Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

Non Believer said:
The idea that the public is not able to be involved in a discussion of this sort is one I hear repeatedly in this forum. As I have said before, sciences have gradations of understanding. General principles can usually be explained in a manner of minutes. Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes. Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.

...

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this informati9on to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.
Click to expand...
Just popping in momentarily... This Non Believer fellow seems to be archetypical of the Trooth Movement. In particular, the supreme arrogance:

"I see nothing beyond my comprehension." In other words, he's never studied mathematics, strength of materials, civil engineering, or even basic physics, but does that matter? Heck, no. The Universe is inherently simple. If he can't understand it, it must be wrong. Uh huh.

But does he understand it? Apparently not:

"It is the responsibility of governments to provide and explain this information to its citizenry." Not really. Not even ideally. Per Plato, the Government would exert itself to the will of its constituents, and no further. The US Government already has gone to excessive lengths to explain what happened, as captured in the NIST report and others. Virtually everyone does, in fact, understand what happened, in particular those individuals such as myself who actually bothered to read it, took the effort to educate ourselves, and asked constructive questions of knowledgeable people when we lacked understanding.

So what's the criticism? Well, if Non Believer doesn't understand it, then clearly the Government has failed. After all, it isn't his fault that he lacks the training, lacks the focus, and is unwilling to participate. No sir!

"The lights are growing dim. I know that a life of crime led me to this sorry fate. And yet, I blame society -- society made me what I am."
Click to expand...

To Non Believer, take charge of yourself, man. To the rest, you have this well in hand, particularly Architect. Well done.
 
Non Believer said:
You guys wouldn't know what a democracy was if it fell 110 floors onto your face. You think you can get by to listening to the experts tell you what to do, and you call that individualisim at the same time. What kind of individual just rolls over when someone tells him what his opinion is. What a little mamby pamby world you guys live in where your leaders tell you what to think, and you trot around like you know something. And brains blow backwards right?
Click to expand...

No one tells me what to think; not any idiot CTers or my government!

Seems like you break your own rules Non Believer! You suck up all the CT junk and spread it like gospel; your
(mamby pamby?) namby pamby grade school mentality has left you devoid of reason and the ability to think for yourself.

I have walked out on people who thought they owned me and I was in the military; funny my legs work as the Col tells me I can't leave! And now you accuse the only real independentthinkers who could save you from terminally stupidity; you call them followers; you the lemming of the CT world?

Irony thy name is non-believer!
 
Last edited:
Non believer, what would make you understand to your satisfaction the collapse of the WTC towers?
 
NB,

Have you ever wondered why it is that you twoofers have such a hard time coming up with structural engineers or demolition experts to back your claims?

I am amazed that people like you continue arguing against those who are actually qualfied to judge these issues.

On top of that you seem to think that experts write reports for YOU and that therefor something is not right if YOU don't understand it.

Just who the hell do you think you are?
 
Non Believer said:
What kind of individual just rolls over when someone tells him what his opinion is.
Click to expand...

Ah so that's why you mindlessly dismiss structural engineers and demolition pros when they say you're on crack.

You're just another playschool revolutionary rebelling against "the man" and all accepted authority.

I understand why you act this way. It makes you feel really special to "know" something you're not supposed to, doesn't it? Oh yeah, and it means you're a brilliant, liberated free-thinker.

I remember being in the same stage you're in now. I was around 15 at the time.

And you are....how old?
 
No, it's more like this:


Q- Are you an expert on the design of tall buildings?

A- Yes, but as part of a team comprising engineers and other disciplines too.

Q- Was failure of the steel structure reasonable?

A - The risk to steel structures posed by even normal - domestic or office - fires has been recognised since the Second World War. In this particular case we did not have a normal fire, we had an explosive impact which damaged fireproofing and some of the structure. Collapse should have been anticipated at the time.

Q - Did the building have a 2000% structural safety factor?

A - We don't design buildings with that degree of redundancy. The cost would be disproportionate to the risk.

Q - After the initial collapse happened how did you model that events effect on the rest of the building?

A- Well, it was a complex event. What we can say with certainty is that the dynamic loading caused by the failure of the upper section would far, far exceed the design load of the structure immediately below, causing pretty much immediate failure.

We are unable to model such a complex event, there are so many variables acting simultaneously that any computer model would be of relatively little practicable value.

Q - Should the larger, lower structure not have arrested the fall?

A - No. Once one floor collapses, the mass and momentum of the falling part of the building increases and the whole process repeats, becoming a progressive failure.

Q- Why didn't you model the entire collapse from start to finish?

A - Because the mechanism is entirely consistent with our understanding of building structures. It would be a complete waste of time and, in any event, subject to the same variables/caveats as above.

Q - Oh, you must mean there were observed precedents of complete collapse after an initial event.

A- No, there is no precedent, that's why creating a model is impossible, we have nothing base it on. If we were to create a model, it would invariably rely heavily on the WTC collapse as precedent, however basing a model on the event its designed to recreate then attempting to draw conclusions is circular reasoning. Science doesn't work that way. However we do know of other progressive collapses, for example Ronan Point (a concrete panel structure).

Q - Has anyone in the construction community questioned the collapse mechanism?

A - Yes, but only in a limited way. Ove Arup and Edinburgh University have suggested - backed up by lengthy analyses - that movememnt of the steel due to any extensive fire may have caused collapse even without the explosive impact. Their theory is widely circulated but not widely accepted; it does, however, stress the need for us to look closely at how we fire protect steel framed structures.
 
Last edited:
(sigh) Patriotism. The last refuge of the scoundrel. (Dr. Johnston)

Apologies if I seem to have upset you by foolishly posting comprehensive answers to your questions and expecting some sort of meaningful response. How impolite of me.

Right, let's look at the latest (noting in passing the ever-diminishing amount of dubstance to your responses):

I certainly have my critical thinking abilities still intact, do you have any background in such topics.
Click to expand...

Well, I hold both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from one of Scotland's foremost universities. I think that's a pretty good indicator, don't you?

Just as a matter of interest, how far did you progress through the higher education system and in what areas of specialism?

Do you have any background in philosophy, logic, political theory, etc. Because all of those backgrounds are necessary to approach an event such as 9-11.
Click to expand...

Could you please advise in what way an understanding of philosophy or political theory might qualify one to discuss in any depth whatsoever structural engineering? Likewise how would Rawls, Derrida, and Habermas allow one to model or analyse fire induced collapse?

Do you really think you as a professional have the right to tell me you will control this debate...are you so blind to see that I (and everyone else) have a right to have this information discussed...that is what you offer Arch, a tyranny of information.
Click to expand...

Lets be quite clear here. The disciplines necessary to understand the collapse are complex; structural and fire engineering, together with architecture, all require 5 to 7 years of university education followed by extensive practical experience. These are not the kind of things that are picked up overnight.

You seem to be suggesting that it is necessary - nay, essential - that this specialist understanding is somehow distilled down into a report which explains every single aspect of the collapse in terms even a layman can understand.

I have never heard anything as preposterous in my life. Everything reduced to the lowest common denominator?!

Do you get your doctor to explain his diagnoses in this way? Do you make your lawyer give chapter and verse on basic legal principles when you ask for his advice?

do you not think that the types of skills that lawyers and investigators have in terms of recognizing evidence and logic is important. That is something you don't necessarily have as an architect or engineer, I mean it is it not a regular part of your job description is it.
Click to expand...

Because working on buildings would have nothing to do, say, logic? Interpreting and analysing existing structural and constructional systems?

Am I a lawyer? Thankfully not. But if you read the forums properly you would have remembered that I do carry out expert witness work to public inquiries. Unlike you, I have experience of courts and similar forums.


Now, is there any chance you're actually going to respond to the main technical points in any of my lengthy posts, or are you just going to whine and stamp your foot?
 
Non Believer said:
You guys wouldn't know what a democracy was if it fell 110 floors onto your face. You think you can get by to listening to the experts tell you what to do, and you call that individualisim at the same time. What kind of individual just rolls over when someone tells him what his opinion is. What a little mamby pamby world you guys live in where your leaders tell you what to think, and you trot around like you know something. And brains blow backwards right?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. I agree with what the experts say, so I'm a mindless automaton. You can't come up with anything that disputes what the experts say other than "it don't look right to me", and wonder why we laugh at you?

Dude, you are a joke. You have no tools to work with on this problem other than a faulty reasoning abilty. No wonder it doesn't look right to you.

Tell me, who should we listen to? Your third-grade art teacher? The lunatic rambling outside the library? The morons that made "Loser Change"?

So why don't you, Scooby and the gang go find another "mystery" to solve.

Toodles!
 
Architect said:
Now, is there any chance you're actually going to respond to the main technical points in any of my lengthy posts, or are you just going to whine and stamp your foot?
Click to expand...

You always crack me up, Architect.

Hey, Non Believer, let me say this all again:

If you are going to persist in ignoring or claiming fabrication of the vast body of evidence surrounding this case, then you need to present your own evidence.

You saying stuff about the Constitution isn't evidence.

You saying stuff without providing support for it isn't evidence.

You do not appear to be experienced with structural issues, math, physics, demolitions, or fire safety so this will be extremely difficult for you.

You must go out and find evidence for your theories. You need to address the technical aspects of both your theory and the official theory. You must provide specific evidence suggesting the official theory is inaccurate, and you will need to provide specific evidence suggesting an alternative.

