Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[maccy]

It's my opinion, as the holder of a BA in English and Philosophy, that Non-Believer is yet to make a coherent philosophical statement here. I'm only stating my degree because NB's tactic is avoid talking about evidence and then to make an incredibly vague statement, drop a few names and claim that nobody here is qualified to understand what he's talking about.

Well, Non-Believer, I'm sufficiently qualified; so, if your willing, feel free to expand upon the philosophical and political problems of the NIST report as it is currently worded - and of the scope of its investigations.

Please bear in mind the following points:

1. in order to establish something scientifically, you do not necessarily have to experimentally replicate everything from first principles, you build on the foundations of earlier scientific work

2. these scientific foundations make it self-evident that the dynamic loads created by the tops of the buildings falling several stories onto the lower part of the buildings (which is weakened by no longer being connected to the hat truss at the top of the building*) will be far greater than the static loads applied by the top section of a fully intact building (and also that impact of the top section of the building will almost certainly push the columns sideways, causing a shear stress that will be beyond the design specifications)

3. as far as testible hypotheses go, the structures involved are huge and the events extremely complex - so it is not possible to replicate the collapse in an experimental procedure; in much the same way as investigating evolution or the big bang, scientists have to work from the remaining evidence of the event and the general principles that have been derived from many other experiments, building models where this is useful - we can't do it again to prove how it happened

4. although the complexity of the world and of science means there is a democratic issue with the quality of the general populace's understanding of technical issues, it is not actually possible to make the world any simpler

5. however, technical knowledge is not controlled by the government and there are numerous resources that people can use to educated themselves to necessary standard to understand the NIST report and other technical issues

6. furthermore, there is a world scientific community of professionals and publications that have reviewed the Report, this community is also not controlled by a single government; in addition, the world's media employs science correspondents who are well qualified to understand and explain technical matters; lastly, there are plenty of people in the world who have been educated to a sufficient level to understand the report

7. given the extraordinary degree of consensus among the huge number of people described in point 6, it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to challenge the validity of the report to produce a convincing technical argument that will change the consensus - it's no use saying the report is wrong if you can't say why its wrong

8. even if it is possible to establish a flaw NISTs findings, this is not proof of a controlled demolition - such proof would require evidence of its own

9. in the absence of his calculations, we cannot take Skillings' opinion of the strength of the building over the opinions of others and (most importantly) the evidence and calculations of the NIST report.


*for a crude analogy for the hat truss: take a box with a lid and stand on it, then take the lid off and stand on it again (you'll have to balance on the top edges of its sides) - was it more able to take your weight with or without the lid?

 

[Indolent Wretch]

The structure is built at every floor to hold the weight above and then some. All we have with collapsing floors is some additional acceleration and lateral displacement, so why is it a given that a floor that was built to hold the weight above it suddenly has no chance. Plus if it such an easy calculation why not do it.

I on page 4 of 12 of this train wreck so I really shouldn't respond to this. Apologies if I get stuff wrong whilst I'm on tilt.

Yes, the structure, the load bearing structure is built to hold the weight above plus a contigency. This is obvious.

The floor, e.g. The bit people and desks sit on, is built to hold a reasonable load with a generous safety margin.

In the case of the World Trade the floor trusses that supported the floor also provided some horizontal stability to the external load bearing structure.


Now play through in your mind what happens when the trusses start failing.

 

[Horatius]

That´s true but on the other hand, and this is what
i don´t like on both sides of the discussion, if some-
one new with a different opinion comes here, he gets
bombed with questions/attacks from all sides.

A big part of the blame for that rests on them, though. If any of them actually posted their different opinion in a coherent manner, and were wiling to back it up with facts and evidence, the pile on would be a lot less overwhelming, I think.

For instance, if NB was actually posting a well-thought out response to anything that Architect had posted, I'd expect most of us would be letting Arch take the lead in the discussion, as he's clearly the best qualified. But since NB is just posting a bunch of carp, dodging and weaving trying to avoid getting pinned down on any topic, the rest of us have decided he's fair game. No need to bother Architect with this, as any of us can debunk him, from any of a dozen viewpoints.

It also doesn't help that none of them will stick to a topic. If they did, there'd also be a lot less "pile on". When someone throws out a "wall of text" post that hits physics, structures, economics, photo interpretation, CD, explosives, thermate, and FDRs, he gets hit by all of the people who have any interest in any of those topics. If they stuck to one, so would we.

So, any lurking twoofers out there- take this to heart. Stick to a topic, and be ready to discuss it seriously. That'll save you a lot of grief.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Translation...............

I really don't care what anybody says because I am super intelligent and mundane things such as facts, evidence, science and other boring things like that don't mean much to me, cos I am so clever.
The fact that I have not got a Scooby what I am talking about is beside the point.

It seems that since philosophers can suggest that everything is an illusion that obviously means their field of study is far more important than any base, physical science. This is a common trait amongst their ilk.

I'll be interested in seeing the result when he gets a Nietzschien to design his new house.

 

[maccy]

It seems that since philosophers can suggest that everything is an illusion that obviously means their field of study is far more important than any base, physical science. This is a common trait amongst their ilk.

I'll be interested in seeing the result when he gets a Nietzschien to design his new house.

I think you'll find that very few philosophers state that everything is an illusion. Science also owes a lot to philosophy, historically.

Please don't mistake Non Believer for a philosopher.

Also, I would guess that most philosophers and students of philosophy hold experts in other areas in suitably high esteem.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

When asking for proof of pre 9-11 statements regarding the vulnerability of the towers to explosives

This is possibly the most ridiculous request for anything I have ever seen anyone make.

While someone is there could they pull up the specific warnings about the towers vulnerability to being struck by a comet. If those warnings don't exist it must be because the towers are comet proof.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

I think you'll find that very few philosophers state that everything is an illusion. Science also owes a lot to philosophy, historically.

Please don't mistake Non Believer for a philosopher.

I was merely exaggerating his attitude.... in fact no I wasn't I was probably downplaying it.

And no I haven't mistaken him for a philosopher, he claims to be a student of philosophy. There's clearly a big difference.

The real philosophers are hopefully wondering what in the human condition causes one group of people to kill themselves and 3000 others by turning a passenger jet into a missile. The joke ones like NB are just putting their hands on their hips and proclaiming that clearly the collapse is impossible and that all the engineers in world should hurry up and find what they did wrong! After all, if it isn't philosophy it can't be difficult.

 

[Non Believer]

Maacy- You show signs of intelligence. What are you doing here?

The only major disagreement we have is that you feel there is ample evidence to support global collapse. You mention the hat truss stuff that we have seen here many times, but why doesn't NIST mention that? And you even mention it is not necessarily proof, but it is the best we have.

You mention that science can be built on the foundations of previous work, and I agree. But do you think it is unreasonable to ask for the evidence that these foundations exist? Do you believe it unreasonable to think that all science can be delineated in a gradient manner to students? Do you believe it reasonable to claim a hypothesis to be certain and inexplicable at the same time? Did you take epistemology? I would think it is required, but maybe you are trying to forget.
As for the rest of you. I am not saying that nothing can be claimed with degrees of certainty, but I am saying there is more than one avenue to explore in getting there. Calculus serves as an example because you can have a conceptual understanding, as well as, the applicable computational understanding. These are two different frameworks that describe the same phenomenon. Any coherent questions?

From Mr D -
Heck, I'd be satisfied with an explaination of how "nuance" changes inertia, gravity, kinematics, materials properties, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, the standard model of quantum mechanics, aerodynamics, finite element analysis, computer/information theory, nonlinear dynamics, or mathematics.

Wow all this sounds great. Where have you applied any of it in the question of global colalpse?

 

[JimBenArm]

Wow all this sounds great. Where have you applied any of it in the question of global colalpse?

The globe is going to collapse? Have you alerted the media? Have you no shame? Wait, I know the answer to the last one.

 

[Skibum]

You mention the hat truss stuff that we have seen here many times, but why doesn't NIST mention that? And you even mention it is not necessarily proof, but it is the best we have.

Why doesn't NIST mention that? I'm pretty certain they do, if you would actually read the report you would know that.

ETA- IN fact in NIST NCSTAR1-1 alone there are 26 hits to a keyword search of hat truss, I won't bother searching the other documents as I am certain there are other mentions of the hat trusses there as well.

 

[JonnyFive]

(more useless, useless words)

Are you ready to provide evidence to support your theories yet?

As I've mentioned to various people before, whether or not you believe the evidence in favor of the "official story" is completely beside the point. The point is that you have not presented any evidence for your version of events. We have a detailed analysis of the collapse, supported by testimony of engineers, demolitions experts, and architects. We have videographic and photographic evidence showing exactly what one would expect, given the physics of the collapse. We have seen no signs of controlled demolitions at all, including the characteristic noises associated with them.

You've brought absolutely nothing to the table other than your verbose, paragraph-less postings about nothing in particular.

You're not convinced by the existing evidence for the official story, no one cares. That does not make you right by default.

Let's cut the crap and get to the evidence. You made claims, provide proof. If you don't have evidence, go away.

 

[JimBenArm]

Are you ready to provide evidence to support your theories yet?

As I've mentioned to various people before, whether or not you believe the evidence in favor of the "official story" is completely beside the point. The point is that you have not presented any evidence for your version of events. We have a detailed analysis of the collapse, supported by testimony of engineers, demolitions experts, and architects. We have videographic and photographic evidence showing exactly what one would expect, given the physics of the collapse. We have seen no signs of controlled demolitions at all, including the characteristic noises associated with them.

