Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Architect]

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,

Culbable misquotes; the last resort of the CtER.

Let's be quite clear: you do not disagree with the NIST findings but you believe that it is NIST's job to explain the collapse in a way that people such as you, with absolutely no understanding of structural or fire engineering can follow.

Now as you claim to have a degree, you would be aware that university level study is a long and complex process. Architecture takes 5 years. Structural engineering normally takes 5. Fire engineering 4. Then we have the compulsory practical training on top of that.

So tell me then. Do you really believe that NIST are meant to compress all this highly technical education into an idiot-proof report that anybody can read? What size do you think this report will be?!

I put it to you, NB, that you are a fraud. Contrary to your claims, you show no evidence of the understanding and background knowledge required for any university degree. Your basic claim, that the NIST report is deffcient, is ludicrous. You have failed to provide any substantive technical concerns regarding the accepted collapse hypothesis. When pressed, you resort to philosophical babble of doubtful provenance.

In short, you are wasting out time with worthless trolling and doing little more than displaying your own ignorance.

Put up, or shut up.



because that is ludicrous; do you demand that your doctor explains anatomy every time you get a diagnosis? Do you ask your solicitor to run through caselaw when you buy a house

 

[Non Believer]

OK , there not endangered, there extinct.

 

[beachnut]

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.

There is not a thing hidden! News stories and we saw it happen.

9/11 was all seen by us. Either CTers are blind or just dumb as dirt. They just talk the talk of truth. Mean while countless studies on 9/11 past them by. No truth CTer nut case seek out the most idiotic people and ideas to make up the most fantasy crap to believe.

CTers must not vote since they are too young, too stupid, or just using to many drugs to register. Maybe they do not what to do jury duty! What ever CTers are not but a few idiots ignoring the facts making up the "truth".

How bizarre, how ironic, how stupid can the truth movement be?

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Most people argue against basic physics for a while longer before retreating into a nebulous muddle of quasi-patriotism. You're jumping the gun, man! Read some of the other threads and learn from pros like 28BrainCells and StainRemover.

 

[JimBenArm]

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.

Oh, dear.
They didn't hide anything. The fact you're too dense to understand it is not NIST's fault, and doesn't make them dictatorial.
Just makes you slow.

Sorry!

 

[Mr.D]

OK , there not endangered, there extinct.

Congratulations on demonstrating that we may add both english and spelling to the ever increasing list of subjects with which you are not even a knowledgeable novice.

Which US Government agency is required by "democracy" to dumb down what contractions and homonyms are for you? I'd hate to be accused of conspiring to hide that information from you.

 

[Architect]

Duplicate post

 

[Architect]

NB

I assume you are incapable of responding and conceed defeat.



Everyone else:

Apologies for that weird errant sentence at the end of the post. Dunno what happened there, blame it on the meds.

 

[Architect]

Hmm. Still no response. A definite climbdown by our non-believing friend.

 

[Non Believer]

I guess you guys are not capable of anything more than ad hominem attacks, and opinions on things no one can verify. You have absolutely nothing on this issue. Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?
At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, or what the likelihood of a progressive collapse breaking the truss joints and causing a pancake collapse might be. Yes, someday we may have even graduated to considering whether the near free fall speed of the collapse was consistent with the resistance offered by the lower part of the structure. But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."
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.
Not surprising that you never touched the objectivity thing. Are you guys above such considerations? Do you not believe that people with equal amounts of education in subjects can reach completely different conclusions based on personal prejudice. The pre war intelligence seems like a perfect example. Those who believed in the necessity of regime change believed Iraq possessed weapons, those who didn't see the necessity of regime change tended to doubt the so called proof. And of course this was a prime case for the experts being wrong as well.
This also brings us back to the jury selection process. One would assume that in our metaphorical trial that witnesses with strong political feelings might be considered prejudiced. I have admitted my prejudice, how about yours? Any borderline imperialist tendencies lurking out there?

 

[Horatius]

At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, ... But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."

Actually, my answer to that would be, read Dr. Greening's paper. Too bad for you, he hasn't dumbed it down enough for you to understand it.

How can we have a serious discussion with you, if you refuse to put in the time and effort needed to understand even the basics of what we're discussing?

And I'm still waiting for the "real" description of calculus you promised. Remember, it has to be complete enough for some to actually use it to analyse a real example of calculus in action.

 

[Mr.D]

I guess you guys are not capable of anything more than ad hominem attacks, and opinions on things no one can verify. You have absolutely nothing on this issue. Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?

What jury?

You haven't put together a coherent enough argument for a further investigation, warrant or subpoena, nevermind a grand jury or trial.

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.

Fine. I'll play for a bit. Let's pretend you're (not "YOUR" - geeez, how hard is it to get even that right?) actually using the vocabulary in a way that makes sense and calculate the kinetic energy of the top 16 floors after falling a distance of 1 floor.

We'll use the approximate values that Bell posted in another thread.

WTC height: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)
WTC width: 208 feet (63.4 m)
WTC weight: 500.000 ton

PE = mgh

So to a first approximation ...

PE =~ (500000 tons / 110 floors) * 16 floors * (1000 kg / ton) * (9.8 m / s^2) * 1 floor * (1368 ft / 110 floors) * (1 m / 3.28 ft)
PE =~ 2906000000 (kg m^2 / s^2)

Keeping in mind this is a lower bound because we've left out the additional mass of office supplies, equipment and tragically, victims.

Now, 28th. Using "political theory," and a different "framework," 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 remember to apply your own standards of evidence and make it understandable to a jury.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?

Jury? What jury? Oh, wait... You're trying to be the jury, aren't you?

 

[beachnut]

At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, or what the likelihood of a progressive collapse breaking the truss joints and causing a pancake collapse might be. Yes, someday we may have even graduated to considering whether the near free fall speed of the collapse was consistent with the resistance offered by the lower part of the structure. But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."
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.

So you are wanting to vote on 9/11 instead of learning physics.

You are math challenged? The numbers have been done by many. Use some of that top notch research and find the stuff you need to understand 9/11. You have to do it youself.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Starting pg 285 of the document, pg 367 of the pdf

 

[Architect]

Oh NB

[sigh]

you do seem to be having some problems in the face of (say) technical evidence, eh?

 

[aggle-rithm]

At this point there seems to be no point in asking you guys any questions, or requesting evidence, since you have none. Imagine if we discussed how much force it takes to pulverize concrete, or what the likelihood of a progressive collapse breaking the truss joints and causing a pancake collapse might be. Yes, someday we may have even graduated to considering whether the near free fall speed of the collapse was consistent with the resistance offered by the lower part of the structure. But we know your answer to every question in advance. And your answer is of course, "It's so obvious that it would have happened that way we don't need to explain it."

Look at it this way. You are asked to solve a word problem:

Car A starts out from location X and drives south. Car B starts out from location Y and drives north, towards car A. Car B is driving faster than car A. When will car A and car B pass each other?

What's the answer? The fact is, you don't have to do any math at all. All you have to do is apply simple logic to determine that there is not enough information provided to solve the problem.

If you tell me you can take this word problem and come up with an exact solution, then I would assume you are lying, are delusional, or simply have no idea what you're talking about.

This is our position when someone comes along and challenges the experts' conclusions that there is nothing unusual about how the towers collapsed. In essence, they are claiming to be able to solve the following word problem:

A 20-story section of a 110-story building drops onto the 90-story section beneath it from the height of 10 feet. The 90-story section is very strong. Is it strong enough to withstand the force of the upper section falling on it?

Like I said: lying, delusional, or simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[pchams]

Oh I knew deconstructionisim would set you guys loose. Did you ever see the old stark trek with Harry mud and an enclave of androids, where Spock gives them a version of Godel with " everything I say is a lie (pause) Now I am lying. This sends the linked android community into a frenzy from which they never recover. Clearly your freudian based shortcomings require most of you to have stable state Newtonian universes. You can adnit that relativity happens, but not where you live.

I have read this thread up until this quote, and will finish it, however I don't wish to lose this opportunity to propose a new internet law which has occured to me.
Much like invoking "Godwin's law" will immediately lose one the argument, I propose that invoking Star Trek as evidence does the same.
Perhaps we should call this "Roddenberry's Law", or better, "Shatner's Law".

 

[pchams]

That was an excellent job Architect!
But, in the spirit of the board I now invoke Godwin's Kitty:
.

 

[JonnyFive]

I guess you guys are not capable of anything more than ad hominem attacks, and opinions on things no one can verify. You have absolutely nothing on this issue. Why don't you answer directly on the question of expert witnesses having to make their testimony understandable to juries?

As we have said many, many, many times: you are the one coming here and claiming this was some kind of government inside job. It isn't our job to re-frame all the available evidence for your benefit. Guess what, just because you don't trust anything related to the government doesn't mean that what they present automatically becomes invalid and we have to listen to you!

You need to present an independent case if you want anyone here to believe or even listen to you. So far we've pointed you to the various reports available on this subject and we have presented in as simple terms as possible. If you remember, Architect summed everything up for you here.

Since you don't even know the difference between "they're" and "there", I'm going to provisionally assume you're lying about having a philosophy, or anything else, degree.

You have repeatedly ignored the requests that you review the available reports on the collapse and present specific issues you have. You have also ignored repeated requests to present evidence that anyone in the government was behind the attacks.

You love to talk about juries and what-not, but you don't seem to realize that evidence is required in court as well.

Perhaps you would like to be tried for murder using your own standards? Imagine it!

Prosecution: Your honor, Non Believer is obviously guilty of murder. I once heard him say something about "killing" in some way. He has not presented any clear evidence that he wasn't the murderer!

Defense: But, your honor, my client is innocent! We have volumes of evidence! Here in this transcript you can see that blood splatter experts have determined that it was clearly a suicide! Besides, I have a dozen witnesses placing my client elsewhere, and there's absolutely no evidence to connect him to the crime scene!

P: We don't have time to read all these reports. Why don't you dumb it down for the jury here?

D: Uhhh... okay. My client didn't do it, and the experts have evidence that strongly suggests he couldn't have done it.

P: I don't see any evidence he didn't do it. Those are government experts and I don't trust them.

D: But the reports!

P: I don't have time to read that. They should make it easier to understand. By the way, what about the Constitution? You know you can't trust the government experts.

D: What? But I just told you...

P: You haven't provided the proper framework for me to accept this evidence yet. Why won't you present evidence proving he was never at the scene that I'll accept?

D: It's your job to prove my client did this!

P: I don't see any evidence that your client is innocent.

D: ARGGGGH!!429rFEfjef

Sounds like fun, doesn't it?