Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

Nope, here your first degree is your undergraduate degree than all future work is postgraduate. You can be a graduate (obviously) but the term "graduate degree" would make absolutely no sense.

So and Masters or PhD student would always be a postgrad.



Just to confuse matters, it's very rare for any postgraduate degree to ever be a Bachelors so the few that are (such as architecture) as always specified as a post-graduate Bachelors Degree, i.e. I hold a BSc in Architectural Studies and a postgraduate Bachelor of Architecture.

Weirdly enough Oxford University philosophy department seem to use the terms pretty interchangeably:

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/admissions/gradintro.shtml

Their masters-equivalent degree being a BPhil, just to confuse things.

But there again, Oxford will give all their BA graduates an MA if they pay an extra fee something like a year later.
 
Quite a few bachelors degrees can be upgraded to (say) an MEng or MSc for the sake of an extra semester or two of study. I'm not up to speed on the tuition fees so arising, esp. as Scotland will be quite different to Englandshire.
 
2-1 says what he has turns out to be the American equivalent of an HNC.


Not that I've anything against HNCs.
i dont think we have a equivilent, seems like an HNC is essentially a 1-year degree

we have 2-year degrees though (associates degree here, probably HND to you folks) and if you go to a 2 year college you can "graduate" with one, lol
 
HNC = Higher National Certificate

HND = Higher National Diploma


Generally speaking University courses doll out degrees, and lesser (that'll cause a fight) hand out diplomas (or their like). Colleges can't really offer degrees.

In England and Wales degrees are a 3 year full time course, in Scotland they last 4 (cos they're harder!).
 
could just be a difference in how NB is using the term, i cant find his post, but is it possible hes simply saying he graduated with this degree? in which case it could be a BA, or even associates (depending on what school he went to, lol)

An excerpt from one of NBs more condescending posts:

The have graduate degree in philosophy, and have continued post graduate work since, but I do not try to hang my haton my education to the degree that it excludes conversation with others. The point has been all along that expertise is a good thing, but in rules of evidenciary procedure that expert opinion must be able to show the rest of us something. Even your revised testimony is useless in this regard. you know that is what that damned jury thing is all about. You have to make them understand.

The political dimension couldn't be more obvious, but since you probably don't evben know who Habermas is I really don't think you can understand Arch.

So I modify my guess to a Masters with an abandoned Doctorate.

If anybody is curious:

In general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Habermas
http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm

Possible ways in which Non-Believer sees expert testimony as suspect and anti-democratic:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justification-public/
 
Quite a few bachelors degrees can be upgraded to (say) an MEng or MSc for the sake of an extra semester or two of study. I'm not up to speed on the tuition fees so arising, esp. as Scotland will be quite different to Englandshire.

Yes but the Oxford version is no study, you just have to pay a fee and go back to your college for you "graduation".
 
HNC = Higher National Certificate

HND = Higher National Diploma


Generally speaking University courses doll out degrees, and lesser (that'll cause a fight) hand out diplomas (or their like). Colleges can't really offer degrees.

In England and Wales degrees are a 3 year full time course, in Scotland they last 4 (cos they're harder!).

In Canada, Universities usually offer 4-year "degrees". There may be 3-year degress, but they are fairly rare, I think. "Diplomas" are usually from Colleges, which I think US calls "Community Colleges", and they can be several different lengths depending on subjects, usually 1, 2 or 3 years. Colleges are usually more "practical" studies, whereas universities are scholarly. It gets confusing in that a lot of Universities are made up of "Colleges", but they use the word differently, except when it's a specialty school, like the Ontario Veterinary College, that's part of the University of Guelph.

Has that confused the issue sufficiently?
 
HNC = Higher National Certificate

HND = Higher National Diploma


Generally speaking University courses doll out degrees, and lesser (that'll cause a fight) hand out diplomas (or their like). Colleges can't really offer degrees.

In England and Wales degrees are a 3 year full time course, in Scotland they last 4 (cos they're harder!).
here we have Associates Degrees, Bachelors, Masters and Doctorates

Associates are 2 year degrees (usually only awarded by 2 year colleges)

Bachelors are 4 year degrees (awarded by 4 year universities)

Masters can usualy be had with an extra year of full-time study after a Bachelors (part-timing it takes longer of course)

and of course Doctorates can take quite a long time

also, Associates and Bachelors arent exclusively 2 or 4 years, its based on how many classes you take, ive known people to who got a BA in 2 and a half years, and someone who took 5 years for an AA, lol


i would want to say NB has a Bachelors with some Masters work done, but i could be wrong
 
I would view that as a good thing!


Anyway, is it not at least partly the case that we automatically do honours degrees but you chaps do a lot more ordinary degrees, hence the difference.



Oh-oh. Are we going to have to explain the difference between the two now?
 
While we await NB's response, a quick diversion back in the general direction of the OP. It seems to me that Jesse Colton also saw the first plane hit, live on television. Who is Jesse Colton? This is Jesse Colton:



Jesse Colton said:
Ignorance is bliss. Ever hear that?

Growing up as a kid that statement could never be truer. In my youth, responsibilities seemed non-existent and the only thing that mattered was what my friends and I were going to do for fun next. Growing up in Oneonta N.Y, I was into hiking, skateboarding, and the occasional leap off a waterfall.

I attended Center St. Elementary school until 7th grade, where I was then
enrolled in Oneonta middle school. After a couple years there, I was then off to Oneonta High School.

On September 11th, 2001 I was on my way back from Richmond Virginia, where I had dropped off a friend. Heading north on Interstate 95 I decided to drive through New York City seeing how I have never been there before. It was about six in the morning, and the city was pretty calm. I looked around and took in the skyline as if it were a fine wine.

I reached my home in Oneonta where my father had the day off of work. I walked in the front door and my dad asks, “where were you for the past couple of days?”

He reaches for the remote and turns on the television. “We're under attack.” He says. I watched a plane fly right into the north tower.

At that moment I was head over heels with getting who ever was responsible for these actions and getting to the root of the problem. I watched the North tower collapse and at that very moment I knew something wasn’t right. The time the towers fell, the way they fell, something in my mind just didn’t add up.

Having known Dylan at the time, he pitched me an idea of a fictional story about three kids who start to dig deep into the events of 911, and further come to the conclusion that 911 was indeed an inside job.

The rest is history.
http://www.loosechange911.com/company.htm
 
NB has run away, I fear, and it will be a long time before we get a meaningful response.
 
Yup, I think we can definitely conclude that NB has been defeated and run away. :)
 
Bye, Non Believer, we'll miss you and your disjointed, incoherent, evasive style of posting.
 
Running away is clearly a good option, but not quite yet. When asking for proof of pre 9-11 statements regarding the vulnerability of the towers to explosives, I am asking for verifiable objective statements that can be refrenced, not just your statements that they exist. But virtually all your proof is you saying that you believe it to be. I never saw your response to Skilling and Demartini, but we know its either they were misquoted, or they didn't understand. The ostensible facts are very much against you in this, and you really learn that your opinions are worthless without references to objective scientific literature. As for your lingering questions that I have supposedly refused to answer, put up or shut up.
 
NB

Apologies; we thought you ran away but you were clearly just lurking.

Does this mean that you are going to respond to any of the technical points put to you, or just whitter on about philosophy and how you "know" Bush did it because he's a bad egg?
 
Running away is clearly a good option, but not quite yet. When asking for proof of pre 9-11 statements regarding the vulnerability of the towers to explosives, I am asking for verifiable objective statements that can be refrenced, not just your statements that they exist. But virtually all your proof is you saying that you believe it to be. I never saw your response to Skilling and Demartini, but we know its either they were misquoted, or they didn't understand. The ostensible facts are very much against you in this, and you really learn that your opinions are worthless without references to objective scientific literature. As for your lingering questions that I have supposedly refused to answer, put up or shut up.

Welcome back.

Now, could you please provide evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives, or whatever it is you currently believe brought them down.

Either write yourself, or provide a link to:

1)Calculations addressing the physical aspects of the collapse, addressing your particular theory.

2)Structural analysis addressing your theory.

If you're going to claim there's no way the official theory could work, then please provide

3)Calculations and structural analysis showing that the towers could never have collapsed as the NIST claims they did.

Please address the physical aspects (kinetic and potential energy, structural elements, gravity, sequence of collapse) first. If you can establish that it is theoretically possible, given the particular variables observed, to have been caused by explosives, then please move to the technical aspects of the problem (amount of explosives, positioning, detonation, protection from plane impact/fire, placement of explosives).

Also, please address some of the inconsistencies with the demolitions theory (lack of noises consistent with known demolitions, technical difficulty of placing massive amounts of explosive in a short time, visible bowing of external supports immediately before collapse, limited heat resistance of explosives, lack of support for this theory by demolitions experts) as well.

Remember, you are making a positive claim (it was controlled demolitions), and need to provide evidence for this theory. If the evidence we have provided (as compiled by the NIST) is not enough to convince you your theory is incorrect, that's wonderful, but that does not make you right by default. You still need to provide evidence for your position.

Due to the nature of this problem, that evidence will be technical in nature. If you are incapable of dealing in technical evidence, please find someone else or their work who can.
 
somewhere in there they need to collect incredibly detailed information regarding the persons family, including but not limited to alternate phone numbers to reach loved ones at, ability to recognize family members by voice, and information regarding location, contents, and combination to a locked safe

Well, that's clearly technically possible. While it's clearly quite impossible to have any kind of telephone communication with a plane. Even though such communication has actually taken place.

It's part of the way CT thinking works. Eliminate the possible, however probable, and whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth.
 

Back
Top Bottom