You've brought absolutely nothing to the table other than your verbose, paragraph-less postings about nothing in particular.

You're not convinced by the existing evidence for the official story, no one cares. That does not make you right by default.

Let's cut the crap and get to the evidence. You made claims, provide proof. If you don't have evidence, go away.

If verbosity could convince us, we'd all believe there was a concrete core!

 

[Horatius]

Calculus serves as an example because you can have a conceptual understanding, as well as, the applicable computational understanding. These are two different frameworks that describe the same phenomenon. Any coherent questions?

Yes, there is a coherent question. It's the same one you've been avoiding. "Can you, and will you, provide a description of your "conceptual understanding" of calculas that is of the level you expect us to provide a description of the collapse?"

Fairly coherent, no?

You allege there's some level of understanding between "Building fall down and go boom" and a complete detailed engineering analysis of the collapse, that you believe would allow you evaluate the accuracy of the complete explanation, without having to understand every detail of that explanation. You've also indicated that all of the attempts at providing such a level of explanation have fallen short of your expectations or needs.

All we want is an example from you. What sort of level of detail do you require? You can't expect us (and by "us", I of course mean Architect) to keep banging out explanations, in hopes that this one might hit your "sweet spot of understanding". Give us an example, oh exalted philosopher, since we benighted mortals clearly cannot determine your needs. Place your goal posts, and then we'll take a kick at it, or admit it can't be done.

But don't expect us to go running off in all directions trying to hit a moving target.

So put up or shut up, dude.

 

[Eternal Gaijin]

When your trying claim Bush did it, gramatical mistakes are meaningless.

I saw a plane hit the tower = I was watching the tower at the same time a plane hit it. The use of two simple past verbs indicates the simultaneous nature of the actions.
I saw a plane had hit the tower = I saw news about the plane hitting the tower earlier than the news I was watching. The use of the past perfect (had hit) indicates that this action occurred earlier than the simple past verb.
Not to be too grammar wonk about it.
The simple fact is that most likely Bush has seen the footage so often that he's convinced himself that he saw the news as it happened. Memory is a fluid enough thing that people can edit their memories to be the way they want them to be rather than the way that actually occurred.
There's no shortage of people who were nowhere near a TV when Kennedy was shot who remeber watching the news announcements.
I suspect that Bush remembers 9/11 the way he does through simple repetition.

 

[volatile]

Also I am willing at some point to debate demolition vs airplane alone, but the first order of buisness in proving a scientific hypothesis, is to check how that hypothesis stands up against scientific scruitny.

You mean like the NIST report? That report which discusses its hypothesis and shows, in excruciating detail, how that hypothesis was reached?

This is the job of the official story supporters to do first.

OK, we did that. Read the NIST report.

If at that point your theory is not sound, then it can be compared to others. Don't try to run away from proving your position because you are anxious to disprove others.

What exactly in that huge report "is not sound"? Show us where there's a specific flaw in the NIST report and then we'll talk.

 

[JonnyFive]

If verbosity could convince us, we'd all believe there was a concrete core!

With C4-coated rebar, no less.

It's almost like the CTists believe they can use language as a cudgel to bludgeon us into agreeing with them.

 

[Horatius]

If verbosity could convince us, we'd all believe there was a concrete core!

You mean we don't? I think my hand book has a misprint....

 

[JimBenArm]

You mean we don't? I think my hand book has a misprint....

Oh, wait. I misplaced the update. You're right, concrete core, C-4, carry on.

 

[Horatius]

With C4-coated rebar, no less.

It's almost like the CTists believe they can use language as a cudgel to bludgeon us into agreeing with them.

And yet, so many of them use languge so badly! It's like being attacked by a 13-year old who just bought nunchucks. He hits himself more often than his target.

 

[maccy]

Maacy- You show signs of intelligence. What are you doing here?

The only major disagreement we have is that you feel there is ample evidence to support global collapse. You mention the hat truss stuff that we have seen here many times, but why doesn't NIST mention that? And you even mention it is not necessarily proof, but it is the best we have.

You mention that science can be built on the foundations of previous work, and I agree. But do you think it is unreasonable to ask for the evidence that these foundations exist? Do you believe it unreasonable to think that all science can be delineated in a gradient manner to students? Do you believe it reasonable to claim a hypothesis to be certain and inexplicable at the same time? Did you take epistemology? I would think it is required, but maybe you are trying to forget.

OK I'm going to spend some time looking over the NIST report and Dr Greening's collapse model in an attempt to give a comprehensive answer to this. So I won't reply for a while.

Edited to add: I'm doing this as a personal project, not because I think your case has any merit.

Some stuff to consider in the meantime:

1. do you agree that NIST successfully determined the cause of the collapse initiation?

2. we know the building experienced a global collapse, if this didn't proceed from the collapse initiation what did it proceed from? What evidence is there another (supplementary) cause of global collapse?