Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
How likely? Would you have said the same thing before it actually collapsed? I think you are doing the same thing here that C7 does: Argue with the help of hindsight.
Click to expand...

Had I been there and able to get a good look at it? There isn't any doubt in my mind that I would have thought there would be at least a partial collapse. Remember, I was a structural engineer. I also had some background study in structural forensics, which was an area of particular interest to me, and probably one of the reasons I find the subjects of the collapses so interesting.
 
Please connect the logical dots between "GWB didn't respond in a very authoritative and in-charge manner." and "GWB orchestrated (or knowingly went along with) the worst terrorist attack in American history."
 
It's taking relatively long for a response. They must be in contact with the their command center, the mother ship. Or it's Friday afternoon.
 
Incidentally, I suspect another word RedIbis may not understand is "juxtaposition". Here's one I find entertaining.

RedIbis said:
You favor partisan hackery above all else.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
I tend to agree with Dave, although I think he's diminishing what Bush coulda woulda shoulda done.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
You know what guys, I’m going to concede defeat on this one. I realize I was wrong to think that upon hearing confirmation that the nation is now under attack, the best course of action was not to sit dumbstruck and blindly gaze into a schoolroom of children and other citizens. After all, what could he do for the 8 minutes he sat there? He’s only the Commander-in- Chief, sworn to make decisions based on the advice of his principal officers, in defense of the US and decisions of war. And I should certainly forgive the president for doing absolutely nothing. Maybe he just wanted to find out if the little girl was going to keep her pet goat. It’s not like he could have immediately been in touch with the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who unfortunately, was unavailable in a closed door tea party. It’s not like he could have calmly and politely excused himself, while the area was secured, so that the school would not become a target. (Granted, the school was probably fine, even if the Pentagon had not gotten hit yet). It's not like he could have been mobilized, or any number of possible options, all within 8 minutes. Which is after all, a very short amount of time. It’s not as if the difference between success and failure on 9/11 was based on seconds, and not minutes.
Click to expand...

So RedIbis starts by accusing me of partisan hackery, then admits that he actually agrees with me up to a point, then goes on to make up a strawman debunker stance that nobody's actually proposed so he can attack it. But apparently I'm the one who favours partisan hackery above all else, even though I'm not the one who misrepresents my opponents' position to de-emphasise the fact that, in part, I agree with them.

:i:

Dave
 
sylvan8798 said:
I don't know who they consulted, or what they calculated or said, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that an engineer could do some seat-of-the-pants calculations and offer a prediction. As I said earlier, it is likely the building would have suffered a catastrophic failure due to the damage sooner or later if the fire hadn't gotten it first. Your lack of knowledge in matters of structural engineering does not put you in a very credible position.
Click to expand...
Stop the presses! Hold the phones! The greatest scoop the world has ever seen!! ENGINEER DOES WHAT ENGINEERS DO!

This has been explained to C7 a dozen times but it won't sink into his skull. Engineers are called on to predict stuff in their given field and they will make a judgement call based on their experience and the matter at hand. Just as you would ask a carpenter how long it would take a chippy to knock up a wooden window frame rather than a heart surgeon. He still won't get it because he needs the engineer to be a sooper sekrit agent who was in on the plot, hence the scare quotes.

I've already explained to him that most engineers will also err on the side of caution when making these predictions - kind of covers our rears a bit.
 
King of the Americas said:
So doing NOTHING is 'better' than excusing yourself so that you could be in a position to do SOMETHING...???

I think that defending President Bush's inaction is as stupid as he looked doing NOTHING while we were under attack.

That said I don't consider myself a "truther". I find that the government utterly and completely FAILED in its primary duty to protect citizens from a foreign attack, and those failures were numerous.

To propose that the President did the 'right' thing is to hold our Commander in Chief to the LOWEST level of competence I've ever seen or heard of. When someone tells you that your country is under attack, you MOVE to defend it.

Reading a goat book is NOT part of your job description, while we are under attack...IF YOU ARE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Click to expand...

Have you seen my post #7326? In it, I asked everyone, but specifically you, on what information Bush could have made decisions.
I also raised the issue of time that is required to gather, evaluate, filter and present information.

The additional time needed to organize a safe and orderly way out for the President has been mentioned by others (when your nation is under attack, it is not smart to rush the President out onto the street; you first want to double-check for booby traps, snipers and the like)
 
sylvan8798 said:
Had I been there and able to get a good look at it? There isn't any doubt in my mind that I would have thought there would be at least a partial collapse. Remember, I was a structural engineer. I also had some background study in structural forensics, which was an area of particular interest to me, and probably one of the reasons I find the subjects of the collapses so interesting.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I guess "a partial collapse" can be a lot of things, not all of them catastrophic. You talked about a "catastrophic" collapse earlier, when I quoted you, and I am no so sure this was a sure thing.

(Still, as I said, the decision by the FDNY to abandon WTC7 because of significant risk and insignificant priority was excellent)
 
King of the Americas said:
ANY communication device that would have connected him to an information center...

A cell phone, a room filled TV's, Marine One, the car he arrived in...ANYWHERE but disconnected from the events talking to kids about a goat.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll say it a little slower so maybe you can comprehend it.

They....his advisors and staff....were busy setting up....a room in the school...with televisions and phones....so that he could get in touch....with those that he needed to be....

The secret service....would not allow....him to move irrationally....at a time when the country....is under attack....for fear that he....would be a....prime target.

Understand yet? Did you read my post I've referred to 4 times now describing where he was in relation to the closest command center? You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

bush-booker-media-ctr-9-11.jpg


Booker1.jpg


Booker3.jpg
 
That room is not nearly Presidential enough. He should have had a more Oval room.....

(I'll bet he doesn't know that the President MUST DO what he's told by the secret service)

THEY boss HIM around.
 
Oystein said:
Hmm. I guess "a partial collapse" can be a lot of things, not all of them catastrophic. You talked about a "catastrophic" collapse earlier, when I quoted you, and I am no so sure this was a sure thing.

(Still, as I said, the decision by the FDNY to abandon WTC7 because of significant risk and insignificant priority was excellent)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have used that term both times, but I would definitely have considered it likely that there would be a catastrophic collapse, either part or all of the building. Engineers have a slightly different use of that term than you may be thinking. PARTS of the structure already HAD catastrophic failure in that they were no longer even there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom