. Donec fermentum, dui id fringilla placerat, elit nisi volutpat quam, ac vulputate mi nunc ac erat. Aliquam fermentum sodales ligula. Vivamus non leo eu arcu pretium faucibus. Vivamus odio. Donec eget urna quis leo posuere aliquam. Nullam eu nunc. Maecenas et magna ut orci aliquam porttitor. Phasellus tempor tincidunt orci. Quisque aliquet diam sed ligula. Morbi gravida mi mollis pede. Ut ultricies. Nunc enim. Suspendisse sem orci, eleifend id, consequat sed, pharetra ac, odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi eleifend lectus at odio. Donec consequat vulputate lorem. Cras a erat in neque cursus aliquam. Nunc suscipit lobortis ante. Praesent interdum, libero vel fermentum posuere, eros ante venenatis metus, ut dapibus dui tellus a nunc. Cras vitae nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam lectus sem, accumsan ut, iaculis eget, dignissim vitae, felis. Vestibulum ornare, justo ut pulvinar tempor, arcu diam commodo nulla, in suscipit erat nibh luctus erat.

 

[Brainache]

Donec sit amet ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse at lacus. In felis neque, aliquet nec, bibendum vel, elementum vel, sem. Praesent feugiat purus a augue. Nullam aliquam enim sed felis. Nullam lobortis, tellus nec facilisis sodales, arcu mi laoreet pede, sed adipiscing magna libero non ligula. Praesent porta lacus. Donec in neque. Sed malesuada imperdiet arcu. Donec congue. Nam venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis sodales leo ac nulla. Cras consequat varius libero. Aenean vitae orci quis urna aliquam blandit. Aliquam in erat id nibh pharetra cursus. Donec fermentum, dui id fringilla placerat, elit nisi volutpat quam, ac vulputate mi nunc ac erat. Aliquam fermentum sodales ligula. Vivamus non leo eu arcu pretium faucibus. Vivamus odio. Donec eget urna quis leo posuere aliquam. Nullam eu nunc. Maecenas et magna ut orci aliquam porttitor. Phasellus tempor tincidunt orci. Quisque aliquet diam sed ligula. Morbi gravida mi mollis pede. Ut ultricies. Nunc enim. Suspendisse sem orci, eleifend id, consequat sed, pharetra ac, odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi eleifend lectus at odio. Donec consequat vulputate lorem. Cras a erat in neque cursus aliquam. Nunc suscipit lobortis ante. Praesent interdum, libero vel fermentum posuere, eros ante venenatis metus, ut dapibus dui tellus a nunc. Cras vitae nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam lectus sem, accumsan ut, iaculis eget, dignissim vitae, felis. Vestibulum ornare, justo ut pulvinar tempor, arcu diam commodo nulla, in suscipit erat nibh luctus erat.

Is that a display of Gravytas?
Looks pretty heavy to me.

 

[Mashuna]

Is that a display of Gravytas?
Looks pretty heavy to me.

 

[Architect]

Nonbeliever, since you are unable to back any of your claims with evidence, here is some gibberish that you can cut and paste to make up the substance of your future posts. It should save you considerable time.

Donec sit amet ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse at lacus. In felis neque, aliquet nec, bibendum vel, elementum vel, sem. Praesent feugiat purus a augue. Nullam aliquam enim sed felis. Nullam lobortis, tellus nec facilisis sodales, arcu mi laoreet pede, sed adipiscing magna libero non ligula. Praesent porta lacus. Donec in neque. Sed malesuada imperdiet arcu. Donec congue. Nam venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis sodales leo ac nulla. Cras consequat varius libero. Aenean vitae orci quis urna aliquam blandit. Aliquam in erat id nibh pharetra cursus. Donec fermentum, dui id fringilla placerat, elit nisi volutpat quam, ac vulputate mi nunc ac erat. Aliquam fermentum sodales ligula. Vivamus non leo eu arcu pretium faucibus. Vivamus odio. Donec eget urna quis leo posuere aliquam. Nullam eu nunc. Maecenas et magna ut orci aliquam porttitor. Phasellus tempor tincidunt orci. Quisque aliquet diam sed ligula. Morbi gravida mi mollis pede. Ut ultricies. Nunc enim. Suspendisse sem orci, eleifend id, consequat sed, pharetra ac, odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi eleifend lectus at odio. Donec consequat vulputate lorem. Cras a erat in neque cursus aliquam. Nunc suscipit lobortis ante. Praesent interdum, libero vel fermentum posuere, eros ante venenatis metus, ut dapibus dui tellus a nunc. Cras vitae nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam lectus sem, accumsan ut, iaculis eget, dignissim vitae, felis. Vestibulum ornare, justo ut pulvinar tempor, arcu diam commodo nulla, in suscipit erat nibh luctus erat.

No no no no no!

It's obvious:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Morbi a pede vel quam lobortis laoreet. In justo purus, rutrum vitae, pulvinar pellentesque, sodales ut, magna. Donec ac mi vulputate odio ultrices interdum. Integer sit amet est in dui sollicitudin condimentum. Sed quam libero, scelerisque nec, lobortis sagittis, viverra vitae, metus. Pellentesque mauris metus, accumsan id, pellentesque vitae, vulputate a, lorem. Cras urna mauris, adipiscing id, scelerisque non, vehicula et, mi. Integer erat urna, dapibus id, dapibus non, consequat viverra, pede. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vestibulum porta dignissim nulla. Suspendisse tempus justo a tortor. Mauris tristique dapibus velit. Nunc blandit. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Proin quis lorem. Phasellus sagittis nisl porttitor purus.

Sheesh. Do you guys know nothing?!?!

 

[Architect]

Incidentally, NB, since you've dropped into RemoveBush mode I thought this would be an appropriate question:

Bore fory fe fydd hi'n gawodlyd gydag ysbeidiau heulog, gyda'r dwyrain yn troi'n sych.

Fe fydd cymylau a glaw yn ymledu i dde-orllewin Cymru yn ystod y prynhawn, gyda'r tymheredd yn cyrraedd 8 selsiws.
Noson lawog iawn gyda llifogydd o bosib. Y gwyntoedd yn troi'n dymhestlog yn y de a'r gorllewin. Y tymheredd yn disgyn i 4 selsiws.

 

[Spins]

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 I'm aware this isn't what NIST said, here is the sequence of events (outlined by NIST) that lead to the collapse WTC 1 & 2...

In WTC 1, the aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and insulation. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where insulation was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

In WTC 2, the aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in the southeast corner of the core. The floor damage and the subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors and local floor/wall disconnections, and resulted in bowing and buckling of the east wall. The damage to the core columns and fire-induced high temperatures resulted in local redistribution to the remaining core columns in the southeast corner, which redistributed the core column loads to the east and the south wall columns, as the core leaned toward the south and east. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the east wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent north and south walls. Global collapse occurred when the potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

The results of the global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which progressed horizontally to adjacent walls.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf

 

[Spins]

O. K lets pretend your interested. How about estimates on the force of the mass of the tower collapsing. It seems general estimates on this would be simple enough. You could even measure it with the claim of instant acceleration at all points along the horizontal axis at the 94th floor. In other words like an energy beam cut through the whole thing simultaneously.

How about...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2194188#post2194188

...or even better...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2195537#post2195537

...or maybe ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2079284#post2079284

...?

 

[Spins]

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.

NB do you think all 200 technical experts who worked on the WTC investigation at NIST are lying? If not why have they come to the conclusions they have after such a thorough 3 year investigation?

Public Outreach

During the course of this Investigation, NIST held public briefings and meetings (listed in Table P–2) to solicit input from the public, present preliminary findings, and obtain comments on the direction and progress of the Investigation from the public and the Advisory Committee. NIST maintained a publicly accessible Web site during this Investigation at http://wtc.nist.gov. The site contained extensive information on the background and progress of the Investigation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf page xxviii

 

[The Doc]

And from the FAQ

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It almost seems as if NB wants an over-simplified explanation so that he can flaunt his "superior intellect" by pointing out "flaws" in said over-simplification.

 

[Architect]

Of course the reason the explanation is not simple is that the underlying mechancis of the collapse are very far from simple.

It worries me that NB thinks he has a right to have everything reduced to the lowest common denominator. Although I do find his comment about "Government of the people, for the people" highly amusing as it seems to completely overlook the fact that the UK is a democracy too.

 

[JonnyFive]

Jonny- I don't even read them anymore, so don't waste both of our's time. Though, I think I am about ready to move onto some of the other collapse stuff, and this would include the plane alone Vs demolition comparison. But I want to take that to a new thread

So you haven't read any of the reports on the collapse, or any of our summaries on the collapse, or any of the other information available on 9/11 that doesn't agree with your weird conspiracy views. Good, I'm glad we were able to clear that up.

Why does it have to include a comparison? That's just silly, and that you would even ask for it only highlights your lack of knowledge in the basic procedures of evidence-based reasoning. Both individual theories can be evaluated in light of the evidence available for them.

We have reams upon reams of evidence (literally) supporting the idea that a massive plane impact plus intense fire damage to the remaining structural steel caused an initial failure that, given the structural design of the building, quickly progressed into an unstoppable failure of massive proportions. This is confirmed by structural engineers and demolitions experts worldwide.

You have nothing. You haven't provided or linked to one piece of direct evidence. The best the CTists have brought is vague insinuation that something isn't right.

If that were good enough for us here, we'd all be shelling out thousands of dollars to get our authentic Sylvia Browne readings. Sorry, this board demands more substance and less bull crap.

You just seem to want some BS "debate" where we're all cowed by your amazing linguistic gymnastics and convert to your stupid, baseless theory. I would strongly suggest you head over to the Loose Change boards with that kind of attitude, I believe you'd feel right at home.

 

[JonnyFive]

It worries me that NB thinks he has a right to have everything reduced to the lowest common denominator. Although I do find his comment about "Government of the people, for the people" highly amusing as it seems to completely overlook the fact that the UK is a democracy too.

That's weird, I always thought you were some kind of dictatorship ruled by giant potatoes.