This isn't a game where the loudest or stupidest person wins, you won't convince a single one of us without providing proof.
 
JonnyFive said:
This isn't a game where the loudest or stupidest person wins, you won't convince a single one of us without providing proof.
Click to expand...


After all, NB, you must have this evidence and argument - or how else did you arrive at your oh-so-certain conclusions?


Incidentally, just to save you huffing about politics again you might want to know that (a) I don't live or have any connection to the USA, (b) my personal politics are centre to centre left (you might want to bear in mind that even the right wing mainstream UK parties are further left than your Democrats), and (c) I think the Bush Administration is as straight as a ten bob note.
 
Non Believer said:
The real upshot is that there are tens if not hundreds of contradictions of what went on between the president and the staff that morning. Fliescher in the sept 11 news conference claim that none of the staff knew before the president entered the classroom. But all of you seem to think this is perfectly O.K. Dosen't it usually arouse suspicion when a group of people cannot give even a semblance of a consistent story about our most important day. Apparently not.
Click to expand...


What you should do is analyze the communications with the president and his staff from other events and see if 9/11 is really unique in this regard. If, for instance, there are also "tens if not hundreds" of contradictions about minor details surrounding the handling of Hurricane Katrina, or the anthrax scare, then there is nothing unusual about these contradictions on 9/11.

In fact, I would expect to see more such "contradictions" the more traumatic and unexpected the event is, because memories of minor details tend to get confused in these situations. Nothing suspicious about this at all.
 
Non Believer said:
Yes there is going to be additionally force with collapse, but the structure was built to withstand additional force.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I've seen this fallacy before. The structure was built to withstand additional force, therefore it can withstand ANY amount of additional force?

Wow.
 
aggle-rithm said:
What you should do is analyze the communications with the president and his staff from other events and see if 9/11 is really unique in this regard. If, for instance, there are also "tens if not hundreds" of contradictions about minor details surrounding the handling of Hurricane Katrina, or the anthrax scare, then there is nothing unusual about these contradictions on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yes, this would be a good excercise in "supporting assertions with research" rather than "making crap up without sources".

Just think, NB: at best you'll prove something to us. At worst you'll just be wrong and have to revise your views marginally. Why is that so bad?
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
You guys wouldn't know what a democracy was if it fell 110 floors onto your face. You think you can get by to listening to the experts tell you what to do, and you call that individualisim at the same time. What kind of individual just rolls over when someone tells him what his opinion is. What a little mamby pamby world you guys live in where your leaders tell you what to think, and you trot around like you know something. And brains blow backwards right?
Click to expand...

Actually, we do understand democracy, in that we haven't taken away your vote and thrown you in a dark little cell yet. We understand democracy because we know there are enough people who will use their brains to figure out that the advice of trained professionals is worth more than the ramblings of some net loon, that their votes will outweigh yours. We understand democracy in that we don't just "roll over" when someone tells us what to think - we actually evaluate their training and experience, and give weight to their opinions as is appropriate. We understand democracy, because it isn't "our" "leaders" who are giving us this information, it's an organization of scientists and engineers, who are publically accountable, backed up by the expert opinions of other professionals like Architect, who have given us more than enough reason to trust them.

And brains blow backwards right?
Click to expand...

And it's a democracry because even people who clearly buy into every stupid CT out there are still allowed to walk the streets.

Seriously, are there any 9/11 CTist who don't also believe some other CT?
 
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.

What was the nature of your studies on building collapse?

Horatius- what has Arch given me to evaluate past it is too complicated, and we all know that this would happen

While I am at it. If we were aware the buildings were likely to collapse after explosions and fire, why did we not communicate this information to the fire department pre 9-11. It would seem logical (there I go) that after the 93 bombing the fire department would be in on evaluations of the integrity of the building?

As for Pardalis- I doubt your question is sincere, otherwise what are you doing hanging out with these guys. Clearly the effort here is too obfuscate, ridicule, and ignore. Trying to find common ground of understanding sounds like a communist plot. But on the off chance it is not a setup, I would say that some of the modeling that was done by NIST in the models for initial collapse could have been continued. Also the request that some sort of represenative model be built and tested. That would be a good start.

Mackey, not a lot goin on with you and understanding democracy. If you think Plato was the culmination of democratic principles go back to bed. Also I have studied math and physics, but I know your connection to reality is probably not that important.

Architect- When did I sa I have reached a conclusion?

As for the calculus explanation, some of you have threatned to the on the degree of analysis I will be facing. And since I have problems with such authority I have chosen to give the absolute simplest description first, and then slowly move up from there. This of course emphasizes the nature of gradient understandings, of apparently which you are all unaware. So the basic concept of calculus is to build mathematical models that most closely approximate the infinities we approach when measuring motion. Remember a bloody Ct er said this , so you sure better find it ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom