Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Architect]

Kudos to Architect. Most interesting stuff.

I await his next posting with interest, but fear that my initial expectations of a proper, reasoned argument from him may have proven wholly without foundation......:(

[Horatius]

8. Actually, no. I can't speak for the US but generally we study Maths - including Calculus - for 5 to 6 years at UK secondary schools. Why? Because it's rather complex.

I think this shows your lack of ability to think in conceptual terms. What was it that Liebninz and Newton were trying to capture?


So, why don't you answer this question, in exactly the amount of detail you expect all your questions to be answered, so we have some idea as to what would satify you?

Please note, it had better be more detailed than this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2220385#post2220385), or you lose automatically.

Unless you were asking that question just to be a pest, and don't actually know what amount of detail you would need.


10. But the NIST report has explained it to the satisfaction of the trained professionals best placed to understand them.

Says who?



Say the trained professional you're debating with! Pay attention!

[DavidJames]

Say the trained professional you're debating with! Pay attention!Believer shares the same trait as TruthDenier1234 before him. They want to have an intellectual and scientific debate. But want their uneducated wild ass guesses to carry as much weight as thoughtful, detailed analysis by experts.

[DavidJames]

I'm sure someone else has already pointed this out...

But it is pretty NORMAL for people to say "I saw X" on TV when they didn't actually see X on TV, they saw someone on TV tell them about X".

For example, there's a news article where the presenter talks about a terrible car crash, and then it cuts away to footage of the aftermath of the car crash with emergency personnel in attendance, and some mangled cars.

The following day, as you are talking to your friend "Hey, I saw this massive car crash on the news last night"

But you didn't actually see a car crash on the news, you saw someone talking about a car crash, and you saw the aftermath of a car crash. Likewise, when Bush said he saw a plane crash on the TV what he means is he LEARNED ABOUT a plane crash on the news. What he actually SAW was someone talking about a plane crash and the aftermath of a plane crash.

-GumbootExcellent explanation and deserves quoting.

[Architect]

Say the trained professional you're debating with! Pay attention!


And indeed all the other trained professionals on the site, of which there are many.

Of course, now is normally the point when a CTer (perhaps not NB) accuses us of lying about our qualifications.....:boxedin:

[maccy]

Non-believer, why should anybody here care what you think?

Does your opinion matter in any way at all?

Why should we be spending our time trying to explain the NIST report to you?

If there's something wrong with the science you'll have to convince some scientists of it. If you don't understand, then I suggest you do some studying.

A slight derail:

1. Imagine two spaceships that can travel at 0.75 times the speed of light. The move away from each other in opposite directions and accelerate to full speed. 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5, so does that mean that the spaceships are moving away from each other at 1.5 times the speed of light?

2. Alternatively, you're travelling in a car at 100 miles an hour with the headlights on, what speed is the light from the headlights travelling at*?

3. Another version of the same idea: you're travelling in car at 100 miles an hour with the headlights off, you pass a stationary car of the same model and at exactly the moment when your bumpers are level you turn your lights on and the person in the stationary car turns their lights on.
An observer one mile down the road is looking in you direction and is positioned so that he is an equal distance from both sets of headlights. Assuming he is some kind of cyborg with an incredibly precise perception of time, which headlights will he see first*?

*For both of these, assuming you're travelling in a vacuum (and have some kind of personal air supply - or you're a zombie).

Answers:

1. No, the relative velocity of one spaceship from the other will be less than the speed of light.

2. The light leaving the headlights is travelling at the speed of light.

3. The super-accurate cyborg will see both headlights at the same time, as the light from them is travelling at the same speed over the same distance.

Common sense would probably dictate different answers to these questions. Does that make Einsteinian relativity a conspiracy?

By the way I'm no sort of physicist so I'd be happy to be corrected if any of the above is wrong.

--------------------

Another attempt at analogy to explain static versus dynamic loads (as I understand them from what's been explained so far): if you build a tower of cards and then remove a card from two-thirds of the way up, would you expect the bottom two thirds of the tower to remain standing?

[aggle-rithm]

Another attempt at analogy to explain static versus dynamic loads (as I understand them from what's been explained so far): if you build a tower of cards and then remove a card from two-thirds of the way up, would you expect the bottom two thirds of the tower to remain standing?

Of course not! It would be driven into the table-top like a nail. ;)

[Architect]

1. Imagine two spaceships that can travel at 0.75 times the speed of light. The move away from each other in opposite directions and accelerate to full speed. 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5, so does that mean that the spaceships are moving away from each other at 1.5 times the speed of light?


Erm, no, you've got me there. Surely their speed relative to each other is 1.5 times the speed of light, but of course they're not going faster than light per se so it is possible?

Example: Two cars pass each other on opposite sides of the road, both doing 50mp. Surely their speed relative to each other is 100mph?

Or is this, like, a terminology thing?

[Horatius]

And indeed all the other trained professionals on the site, of which there are many.

Of course, now is normally the point when a CTer (perhaps not NB) accuses us of lying about our qualifications.....:boxedin:

I just wanted to make sure he realized exactly how stupid that question was. The posts you've made in this thread are so comprehensive, and way beyond most of our skill levels, that I'm reduced to just being a cheerleader. I'll point our the really stupid things, and you do the heavy lifting :)

It just boggles the mind how someone can read something that so clearly shows their debate partner completely outclasses them, and yet they keep running their head into the wall. Like we've mentioned before, even if you did present a full analysis of the entire collapse, how would he know it was any better than just pulling some stuff out of thin air? Once it gets to a certain level above your head, it all looks the same.

[Architect]

What he doesn't know is that the meter is running and my secretary has already prepared the first fee invoice to send to him.....

[Horatius]

Erm, no, you've got me there. Surely their speed relative to each other is 1.5 times the speed of light, but of course they're not going faster than light per se so it is possible?

Example: Two cars pass each other on opposite sides of the road, both doing 50mp. Surely their speed relative to each other is 100mph?

Or is this, like, a terminology thing?

Nope, like he said, it's a relativity thing. It's been awhile since I did that sort of calculation, but I could probably dig it up somewhere if needed.

The two cars at 50mph would be going 100mph relative, within the accuracy of any measurement we could do, but you could apply relativistic equations to them as well. The difference between relativity and "classical physics" in that case will be so small as to make very little difference, but it is there. The difference grows as the speeds increase, so that when you get to a decent %c, it becomes more prominent.

[Horatius]

What he doesn't know is that the meter is running and my secretary has already prepared the first fee invoice to send to him.....

And now we see the true value of professional training :)

[Architect]

Nope, like he said, it's a relativity thing. It's been awhile since I did that sort of calculation, but I could probably dig it up somewhere if needed.


Well you live and learn....

[JimBenArm]

And now we see the true value of professional training :)

That and a 3X multiplier on all billable hours worked.

[aggle-rithm]

Nope, like he said, it's a relativity thing. It's been awhile since I did that sort of calculation, but I could probably dig it up somewhere if needed.

The two cars at 50mph would be going 100mph relative, within the accuracy of any measurement we could do, but you could apply relativistic equations to them as well. The difference between relativity and "classical physics" in that case will be so small as to make very little difference, but it is there. The difference grows as the speeds increase, so that when you get to a decent %c, it becomes more prominent.

The way I always keep it straight is: With classical physics, time is treated as a constant. With relativity, it isn't.

[Architect]

That and a 3X multiplier on all billable hours worked.

Nonsense!



But I do invoice for travelling time....

[JimBenArm]

Nonsense!



But I do invoice for travelling time....

Well, I only get 1X, but the company does bill for the rest.

[maccy]

Erm, no, you've got me there. Surely their speed relative to each other is 1.5 times the speed of light, but of course they're not going faster than light per se so it is possible?

Example: Two cars pass each other on opposite sides of the road, both doing 50mp. Surely their speed relative to each other is 100mph?

Or is this, like, a terminology thing?

OK I don't properly understand it but the point of Einsteinian relativity is that you don't simply add velocities together to get the relative velocity (although, if I understand it correctly, it makes very little difference at anything but very high speeds). Here are some posts from a thread I started about faster than light travel.

Yeppers.

Faster than light travel leads me to ask: Faster than light in relation to what? I can conceive of two spaceships moving away from each other at .51c. Relative to each other, each would be moving faster than the speed of light. If one ship fired a laser at the other, the laser beam would never reach it. If, however, one of the ships slowed down to .48c, a laser fired from one would pass (or hit) the other. Here's the neat part: If one ship fired a laser past the other, and the second ship measured the speed of the beam as it passed, it would be c, despite the fact that we would expect it to be either .49c or .52c (depending on which ship did the firing).

Regardless of your frame of reference, meaning no matter how fast or slow you're moving, the speed of light is c. Too wierd--

I wonder if I have any idea of what I'm talking about...

Wrong. C is a constant, so the speed of the ship firing the laser doesn't enter into it. The laser beam would be redshifted by the recession of the light source, but it would pass the other ship.

No, you're not really getting the heart of relativity. When changing reference frames (going from the frame in which both ships move away at 0.51c to a frame in which one ship is motionless and the other is moving), you cannot simply add velocities. That is not intuitive (it's natural to assume you can - that's called Galilean relativity), but it's true. In the frame of either ship, the other ship will still move at less than c.

Wrong, relitivistic velocities don't add that way but this way
w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

where w is the sum of the of the u and V velocities

Actually, this is reminiscent of the "light clock" idea that Einstein used to develop relativity theory and it's effects on time and distance.

Yes, the laser would catch up. Even if your ship was moving .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999c, the laser would catch up (eventually to an external observer "stationary" with respect to the velocities listed...almost immediately from the POV of those in the fast-moving ship).


My example uses 0.75c as the speed of the two spaceships.

The equation is w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

so w = (0.75c + 0.75c)/(1 + (0.75c * 0.75c)/c^2)

= 1.5c / (1+0.5625c^2/c^2)

= 1.5c / 1.5625

= 0.96c

So the spaceships would be moving at 0.96 times the speed of light relative to each other.

[Horatius]

My example uses 0.75c as the speed of the two spaceships.

The equation is w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

so w = (0.75c + 0.75c)/(1 + (0.75c * 0.75c)/c^2)

= 1.5c / (1+0.5625c^2/c^2)

= 1.5c / 1.5625

= 0.96c

So the spaceships would be moving at 0.96 times the speed of light relative to each other.


Yep, that's the equation in my old University Physiscs text I just pulled out. The key is the (1 + uv/c^2) factor. For any values of u and v (the velocities of the two cars) that you'll get in real life, (uv/c^2) will be very close to zero, and that factor becomes (1 + 0), so that w = u + v, just as you would expect. Use higher u and v as above, and the (u + v) gets divided by a larger factor.

Note that if u = v = c (equivalent to two beams of light moving in exact opposite directions), you get (uv/c^2) = (cc/c^2) = 1, so the equation becomes w = (u + v)/2, or (c + c)/2, or (2c/2) == c, so you can never get a relative velocity greater than c.

There are similar equations for times and lengths in moving reference frames as well. It's all interrelated.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But it seems you all think that all that force of so much weight is obviously going to crush the hell out of what is below that should be easy to demonstrate with most materials.
Have you considered that any floor that fails is then added to the mass of falling debris, making it that much more difficult for the next floor to resist the load? It's not like only those 12 stories crushed the other 100 into the ground...

Twelve floors "crushed" one floor, then 13 floors "crushed" another floor, then 14 floors "crushed" the next floor, and on and on...

Lets face it you have no evidence for anything at all. Only your word as an expert for what happened.
lol... Once again, only in the world of the conspiracy theorist is expertise seen as a bad thing.

Of course you weren't really trained to examine the collapse of buildings were you?
Personally, no. Architect? Not to speak for him, but... probably not extensively, although I imagine the very nature of his job requires that he learn from structural failures.

You claim that NIST has all the answers, but when we try to quote NIST , you need to fill in with your own suppositions. Not science! Not proof!
Careful. Anger != truth.

[JonnyFive]

Non Believer

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

(Unholy destruction of idiocy)

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".

Nominated.

That was really well written, and did an excellent job of summing the collapse up in simple-ish terms. I doubt it will push any hardcore CTist on iota towards anything, but it's still a great summary of how it happened in the real world.

[Architect]

Let me buy you a beer the first time you come over....

[Mr.D]

The other questions have been addressed well enough (note that they assume nonaccelerating/nonrotating reference frames - "Special Relativity." General Relativity is much much harder).


3. Another version of the same idea: you're travelling in car at 100 miles an hour with the headlights off, you pass a stationary car of the same model and at exactly the moment when your bumpers are level you turn your lights on and the person in the stationary car turns their lights on.
An observer one mile down the road is looking in you direction and is positioned so that he is an equal distance from both sets of headlights. Assuming he is some kind of cyborg with an incredibly precise perception of time, which headlights will he see first*?


3. The super-accurate cyborg will see both headlights at the same time, as the light from them is travelling at the same speed over the same distance.


I'll just point out that the other way to consider this question is that no matter how weird special relativity seems to be to our everyday notions of "common-sense," it does not violate causality.

And for the record, I have a B.S. in Physics, with a double minor in Mathematics and Astrophysics, a M.S. in Physics and finished all the coursework for a Ph.D. in Particle Astrophysics.

[Architect]

And for the record, I have a B.S. in Physics, with a double minor in Mathematics and Astrophysics, a M.S. in Physics and finished all the coursework for a Ph.D. in Particle Astrophysics.


So, soon you'll be Dr. D! :p

[The Demon's Head]

Bush probably saw the first plane hit the tower by way of a live Cable feed serviced by the NWO/Illuminati.

:rolleyes:

I'm a joke maker. So expect a little humor from me.

[JonnyFive]

I know this is both off-topic and oft-repeated, but it never ceases to amaze me the difference in the kinds of people you see posting for and against the various CTist theories.

A lot of the anti-CT debaters have a lot of real world experience. They are mathematicians, architects, engineers, fire safety experts, ex-military personnel, and more. Many of them have actually read and understood the NIST reports on the collapse. They are educated, professional, and coherent.

On the other hand, all of the CTists that come here are rambling, incomprehensible, hit and run posters that come in, say some crap, and dash off without answering questions. They espouse all kinds of insane theories not born out of evidence, such as beam weapons and voice-morphing technology. They can't provide evidence for these claims because they is no evidence.

They can sit on their boards and foam about the JREF Forums all they want, but it won't change reality. Reality stacks the deck heavily against the CTists, and that isn't about to change.

Maybe we're all just "in on it." Yeah, that must be it.

[Regnad Kcin]

In other words, Non Believer...

Welcome to the big leagues.

[JonnyFive]

In other words, Non Believer...

Welcome to the big leagues.

Seriously. The people here that say stuff here know what they're talking about. More importantly, they're aware of what they don't know. That's why you don't see me talking about freaking structural loadings like I know what I'm doing. I'm smart enough to leave that to the experts.

So, NB, are you going to step your game up a little bit... maybe provide us with some evidence?

[Mr.D]

So, soon you'll be Dr. D! :p

Nope. Not me, got out of the academic track several years ago after realizing the neverending, always relocating, "whatcha mean non-tenureable position?" postdoc lifestyle was not for me. So I never did finish the thesis work.

BTW, as a physicist by education - if not degree, I can definitively say that Stephen Jones has pretty much been an embarrassment to the physics community ever since his behavior during the height of the Cold Fusion fiaso. The sloppy, handwaving, swiss-cheese logic way he champions CD theory is just more of the same.

[Non Believer]

Mr. D' s comments are typical of those I receive in this forum. He claims that I am misusing live loads, but he doesn't need to explain how I misuse them. None of you seem interested in a type of discussion that there is any common ground, do you guys really have any principles of finding truth. Could you mention them, you know kind of rules of evidence that apply universally.
While Mr. D is typical I got to give it to guys like Johnny Fly. He is clearly an opportunist of the highest order. He does not need to be involved in the discussion. He is the detached critic sitting up above it all, and his ability to be critique both sides (sort of) puts him on an even more lofty perch. You of course offer nothing specific other than I am not a professional. But it is not his job to know anything, but to instead to just criticize others. How noble.
Cl- Ya - Thanks for mentioning that I should calm down. I used to exclamations there within 4 words or so. Please except my apologies. your response to the model question is pathetic. You act like the WTC would be the only form of matter that would gain force from gravity as they collapse. Is there some problem with other types of material that collapse onto one another as they collapse to the ground. Your point is absolutely untenable, but that hasn't stopped others so don't let it get you down.

The fact that you guys won't even approach the model question is to be expected. I mean it is such a one sided trick for me to play, to give out an opened ended invitation like that. There are no special parameters other than it needs to resemble what happened. I thought you guys would jump all over this like good scientists should. I know you guys are not in the answering mood, but are you really saying we can't make any effective models? I know its a little pathological out there, but you guys need to check back into the world of science.
As for Architect, your position is quite outrageous. If you feel you have some special rights at this forum fine. But for you to tell me I do not get to be involved in this discussion as a matter of my rights and duty as a citizen of this country then BM. I certainly have my critical thinking abilities still intact, do you have any background in such topics. 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. Do you really think you as a professional have the right to tell me you will control this debate. If this is the case you need to go back to school to find out what a democracy is. Does the old participatory Jeffersonian thing ring any bells for you. How about Rawls and social contract theory. Why don't you go read Derrida and Habermas on the relation public discourse towards a functioning democracy, and then maybe I'll talk to you?

Are you so blind to see that I (and everyone else) have a right to have this information discussed. Do you not think that the founders of our constitution were not concerned with a tyranny of information. And that is what you offer Arch, a tyranny of information. You have the answers but you don't need to share them. But if that is not bad enough, you tell us that we are the interloper, intruding on the dignity of your professional opinion. Do you not believe that someone with the highest forms of critical
thinking abilities play any role in all of this. I am not saying that I am such a person, but 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. Quit pretending you own the realm of truth, it shows great contempt for democracy

[CHF]

On the other hand, all of the CTists that come here are rambling, incomprehensible, hit and run posters that come in, say some crap, and dash off without answering questions. They espouse all kinds of insane theories not born out of evidence, such as beam weapons and voice-morphing technology. They can't provide evidence for these claims because they is no evidence.

Bingo. Basically twoofers like to pretend that ignorance is a strength. If THEY don't understand something that they're not qualfied to understand then it MUST be a conspiracy.

It works the same way when twoofers try to spread their message. They only have luck if their audience doesn't know a damn thing about the subject matter.

[Pardalis]

Whining won't get you anywhere, non believer.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

your response to the model question is pathetic. You act like the WTC would be the only form of matter that would gain force from gravity as they collapse. Is there some problem with other types of material that collapse onto one another as they collapse to the ground. Your point is absolutely untenable, but that hasn't stopped others so don't let it get you down.
There seems to be a serious disconnect between what I typed and what you read...

[CHF]

So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this informati9on to its citizenry.

Newsflash: engineering reports are done so that engineers in the world (current and future) will understand how and why things happened the way they did.

You seem to be under the impression that these reports are written to satisfy the Twoof movment, as if it's the job of NIST and the government to sit down with a bunch of paranoid know-nothings and slooooowly explain everything so that YOU understand it. If they fail to do that then they MUST be hiding something from you.

Good Lord, man - get over yourself!

[Non Believer]

i have a concept Cl try explaining what you think the disconnect is.

I just was thinking what it would look like if any of our resident experts had to testify on global collapse

Q- Are you an expert on the collapse of buildings

A- Well sort of

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

A- We didn't feel we needed too.

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

A- No, just knowledge that that would happen that way

Q- No exisiting objective evidence of this opinion that you can point us to?

A- No I am sorry, but please don't worry attorney X I know what I am talking about

Q- Isn't the basis for expert opinion usually based in the science from where that expertise comes?

A- Well sure, but it is too hard to explain.

Q -Well I am sorry expert witness, but it is your duty as an expert witness to provde us understandable information so that our legal system may function.

A- This is an insult to me as an expert.

Next witness

[Gravy]

Show me any type of material with the proportions ot the trade centers (though if your up for it try the north tower), that had a similar degree of displacement, and ends up in a pile one to two percent of its original height. You think the tower piles were 14-28 feet high? Care to reconsider?

[Gravy]

By the way, Non, Architect isn't Murkan.

[Pardalis]

I just was thinking what it would look like if any of our resident experts had to testify on global collapse

you mean these?

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

[pomeroo]

Bullseye, CHF !

[Non Believer]

Your right Gravy sounds like it is 6 percent of its original height is correct. Sounds like you are interested in doing the experiment. Please keep me informed on the results, and any other fake science you do.

[Non Believer]

CHF- I must agree just because somebody refuses to talk to me, I shouldn' consider that keeping the information from me.

[beachnut]

Your right Gravy sounds like it is 6 percent of its original height is correct. Sounds like you are interested in doing the experiment. Please keep me informed on the results, and any other fake science you do.

Which part of WTC being 95 percent air do CTers have a problem with?

WTC were built to maximize space, not take up space; you have to have space to sell to make money. 95 percent air; Means the 5 stories of rubble all over the WTC area use to be the WTC towers.

Why are CTers so challenged when it comes to math?

[Gravy]

Your right Gravy sounds like it is 6 percent of its original height is correct.Excluding the material in the basement, maybe. Then you have to take into account all the steel that was well outside the footprints. West Street had tens of millions of pounds of steel piled up.

Sounds like you are interested in doing the experiment. Please keep me informed on the results, and any other fake science you do.I don't know what experiment you're talking about. I just popped in to see what was going on in this Bush thread. I guess it doesn't matter what the subject is when you enter the discussion loaded with faulty assumptions.

[Non Believer]

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?

[uk_dave]

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?

Petulance will get you no where.

And, quite frankly, if an expert gives an opinion on something that you personally have no expertise in, why shouldn't you just 'roll over'?

You have no good basis for not believing the reasons experts have given for the collapse of the wtc towers, except your own stubborn desire to cling on to a CT.

Well, if the CT makes your life easier to live and gives it some meaning, good for you. That you are then living a lie is obviously of no concern to you, in just the same way that facts and truth are of no concern to you so long as you can live in the fantasy world you have created.

Good luck with that

[Non Believer]

Air and you go well together Beachnut, you may put it in your model.

[Pardalis]

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?

This has nothing to do with democracy.

Democracy is about you being able to post here freely, which you are doing, which is fine.

But don't expect us to give a cr*p about your whining.

[defaultdotxbe]

I just was thinking what it would look like if any of our resident experts had to testify on global collapse

i think its more like this

Q- Are you an expert on the collapse of buildings

A- Yes

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

A- We are unable to model such a complex event, there are so many variables acting simultaneously that any computer model would be little better anyones best guess as to what might happen

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.

[gumboot]

Air and you go well together Beachnut, you may put it in your model.


What do you want to know about the WTC collapses?

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

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.
I don't speak for anyone else here, but my world is most certainly not mamby pamby. It's namby pamby. There's a world of difference.

And brains blow backwards right?Sometimes they do. Which way did yours go?

[R.Mackey]

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.
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."

To Non Believer, take charge of yourself, man. To the rest, you have this well in hand, particularly Architect. Well done.

[beachnut]

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?

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!

[beachnut]

Air and you go well together Beachnut, you may put it in your model.

Thank you,

Thank you very much.

[Pardalis]

Non believer, what would make you understand to your satisfaction the collapse of the WTC towers?

[CHF]

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?

[CHF]

What kind of individual just rolls over when someone tells him what his opinion is.

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?

[Architect]

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.

[Architect]

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[JimBenArm]

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?

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]

I think he's still at school.

[JonnyFive]

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?

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.

[Architect]

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


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.

[aggle-rithm]

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.



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.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes there is going to be additionally force with collapse, but the structure was built to withstand additional force.


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.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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. That one would be equivocation (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#equivocation)

[JonnyFive]

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.

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?

[Horatius]

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?

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?

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?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NB appears to be retreating into the same fort as 28th, that being politics and philosophy.

[JonnyFive]

NB appears to be retreating into the same fort as 28th, that being politics and philosophy.

Also, ignoring or evading direct questions.

Does Non Believer have an extensive ignore list?

[Non Believer]

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.

[aggle-rithm]

NB appears to be retreating into the same fort as 28th, that being politics and philosophy.

I've noticed this tendency among troofers. In the midst of arguments about what is or isn't physically possible, they begin to cry, "You have no appreciation for the complex social issues involved!"

Um...what?

[aggle-rithm]

Bingo. Basically twoofers like to pretend that ignorance is a strength. If THEY don't understand something that they're not qualfied to understand then it MUST be a conspiracy.

It works the same way when twoofers try to spread their message. They only have luck if their audience doesn't know a damn thing about the subject matter.

I know it's been said before, but...we're all very fortunate that reality is not constrained by what these bozos can understand.

[JonnyFive]

Non-Believer:

So what evidence do you have that the evidence currently presented and compiled into the NIST reports on the collapse is inadequate?

A degree in philosophy would explain your fondness for rhetoric, but this is not a rhetorical topic.

Stay on target and provide some evidence for us to evaluate, or explain in detail why the NIST report is wrong. Please provide at least a semi-technical reason that extends beyond "because common sense says otherwise", as that is a non-empirical statement.

[Non Believer]

Yes Mr Johnny Fly Five- are you aware that empirical findings are meaningless without a rational framework in which to place your results.I doubt you even understand the context that the word rhetoric as it is used in connection to philosophy. If you haven't understood my complaint with NIST by now, I can't help you.

[DavidJames]

So what evidence do you have that the evidence currently presented and compiled into the NIST reports on the collapse is inadequate?

Yes Mr Johnny Fly Five- are you aware that empirical findings are meaningless without a rational framework in which to place your results.I doubt you even understand the context that the word rhetoric as it is used in connection to philosophy. If you haven't understood my complaint with NIST by now, I can't help you.Believers response can be simplified to:

"I got nothing"

If he were inclined to be brutally honest he was add...

"I don't have the knowledge and education to discuss NIST. I only got words. You see, I'm a believer"

[RenaissanceBiker]

There are no real gorillaists. That lie was started as part of a lemur conspiracy.

[Horatius]

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.

Actually, that "some of us" would be "one of us", that being me. And since you've decided to punt the question, I guess I was right. You haven't seriously considered the level of detail you would need to see to be convinced that the greater level of detail is a valid analysis.

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.

So you have "problems" with "authority"*, so you'll pout and whine and not give the answer that could actually move the discussion forward.

Oh, but you're perfectly okay with you dictating how much (unpaid!) work Architect should put into convincing you. That's just peachy.

Just another CTist facist wannabe.





*And when exactly did some anonymous punk on the InterWebThingy become "authority"? Does this mean I can send you to bed without supper now?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes Mr Johnny Fly Five- are you aware that empirical findings are meaningless without a rational framework in which to place your results.I doubt you even understand the context that the word rhetoric as it is used in connection to philosophy. If you haven't understood my complaint with NIST by now, I can't help you.

Do you disagree with the following methodology for inquiry


Elements of the scientific method (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method.html) ( hypothetico-deductive): Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.
Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.
Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.
Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:
Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses. Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

<snip>
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

If you disagree, please explain why.

If you do not disagree, please explain how your above post fits in to this methodology.

[R.Mackey]

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.
There's a big, big difference between "having a conversation" and "insisting that experts are dead wrong." You don't have the training, period. If I want a review of Classical vs. Modern existential thought, you could probably teach me a great many things. If I want a critical assessment of building performance on Sept. 11th, you have nothing to contribute. As your posts here have demonstrated. Feel free to ask questions, but put away your preconceived notions of your all-important and utterly invalid opinion.

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.
Look, pal, you said, and I quote, "it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this information to its citizenry." It is not. The Government does not produce a major newspaper, last time I checked. There is no Ministry of Truth in the United States. And it for damn sure is not a requirement for the US Government to educate every last person on every last detail, including such folks as you, who haven't the foggiest clue what they're talking about yet refuse to be convinced anyway.

Really, what do you want? NIST to come to your house? Give you a full month of presentations? Build a model of WTC 1 in your back yard and destroy it for you?

Don't you think that's a bit unreasonable?

People who actually understand science and engineering, such as myself, are entirely satisfied. You really can't comprehend just how much information we have been given -- so much that we can replicate their findings and go quibble about incredibly fine details that remain. People who aren't satisfied, without exception, are simply uneducated and show no willingness to learn.

It's that simple.

So go ahead and ask questions. Ask lots of questions. But don't get upset if you don't like the answers. That's your problem.

[JonnyFive]

Yes Mr Johnny Fly Five- are you aware that empirical findings are meaningless without a rational framework in which to place your results.I doubt you even understand the context that the word rhetoric as it is used in connection to philosophy. If you haven't understood my complaint with NIST by now, I can't help you.

This is meaningless drivel. I have asked, and others have asked, that you provide solid evidence for your assertions. Claiming that we do not have a "rational framework" to place our results in is simply using weasel language to avoid the central issue of presenting something of substance.

I, frankly, don't care what your complaints with the NIST report are. What I care about is that you provide evidence for whatever you claim really happened.

I am fully aware of what the word "rhetoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric)" means. You insist on using language to try and convince us of your position, but no amount of elegant speech will help. We insist on hard evidence, mathematical calculations, and technical analysis.

[Architect]

Do you know that your response does not reply to one single technical point which Irased? Not a single one!

Okay, let's have a look at what you say (again)

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.

1. Well, assuming you mean a university level education then you'll find that everyone with a degree is (by definition) a graduate. So can I just be quite clear here; you have successfully completed a full time, 3 or 4 year officially university course of study?

2. Assuming that the answer is affirmative, then perhaps you can tell me why it took so long, given that it's apparently simple to pick up underlying principles? Perhaps you can tell me just how many hours of lectures, classes, and tuition you did every week? I assume there were exams, and these were challenging? Disertation?

3. Now speculate, for a moment, that I came on this site shouting the odds (for you have not being conversing thus far) about my understanding of (say) existentialism based on reading a Wiki article and some self help books. The kind of thing you did in the second week of your very first semester.

4. And when you started to point out the complexities of philosophical thinking, imagine that I hand waved it away on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions.

5. Because that's what you've done here. You've claimed that your lay understanding (or lack thereof) of structural engineering is sufficient for you to dismiss highly technical, detailed education. And even better, we're meant to spell it all out for you in the tiniest detail.

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.

6. For a philosophy graduate, I would have expected an intelligible proposition but there you go. I think that what you're saying is that expert opinion must be considered against as just one strand of the evidencial chain. Which is entirely correct. Scots Law, first year at university, 12 weeks compulsory study. Do you need me to also explain to you about Corroboration?

7. But if you had studied law to any degree, you would realise that areas not directly connected with this evidencial chain aren't relevant. Qui bono is a classic example, since it is fundamentally speculative. It may give an investigator an idea of where to look, but that investigator still has to find enough corroborative evidence (look it up) to show culpability (look it up) beyone reasonable doubt.

8. Or to put it another way, you can't admit in court that you've no real evidence but hey, the accused looks rather smug and got a new car out of it......


What was the nature of your studies on building collapse?

9. Well, you see, we do a minimum of 2 years structural theory and then I did another stint as a volountary elective subject. Load analyses and failure of structures do rather form an integral part of this process. I also took a 1 year elective in Building Fabric Performance, which looked at a whole range of fabric failure issues (from structure through to water penetration) and taught methodical analysis as a diagnostic tool.

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?

10. There is no if. We know that steel framed buildings are susceptible to failure during fires. But what you are asking is actually two different questions; firstly, why did no one from the US equivalent of Building Control warn people (I think this was actually the case, but will chase down the link) and secondly why did the fireman - who would also be aware of the risk - enter the buildings anyway?

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.

11. But you can't tell us why we should have continued analysing the failure even though we know that progressive collapse was inevitable? That seems like a good use of time and money.

12. Are you seriously suggesting that someone build a scale model of the WTC and use it in some way to test the collapse mechanism?

Also I have studied math and physics, but I know your connection to reality is probably not that important.

13. Just in passing, given that maths and physics are traditionally science faculty subjects, it seems unusual to have them bundled up with an arts faculty degree such as philosophy. Is that normal at University level in the States?

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

14. It's implicit in your e-mails. Stop trying to get out of it by demanding explicit statements.

So the basic concept of calculus is to build mathematical models that most closely approximate the infinities we approach when measuring motion.

15. Great. So since you know that basic premise, and since you studied maths, can I go and get my wife (who studied maths to postgraduate level) to go and set you some easy posers? After all, that's all you apparently need in order to understand calculus.

Remember a bloody Ct er said this , so you sure better find it ridiculous

16. Provide a compelling message and we'll listen. Provide a ridiculous message, and we'll laugh.

[Horatius]

13. Just in passing, given that maths and physics are traditionally science faculty subjects, it seems unusual to have them bundled up with an arts faculty degree such as philosophy. Is that normal at University level in the States?


Here in Canada, the Arts students were required to take a few science courses, in the interests of "broadening" their understanding. Usually these classes were specifically for arts students, and could not be used as credits towards a science degree

We in the BSc Physics classes referred to this class as "Physics for Idiots". It was at a level somewhere below what we studied as seniors in high school.

Of course, science students also had to take a few arts electives, but we took the same courses as the regular arts students, so make of that what you will.

[Pardalis]

Trying to find common ground of understanding sounds like a communist plot.

:confused: :boggled:

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.

So are you saying that you are satisfied with the analysis of the collapse initiation that the NIST did?

The collapse itself wasn't studied in detail but if it had been, if it had been possible, do you think the NIST would also have made a comprehensive analysis to your liking?

Is there any reason to believe that the engeneers at the NIST are incompetent?

Also the request that some sort of represenative model be built and tested. That would be a good start.

Isn't the collapse initiation a good start, since you seem to agree with it?

[Architect]

Here in Canada, the Arts students were required to take a few science courses, in the interests of "broadening" their understanding. Usually these classes were specifically for arts students, and could not be used as credits towards a science degree

We in the BSc Physics classes referred to this class as "Physics for Idiots". It was at a level somewhere below what we studied as seniors in high school.

Of course, science students also had to take a few arts electives, but we took the same courses as the regular arts students, so make of that what you will.


There are just too many jokes abouts Arts degrees, usually with punchlines about toilet paper or "can I have chips with that, please". :boxedin:


Anyway we as architects also had to do external electives. I did Geography as the paperwork said we didn't need a Higher or SYS (the advanced Scottish secondary school exams, which I had) to do it. And yes, it was what we called a "Benny" class (after a learning disabled character in an English soap opera).

[stateofgrace]

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?

It is abundantly clear that you believe you can get by without listening to what anybody says to you, unless they agree with you version of events. Your theories have simply been pulled apart in this thread. To counter this you have now resorted to classic ct rhetoric “Who needs Experts?"
Professional people, like Architect have simply pulled you apart so you now resort to simply name calling those who disagree with you.

You ask what type of person simply rolls over when somebody else tells them what to think, the answer, my friend are you. You are the type of person that rolls over and listens to ct rubbish, you are the type of person that allows other people to dictate to you what you should believe and think. It is admirable that individuals on this forum will not accept your accusations that innocent people planned, executed and carried out mass murder without evidence and facts. You have presented neither, you have simply presented claim upon claim backed up by wishful thinking. You want it to be real, you want to have happened the way you see it and nothing, science, facts or evidence with convince you otherwise.

You accuse people of believing everything that is spoon fed them from some form of sinister USG and being incapable of making up their own minds. This is totally untrue and the reality is that many people question their governments; many people object their Governments domestic and foreign policies. You seem to have this misguided perception that everybody here is simply defending the US Government and have this blinding faith in all they do and say. Implying that everybody is blissfully unaware of the worlds injustices and only you can throw light upon it all .You have everybody believe that you are a saviour of humanity, enlightening everybody with wondrous insight into a dastardly plot that everybody missed, other than you and a few other. The reality is you will only believe anything you read on conspiracy web sites, you will only believe anybody who agrees with you. In this you will ally yourself to the most offensive group of individuals ever, a group that pathetically calls itself the truth movement.

A movement so devoid of any form of compassion it openly mocks the final words of the victims, a group that stages demonstrations at GZ during memorial services. A group so repugnant and repulsive they pretend drone planes hit the Towers, the passengers did not exist and that those who tried to help are actually part of it all. These are your allies, these are the people you stand shoulder to shoulder with.

The mamby pamby world you and this movement live in is one where you kid yourself into believing you are accusing the USG of the most heinous crime imaginable. The reality is for any single one of these ridiculous theories to go anywhere you have to accuse perfectly innocent people of being involved. So you do and to seek the absolution you want, you lie and fool yourself that you are not. After all you are an individual with a mind of his own, a saviour of humanity. Nobody fools you, forget science, forget facts, logic and common sense, the gumbit did and that's it.

[Regnad Kcin]

The big leagues, Non Believer.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Non-Believer:

So what evidence do you have that the evidence currently presented and compiled into the NIST reports on the collapse is inadequate?
Yes Mr Johnny Fly Five- are you aware that empirical findings are meaningless without a rational framework in which to place your results.I doubt you even understand the context that the word rhetoric as it is used in connection to philosophy.
Heh. Translation: "None."

If you haven't understood my complaint with NIST by now, I can't help you.
Your entire "complaint" seems to be "I don't believe it and no one wants to waste their time dumbing it down for me."

How does a degree in philosophy qualify you to make any technical complaint about the NIST's investigation?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a ******** artist!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/

[JonnyFive]

You entire "complaint" seems to be "I don't believe it and no one wants to waste their time dumbing it down for me."

Bah, even when it is dumbed down for him, he still doesn't bother to address it. I thought Architect did a good job of summing the damn thing up, and he's still rambling about knowledge frameworks or whatever.

This isn't goddamn programming in Visual Studio .NET, just present the freaking evidence.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes Mr Johnny Fly Five- are you aware that empirical findings are meaningless without a rational framework in which to place your results.

This would fall under the heading of "meta-bullsh*t" -- a meaningless statement about how meaningless his own straw man is.

[CurtC]

How does a degree in philosophy qualify you to make any technical complaint about the NIST's investigation?It allows him to see that in the NIST report, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. Thus, a number of desublimations concerning subcultural structuralist theory may be discovered. The main theme of the report is the dialectic, and thus the failure, of posttextual art.

“Class is responsible for capitalism,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Scuglia, it is not so much class that is responsible for capitalism, but rather the fatal flaw, and eventually the rubicon, of class. In a sense, in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Rushdie affirms cultural feminism; in The Moor’s Last Sigh he examines subcultural structuralist theory. Von Ludwig holds that we have to choose between Derridaist reading and textual discourse.

Thus, the subject is contextualised into a postmodern paradigm of expression that includes consciousness as a totality. Non-Believer suggests the use of subcultural structuralist theory to deconstruct society.

[Horatius]

Non-Believer suggests the use of subcultural structuralist theory to deconstruct society.


Is that the same as "They blew up the building"?

:(

Now I remember why we hated art-fag guys.

[JonnyFive]

Is that the same as "They blew up the building"?

At the sake of sounding like a genius... yes.

[gumboot]

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?


I would imagine the FDNY were well aware that buildings can collapse in fires. That would probably explain why the FDNY ordered an evacuation of WTC1 a short time after they arrived, due to questionable structural integrity.

That probably also explains the laws concerning fire-proofing on steel in buildings.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

There are just too many jokes abouts Arts degrees, usually with punchlines about toilet paper or "can I have chips with that, please". :boxedin:


Hey now, to be fair Arts degrees are all well and good. The problem is the people doing them... :p

A lot of people doing Arts degrees frankly do them because they don't know what to do. Here in NZ the standard choice is the BA - Bachelor of Arts or "Bugger All".

But that's not to say an Arts degree is worthless. It would be really stupid for me, for example, to have done a BSc.

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

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.

Mr Wolfshade you showed some of my favorite stuff there. Where do you guys present any of it? No observable phenomenon and no testable hypothesis get you off to a bad start in this area. But I know my standards are too high because I am asking for as much as one piece of a testable hypothesis. Instead we simply insert expert testimony in its place

[stateofgrace]

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.

Mr Wolfshade you showed some of my favorite stuff there. Where do you guys present any of it? No observable phenomenon and no testable hypothesis get you off to a bad start in this area. But I know my standards are too high because I am asking for as much as one piece of a testable hypothesis. Instead we simply insert expert testimony in its place

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.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Mr Wolfshade you showed some of my favorite stuff there. Where do you guys present any of it?
<snip>

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[Horatius]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

I think he meant "Hitler on Ice (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/History_of_the_World_Pt._1#Preview_of_Part_II)". Probably not "Jews in Space".

[R.Mackey]

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.
Hey Philosophy boy:

Despite what you may have learned from television, just because you are familiar with ST:TOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series), that doesn't mean you are an engineer.

Anytime you feel safe making an actual argument, you go right ahead. Take your time.

[Dog Town]

But I know my standards are too high because I am asking for as much as one piece of a testable hypothesis.


If I was into a silly Ct sig, this would make the list!
Classic, Gabby Johnson frontier gibberish...

[CHF]

Your entire "complaint" seems to be "I don't believe it and no one wants to waste their time dumbing it down for me."

Bingo. These kooks think they're the smartest people around. So if they don't understand something, well then it surely MUST be a conspiracy.

How did these people survive Grade 3? :confused:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think he meant "Hitler on Ice (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/History_of_the_World_Pt._1#Preview_of_Part_II)". Probably not "Jews in Space".
What, my implied comparison to Comicus?

[Architect]

I think that Non Believer just admitted that he couldn't actually respond to the points made to him.

LOSER!

[JonnyFive]

Where do you guys present any of it? No observable phenomenon and no testable hypothesis get you off to a bad start in this area. But I know my standards are too high because I am asking for as much as one piece of a testable hypothesis. Instead we simply insert expert testimony in its place

How about you stop trying to... whatever exactly you're trying to do, and tell us:

1) What you think happened, in precise detail.

2) What evidence you have to support this explanation over the explanation presented in the NIST reports, among others.

Thank you, come again.

[aggle-rithm]

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.


So, an advanced alien race created highly sophisticated androids but forgot to include the most basic error-handling routines. What's your point?

[Horatius]

What, my implied comparison to Comicus?

"Implied"?

[CurtC]

If I was into a silly Ct sig, this would make the list!
Classic, Gabby Johnson frontier gibberish...I'm glad the children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age.

[Non Believer]

Architect if you think there are questions that relate directly to the questuon at hand please priortize them in such a manner. I am not interested in explaining my personal background, or the the format of the state and college systems here in CA (you can have that much). I was taught to examine the nature and facts presented on their own merits first,, and the background of the person making the arguments quite a ways down the road from tere.. But for you folks the roles are reversed. Heck, I would be lucky if you ever hears my arguments.

I think we are close to wrapping this up ( though I will post a final recapitulation in response to Arch's from a couple of days ago, but I do want to go into one of the points made yesterday. That being the idea that everyone was in agreement that any large explosions or fires would bring down the towers. First off show some proof. Some pre 9-11 statements, something in fire department policy, something from the port authority. Anything? Oh, let me guess, it was so commonly understood that no one felt the need to say anything about it. Maybe it was kept quiet so the terrorists woulddn't get wind of it. Man it must have been a lot closer than we were told in the 93 attack.


So I am not sure if you have looked at the thread on whether or not the towers were built to withstand airliners crashing into the building, but if so why did Demartini's and Skillings statements go unchallenged? If it was common knowledge that the buildings would come down, why were theses statements (in 93, and 2000) allowed to stand ?

[Pardalis]

Non believer, do you find the NIST analysis of the collapse initiation sequence to be comprehensive?

[uk_dave]

First off show some proof. Some pre 9-11 statements, something in fire department policy, something from the port authority.

You want proof?

How about: The structural steelwork of the WTC towers was clad/coated in order to protect it from the effects of fire.

Is that not proof enough?

Need more exposition?

If the steel wasn't vulnerable to fire, why did it require protection?

If the vulnerability of the steel to fire was not going to result in a collapse of the building, why bother with the protection?

So, what happens when that fireproofing is damaged or removed and the building is on fire? hmmmmmmm?

[Architect]

NB

Hahahahahahah.......oh, you're serious? Oopps.

[JonnyFive]

I think we are close to wrapping this up ( though I will post a final recapitulation in response to Arch's from a couple of days ago, but I do want to go into one of the points made yesterday.

So you're not going to bother providing detailed explanations of what you think happened along with evidence? I didn't think so, thanks.

[Architect]

Architect if you think there are questions that relate directly to the questuon at hand please priortize them in such a manner.

It's done above. The two posts where I explain the collapse mechanism fairly lengthily, then the one where I picked up all your previous unsubstantiated claims about structural aspects of the WTC.

I am not interested in explaining my personal background, or the the format of the state and college systems here in CA (you can have that much). I was taught to examine the nature and facts presented on their own merits first.

But that's not what you've done. You've made wild, vague assertions and categorically failed to provide any evidence in relevant fields such as structural or fire engineering. You seem to thank that the fact Bush is a scary clown is enough to show he did 911, all under some sort of flimsy "philosophical" pretext.

That being the idea that everyone was in agreement that any large explosions or fires would bring down the towers. First off show some proof. Some pre 9-11 statements, something in fire department policy, something from the port authority.

You have it. My previous posts gave you evidence, significantly predating 9/11, that the susceptibility of steel framed buildings to fire was known and understood.

This is why WTC had been fireproofed. What no-one expected was an aircraft impact which would add an explosion and removal of fireproofing from the equation.

To try and claim that use of steel in framed structures is negligent because it fails is lunacy; after all your house probably has a timber floor and roof structure, as do about 90% of properties in the UK.

So I am not sure if you have looked at the thread on whether or not the towers were built to withstand airliners crashing into the building, but if so why did Demartini's and Skillings statements go unchallenged?

Yeah, I've answered that in the various previous posts too. You are reading things, aren't you?


Face it, NB: You lost. You failed to come back to us with any substantive response(s) to the technical issues raised and, when backed into a corner, have launched into the vague and woolly characteristics which so characterise the 911 Truth Movemement.

[JonnyFive]

Face it, NB: You lost. You failed to come back to us with any substantive response(s) to the technical issues raised and, when backed into a corner, have launched into the vague and woolly characteristics which so characterise the 911 Truth Movemement.

Someone hasn't properly aligned their meta-paradigms in order to provide a proper transient framework for knowledge learning. :)

[Architect]

Or, maybe........the steel fire protection lobby are in on the plot too?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Or, maybe........the steel fire protection lobby are in on the plot too?

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre"

[Bell]

So I am not sure if you have looked at the thread on whether or not the towers were built to withstand airliners crashing into the building, but if so why did Demartini's and Skillings statements go unchallenged? If it was common knowledge that the buildings would come down, why were theses statements (in 93, and 2000) allowed to stand ?

Why did De Martini request for a construction inspector?

Around 9:15, Drohan heard De Martini over the walkie-talkie.
"Any construction inspector at ground level."
Drohan acknowledged that he was on the street.
"Can you escort a couple of structural inspectors to the 78th floor?" De martini asked.
De Martini had seen something in the steel-Drohan was not sure what-that he did not like. The drywall had been knocked off parts of the sky lobby, exposing the elevator shafts, and revealing the core of the building. That had prompted his first radio alert, warning that the elevators might collapse. Now De Martini wanted inspectors from a structural engineering firm to come up to the 78th-floor sky lobby and take a look.

102 Minutes, page 147

[Architect]

An engineer from the Department of Buildings reported that the structural damage appeared to be immense. The stability of both buildings was compromised. In particular, the engineer was worried about how long the north tower would stand.
Page 203
“102 Minutes”, Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn


This seems pretty clear to me: someone from Building Control turned up and said "it's gonna fall down".

Not exactly a complete surprise, eh?

[CurtC]

That being the idea that everyone was in agreement that any large explosions or fires would bring down the towers. First off show some proof.Maybe you're not aware of this, but the burden of proof rests solely on you. The official version has been endorsed by a wide variety of experts and the results published publically. No serious challenges have been made. If you think you have a serious challenge, it's up to you to put forward your evidence.

[JonnyFive]

If you think you have a serious challenge, it's up to you to put forward your evidence.

Alternatively, he could simply go on about unrelated things and we can proceed to derail the hell out of this thread.

I'd rather go for the evidence thing, but that's probably not going to happen.

[Horatius]

Why did De Martini request for a construction inspector?


Around 9:15, Drohan heard De Martini over the walkie-talkie.
"Any construction inspector at ground level."
Drohan acknowledged that he was on the street.
"Can you escort a couple of structural inspectors to the 78th floor?" De martini asked.
De Martini had seen something in the steel-Drohan was not sure what-that he did not like. The drywall had been knocked off parts of the sky lobby, exposing the elevator shafts, and revealing the core of the building. That had prompted his first radio alert, warning that the elevators might collapse. Now De Martini wanted inspectors from a structural engineering firm to come up to the 78th-floor sky lobby and take a look


102 Minutes, page 147

We too often forget that real people were involved in these events. Reading something like this, you can only imagine how he must have felt upon realizing how badly he had analysed the situation.

"Kicking yourself" doesn't even begin to cover it.

[Horatius]

Alternatively, he could simply go on about unrelated things and we can proceed to derail the hell out of this thread.

I'd rather go for the evidence thing, but that's probably not going to happen.

Considering the title of this thread is, "Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?" (unnecessary space and all), I think we're well into derailing it by this point.

Cat Pictures, anyone?

[JonnyFive]

Cat Pictures, anyone?

Let's give him a little more time. He might... pfff... might... heehee... he might post some evidence... hahahaha.

I'm sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. Got anything super-cute?

[Horatius]

Let's give him a little more time. He might... pfff... might... heehee... he might post some evidence... hahahaha.

I'm sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. Got anything super-cute?

I don't know about super cute, but how's this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904582882997d98.jpg

"I'm gonna get that feather!"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904595b727c388e.jpg


"What? I meant to do that!"

[JonnyFive]

I don't know about super cute, but how's this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904582882997d98.jpg

"I'm gonna get that feather!"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904595b727c388e.jpg


"What? I meant to do that!"

That's pretty cute. Your cat looks kind of like one of mine. She walks on our treadmill.

[aggle-rithm]

I was taught to examine the nature and facts presented on their own merits first,

But obviously, something went horribly wrong. Care to share with us?


, and the background of the person making the arguments quite a ways down the road from tere.. But for you folks the roles are reversed. Heck, I would be lucky if you ever hears my arguments.


I hears them quite well, they just don't make a lot of sense to me, that's all.


I think we are close to wrapping this up ( though I will post a final recapitulation


No need for a recap. We already know your ideas make no sense.

but I do want to go into one of the points made yesterday. That being the idea that everyone was in agreement that any large explosions or fires would bring down the towers.


Actually, everyone is in agreement that the PARTICULAR high-speed impacts and fires DID bring down the towers. Many people were surprised, but no one felt (in retrospect) that it was impossible.


First off show some proof. Some pre 9-11 statements, something in fire department policy, something from the port authority. Anything?


You want evidence that someone PRE-9/11 could tell the future? Is this really necessary?

Oh, let me guess, it was so commonly understood that no one felt the need to say anything about it.


Wrong. Try again! This time, engage your cognitive module.


Maybe it was kept quiet so the terrorists woulddn't get wind of it. Man it must have been a lot closer than we were told in the 93 attack.


Or maybe you either totally misunderstand or are totally misrepresenting the issue. Given your twin liabilities of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, it's hard to tell which is the case.


So I am not sure if you have looked at the thread on whether or not the towers were built to withstand airliners crashing into the building, but if so why did Demartini's and Skillings statements go unchallenged? If it was common knowledge that the buildings would come down, why were theses statements (in 93, and 2000) allowed to stand ?

That's quite an elaborate straw man you've constructed there.

What exactly do you mean by their statements being "allowed to stand"? Do you think they should be erased from every publication that quoted them? Do you think a tribunal should be convened in which an elaborate ceremony is performed to somehow excommunicate these statements? Why is this necessary, instead of what actually happened: Experts looked at the statements and said, "Huh, I guess they were wrong."

It's been known to happen.

[Architect]

NB,

Just to remind you about the points put to you and on which we're still awaiting some sort of detailed response on:

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

1. Buildings are designed to accommodate dead (i.e. self weight) and live (people, furniture, wind, etc) loadings. These design values are then subject to safety factors based on credible risks, set out in various design codes and standards.

2. Design of framed buildings such as the tower is complex; I do not intend to discuss in any depth the various jointing and connection techniques however a joint - welded or bolted - will only be designed to take specific loadings. These loadings will be for specific directions.

3. Lest anyone doubt how complex this all is, then remember the case of the Citicorp building. If you have no idea about Citicorp without having to Google, then do not trouble this board with any claims of structural expertise.

4. It may be helpful if you consider the complete tower structure - floors, inner core, and outer facade - as acting together as a large girder, or space frame (you must be familiar with both of these). Damage to or loss of one element can and will have an effect on the overall stability of the "girder".

5. The towers were built with spare structural capacity, however a significant part of this was compromised in the initial impact. Further damage was cause dby the fires. Although the designers claim that the design was built to accommodate an aircraft impact, no calculations have ever been produced to show the extent of this (I refer you again to Citicorp); there were (a) no applicable design codes or guidance at the time and (b) limited computer modelling techniques available at the time.

6. The fire weakened the floor trusses, causing sag. This in turn led to deflection of the outer structural envelope (or facade). The steel could not accommodate the required loadings at this point (a buckled structural member will be weaker, even before we consider the impact of buckling on joints and risk of their failure). The hat trusses probably served to redistribute loads, but ultimately exceeded design capacity and failed.

7. At this point, failure of the supporting structure for the upper part of the building is inevitable and what is frankly a massive amount of material begins to move downwards at a 9.8ms/-2. The momentum and mass are substantial.

8. The structure below is not intact, because the hat trusses are no longer doing their work and the bracing effect of the upper structure has been lost. It is overly simplistic to suggest that this portion of the building is sound, a point usually overlooked by "alternative" theories.

9. The steel joints, etc. are not designed to accommodate the loadings imposed by the impact of this massive mass and momentum. They are deisgned to accommodate normal loadings, which will be many magnitudes less. They will fail; there is absolutely no doubt about this, from a structural perspective. The time involved with be absolutely minimal. Although not a NIST document, Greening's paper (again you should be familiar with this) gives you a very basic idea of the kind of issues we're talking about.

10. At this point the collapse becomes progressive and self-perpetuating.

Let me give you a simple analogy (not my own, I hasten to add, but a rather a very good, simple way of looking at the problem posted elsewhere).

If you put a brick on your head, there will be no problems. You will be able to walk around (subject to balance), suffer no injuries, and so on. The additional dead lead of the brick (together with minimal live load for wind, etc. on it's faces) is well within the "design" load of your skeleton.

If we drop that brick from just 0.5 metres (far less than the floor-ceiling height of wtc) then you will suffer major head injuries. If we drop it 2.5 metres, you will suffer severe head and spinal injuries. Realistically, you will die.

Now as far as I can see, the ol' canard you're attempting to pull out of the hat is the one about the resistence of each floor sufficiently slowing down the collapse in order to markedly influence total collapse time.

I have to tell you that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper (mobile) structure is such that it's going to make bugger-all difference. We're talking about tiny fractions of a second each floor, not seconds.

This is what we, as trained professionals, would expect. Number crunching is irrelevant.

Now if you want to prove differently, don't demand that other people do your work for you. Go and find out how each joint was formed. Calculate the design loadings, then look at the imposed loadings from the collapse. Calculate the length of time to failure. THEN come back and tell us if there's an issue or not.

And this, I believe, is where YOU have a problem. You don't understand structures in any competent manner. Hell I work on tall structures every day of the working week and I have to get a team of real experts from Arup do the number crunching for me on a tall buildings project, so what hope has a lay person got?

Intead you try to claim that NIST have been remiss in not calculating something wholly irrelevant.

You cherry pick facts and soundbites, other (wholly irrelevant) cases such as Windsor. Tell me, NB, do you really know about the Citicorp Building without looking it up on Google? Have you ever heard of Ronan Point? How much do you understand about the actual performance of fires without going to Wiki?

Have you read the Sheffield University research papers? Were you even aware that Sheffield University (it's in the UK, btw)has a highly respected fire engineering unit?

Did you know that Edinburgh University (that's in the UK too) had published a paper suggesting through fire modelling that the trusses would have failed even withouth the aircraft impact? Likewise have you seen the Arup papers which seperately came to the same conclusion?

When considering the susceptibility of steel buildings to fire, were you aware that every single building standards/regulatory code in the West (and I suspect elsewhere) had identified the problem for at least 20 years (when I started training) and probably a lot longer? Were you aware that steel firms such as Corus publish extensive advice on this?

Do you know how we protect steel against fire? Are you aware of the different systems available and fire ratings? Hell, do you even know what intumescent means without looking it up on Google?

Have you looked at the various engineering media reports on the collapse (NCE would be a good start, but I suspect you've never heard of that either) in order to try and understand how we as an industry have viewed and understood the collapse.

I can go on all day with a list of architectural, structural, and fire engineering issues which you have to understand before you can even begin to comment on the NIST report with any degree of confidence. Each of these disciplines requires between 5 and 7 years of a university education, with intensive study across a whole range of specialist topics. This is then followed by practical, on-the-job training.

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".

Now rather than whittering on about philosophy and logic, can you start giving me an engineering explanation as to where you disagree with this?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NB,

Just to remind you about the points put to you and on which we're still awaiting some sort of detailed response on:



Now rather than whittering on about philosophy and logic, can you start giving me an engineering explanation as to where you disagree with this?
Also, please address the following while you are at it:
Do you disagree with the following methodology for inquiry

Quote:

Elements of the scientific method (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method.html) ( hypothetico-deductive):
Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.
Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.
Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:
Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses. Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.<snip>
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff..._method_2.html (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html)

If you disagree, please explain why.

If you do not disagree, please explain how your above post fits in to this methodology.

[Architect]

Am I alone in wondering if the silence from NB is some sort of confirmation of defeat on his part?

[Horatius]

Am I alone in wondering if the silence from NB is some sort of confirmation of defeat on his part?

I've wondered that about other twoofers before. And always turned out to be wrong.

It's probably just that his mom made him go out a play in the real world for an afternoon.

[Architect]

But he said he had a degree and everything!

[jhunter1163]

We need more cat pictures....

[LashL]

Say no more :)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110345a00bbfcf9b7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3504)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110345a00be1ce0ca.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3505)

[Architect]

There's always something a bit disappointing when they run away.........








The CTers, that is........

[Horatius]

Here, mousey mousey mousey! Where has mousey gone?!?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490455687724e957.jpg


He's got to be here somewhere!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904587363560b05.jpg

[LashL]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110345a01ba898a05.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3510)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110345a01c0864052.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3511)

[jhunter1163]

Or in Russian, Bumpovitch...

[ConspiRaider]

I've wondered that about other twoofers before. And always turned out to be wrong.

It's probably just that his mom made him go out a play in the real world for an afternoon.
Or maybe he's just out collecting chickenwire. Chickenwire models of the WTCs are now all the rage in WooVille, USA.

[apathoid]

I have to say I was never a big fan of the arts/philosophy folks before reading this thread and the last half hour or so has been a reaffirmation of my general disdain for these people. Is it me, or has our resident sophis...err uh I meant to say philosopher, non_believer, made a bunch of absolutely worthless posts for no other reason than to try to sound smart(hey, anybody can use a thesaurus) and to talk down to people who are clearly smarter and more knowledgable(Arch, RMackey, and probably everyone else)? He has literally just babbled for the last 3 pages(but i guess that qualifies as philosophy :rolleyes:). Noone is impressed, non_believer, quite the opposite.

If I was NB, I would go back to my alma mater and ask for a refund. Seriously, who hires philosophers(besides philosophy departments at schools)? At least underwater basket weavers can produce something tangible, as well as being able to teach underwater basket weaving at the Y. Did I mention that I don't like phil people?

[maccy]

OK, as somebody with a degree in English and Philosophy I'd say you can't generalise too much. Philosophy can teach you a lot about logic and critical thinking. The fallacies that we like to point out to people are pretty much all derived from philosophical inquiry. The abstract logic system that forms the basis of computer logic would have been much harder to work out without the work of Frege and Russell and others in symbolic logic which was already in place when the technology became physically possible. Skepticism and empiricism both derive from philosophical inquiry. The scientific method owes a lot to logical positivism which, in turn, owes a debt to Wittgenstein's early work. The concept of falsification has its roots in the philosophy of science.

Philosophy can also, however, encourage a narrowness of thought and certain branches can be dauntingly abstract. Post-structuralism in particular can lead it's students into self-referential loops and an almost fetishistic elevation of the marginal in preference to the mainstream. Even if a philosopher isn't a post-structuralist (and in the UK, at least, such works are general regarded as nonsensical by Philosophy Departments and are generally championed by a subset of academics in English and Art departments, and sometimes under the new banner of Cultural Studies) they can have such a narrow specialisation, in such an abstract area, that they have little interest in, or knowledge of, much else. It is also a discipline well suited to individuals who are disinclined to participate in the non-intellectual world, with everybody else.

Of course, with arts subjects it's also possible to do a lot more bluffing, to regurgitate without understanding and to give the impression of achievement.

Nevertheless there are still many good solid thinkers who have been trained in philosophy and who continue to work in it, academically.
You shouldn't allow yourself to become prejudiced against discipline in the basis of a few individuals - especially those on a forum who are only making claims to be philosophy graduates.

ETA: I think that Non Believer has got where he has through bluff and regurgitation, not through intellectual ability. I suspect that he studied somewhere that was desperate to keep its pass rate up.

[apathoid]

OK, as somebody with a degree in English and Philosophy I'd say you can't generalise too much. Philosophy can teach you a lot about logic and critical thinking. ........

Nevertheless there are still many good solid thinkers who have been trained in philosophy and who continue to work in it, academically.
You shouldn't allow yourself to become prejudiced against discipline in the basis of a few individuals - especially those on a forum who are only making claims to be philosophy graduates.

Thanks Maccy. I didn't intend to offend you or any legit arts/philosophy people, and I accept that philosophy goes hand in hand with critical thinking and has many useful applications. I really just wanted to express my frustration with Mr. High and Mighty philosopher, Non_Believer. I also read somewhere that Jim Fetzer has not only written books on critical thinking, but taught it at his university while at the same time writing books on nonsensical conspiracies and bringing them up in his (philosophy and critical thinking)classes whenever he got the chance - so it appears that an entire university sort of fell through the cracks has zero credibility as far as I'm concerened. He shouldve been yanked long ago....But I suppose every discipline has its eejits who can give the profession a black eye and of course, they tend to speak the loudest.

ETA: I think that Non Believer has got where he has through bluff and regurgitation, not through intellectual ability. I suspect that he studied somewhere that was desperate to keep its pass rate up.
Probably true, and his responses did appear to be verbatimly(is that a word?) regurgitated and didn't appear to be aimed at any of the responses he was quoting, which is why I said he was simply babbling and not debating.

[maccy]

Thanks Maccy. I didn't intend to offend you or any legit arts/philosophy people, and I accept that philosophy goes hand in hand with critical thinking and has many useful applications. I really just wanted to express my frustration with Mr. High and Mighty philosopher, Non_Believer. I also read somewhere that Jim Fetzer has not only written books on critical thinking, but taught it at his university while at the same time writing books on nonsensical conspiracies and bringing them up in his (philosophy and critical thinking)classes whenever he got the chance - so it appears that an entire university sort of fell through the cracks has zero credibility as far as I'm concerened. He shouldve been yanked long ago....But I suppose every discipline has its eejits who can give the profession a black eye and of course, they tend to speak the loudest.

No worries. I wasn't offended personally and I'll quite happily admit that I worked nowhere near as hard as I should have done at my degree (I was rather distracted by extracurricular theatre activities and too young to balance my time well) and so I'd be delighted for my thinking to be taken apart by somebody with full-on analytical skillz (that's the technical term). It was just that I do know from what I've studied that philosophy takes a lot of work if you do it properly. So I was defending the many very clever and erudite people I've know who've come through the arts. I definitely understand the rant, though.

Non-believer has thus far shown no sign of thoughtfulness or even the ability to put together a cogent argument. There's an awful lot of hand-waving and rhetoric going on as well and a strange inability to admit his own ignorance. At present, I am ashamed on behalf of philosophy and of those who really study it.

I don't know if its the same in the US, but my experience of UK Philosophy departments is that lecturers get a lot of leeway and are pretty much left to their own devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Fetzer's work was pretty good in his specialism - he seems to have published a lot and been awarded fellowships and the like. If this is the case, it may well have been that the faculty tolerated what they would see as his eccentricities for the sake of his legitimate research.

A massive generalisation follows: philosophers tend to be very good at arguing in fine detail, but the nature of the discipline means that you could just analyse the starting point of your argument without being able to progress further. Usually, you'll have to make some basic assumptions in order to progress at all - often these will be derived from the work of other philosophers who have already worked over the issues in detail. Most Philosophy Professors will be working around the edges of great works anyway, they won't produce anything truly new themselves, although they may shed light on some aspects of an issue or aid with its understanding. Nevertheless, this means that philosophical discourse will often proceed very narrowly and methodically from a set of assumptions. Where those assumptions have a basis in sound scholarship, there's a good chance that all will be well (or at least that the argument will be usefully incorrect).

However, if the argument proceeds from assumptions that are just wrong (a stars wars beam weapon as a possibility, for example) the narrow focus can lead to tightly argued piece of nonsense - and it is this very focus that can stop the author from seeing this. In short, Fetzer lacks the understanding of basic science which would lead him to question someone like Judy Wood. Because he is used to philosophising about science he assumes both that he doesn't need to know more and that the likes of Wood are at least to be considered - that there is no hypothesis that should be rejected out of hand. Because he lacks the real-world knack of spotting the impossible, he demands that a multitude of impossibilities should be considered. He fails to realise that he doesn't have the rigor to test and reject them and so finds himself in a swamp of rhetoric and confusion.

I think this is probably exacerbated by a classic need to believe - possibly, as always, the mark of a delusional mind.

In other words it's still possible to be a good philosopher and an idiot at the same time. All you have to do is arrogantly step out of your area of expertise with an emotional investment in the conclusion of you argument that blinds you to your own ignorance.

Edited to add: just looked at NB's profile to see when he was last on (2 days ago, and today's his birthday - so he may not have run away) and I saw that he's 47 years old. Being as he doesn't claim to be a philosopher but rather to hold a graduate degree in Philosophy (which must be a Masters, otherwise he would have said Doctorate) my guess is that he was at most 27 years old when he last formally studied Philosophy. In other words it's been at least 20 years since he was last seriously engaged in this stuff he likes to spout off about. Architect's academic expertise is somewhat different as he uses it every day in his profession, NB is trying to impress with a dying memory of intellectual grandeur.

[Firestone]

NB has his/her 47th birthday today !

Happy birthday !!!

[Architect]

graduate degree in Philosophy (which must be a Masters, otherwise he would have said Doctorate) my guess is that he was at most 27 years old when he last formally studied Philosophy.

Unless American terminology is different, NB's reference to a graduate degree puzzles me. I mean, how can you graduate (or be a graduate) if you don't have a degree? In the US are there lesser standards of degree than we find in Europe?

To be honest - and it's no more than a hunch - I wonder if he only really ever studied it at a more basic level. American college or somesuch.


Architect's academic expertise is somewhat different as he uses it every day in his profession


I can think of at least one contractor who keeps telling me otherwise! :) Despite that, we managed to build Manchester's tallest building together!!

[Horatius]

Unless American terminology is different, NB's reference to a graduate degree puzzles me. I mean, how can you graduate (or be a graduate) if you don't have a degree? In the US are there lesser standards of degree than we find in Europe?



Yes, I think this may be a difference of terminology. When we talk of "Graduate level studies", we mean someone studying for a degree that would come after a BA or BSc, so a "Graduate degree" would be an MA, MSc, or PhD. Other people refer to it (perhaps more correctly) as "Post-graduate studies" or "Degree", but that starts to be a mouthful, and could still be misunderstood anyways, come to think of it.

This is also seen in the difference between "Grad students" and "Undergraduate students". Grad students are masters or PhD students, who are usually used as teaching or lab assistants by the professors and researchers at the Uni.

[Architect]

Yes, I think this may be a difference of terminology. When we talk of "Graduate level studies", we mean someone studying for a degree that would come after a BA or BSc, so a "Graduate degree" would be an MA, MSc, or PhD. Other people refer to it (perhaps more correctly) as "Post-graduate studies" or "Degree", but that starts to be a mouthful, and could still be misunderstood anyways, come to think of it.

This is also seen in the difference between "Grad students" and "Undergraduate students". Grad students are masters or PhD students, who are usually used as teaching or lab assistants by the professors and researchers at the Uni.



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.

[maccy]

I also think the terminology is different. As far as I know, students working on a second degree (usually a masters or a doctorate) are referred to as Graduate Students in the US whereas in the the UK they'd normally be known as Postgraduate Students. Likewise a graduate degree is a generic term for a qualification obtained after graduating from a first degree - although I;m sure anybody with a doctorate would be specific about it. In the US they also talk about Graduate Schools (http://www.gradschools.com/).

Anyway, here's a US University that refers to its Masters and Doctorates as Graduate Degree programs:

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/graduate.php

[defaultdotxbe]

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)

[Architect]

2-1 says what he has turns out to be the American equivalent of an HNC.


Not that I've anything against HNCs.

[maccy]

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.

[Architect]

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.

[defaultdotxbe]

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

[Architect]

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!).

[maccy]

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/J%C3%BCrgen_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/

[maccy]

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".

[Horatius]

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 (http://www.ovc.uoguelph.ca/), that's part of the University of Guelph.

Has that confused the issue sufficiently?

[defaultdotxbe]

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

[uk_dave]

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

I thought it was because you needed more drinking time.

:D

[Architect]

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?

[sleahead]

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:



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

[Architect]

NB has run away, I fear, and it will be a long time before we get a meaningful response.

[Architect]

Yup, I think we can definitely conclude that NB has been defeated and run away. :)

[JonnyFive]

Bye, Non Believer, we'll miss you and your disjointed, incoherent, evasive style of posting.

[Architect]

[chicken noises]

Bye Bye NB

[/chicken noises]

[Non Believer]

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.

[Architect]

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?

[JonnyFive]

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.

[Architect]

Well said, Johnny.

[westprog]

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.

[Non Believer]

O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged. Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.

[JonnyFive]

Well said, Johnny.

Thanks.

I was going to add my brilliant "it's like climbing Mount Everest" analogy again, but then I realized it won't make a damn bit of difference.

[uk_dave]

O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged. Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.

yep, and guess what?

ALL of the scientists involved in the official account of events are working within established scientific facts, and all of the 'scientists' claiming a conspiracy are working with:

Thermite demolition
Beam weapons
Holograms

Go figure.

[JonnyFive]

O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged. Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.

Wrong thread. You're making some claims, now prove them. The default position is not "the government conspired to blow up the towers after staging a plane crash." You need to provide evidence.

You're not even an expert, but all you give us to go on is your opinion. So, by your own logic, we shouldn't give you then time of day until you post some evidence.

Wait, maybe I haven't established a proper framework for that suggestion or something else.

[Non Believer]

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

[Architect]

You're prevaricating. Answer the points put to you on this thread numerous times.

[uk_dave]

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. This is the job of the official story supporters to do first. 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 are you talking about?

The collapse mechanism as a result of the plane impact and subsequent fires is known, examined, discussed and found to be accurate on a number of threads on this site. You want to re-hash the damn thing again?

NO!
It's your turn to propose a hypothesis and provide the evidence to support it.

Put up or shut up.

[Horatius]

I never saw your response to Skilling and Demartini, but we know its either they were misquoted, or they didn't understand.

They were wrong. They thought they had it right, but they were wrong. It happens.

NASA thought it was safe to launch the Challenger. They were wrong.

The Captain of the Titanic thought it was safe to cruise at high speeds through the North Atlantic during iceberg season. He was wrong.

Napolean thought invading Russia was a good idea. He was wrong.

Japan thought it was a good idea to attack Pearl Harbor. They were wrong.

The Russians thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear reactor without a containment building. They were wrong.

People make mistakes. Sometimes they pay for them, sometimes others do. It happens. It sucks, but it will continue to happen, so long as people are people.

Deal with it.

[Non Believer]

UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.

[uk_dave]

UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.

Nope.

Look at where you're at. YOU came here, we didn't come to you.

So, it's up to you to tell us what YOU think happened on 9/11 and provide the evidence upon which you base that belief.

If you want someone to talk you through the NIST report I suggest you find a structural engineer and pay them to sit down with you and explain it.

[JonnyFive]

UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.

I would suggest you take your own advice and post evidence of your theories. If you consider this a waste of your time, you can always stop posting on this forum.

[aggle-rithm]

They were wrong. They thought they had it right, but they were wrong. It happens.


Not only that, but they were wrong about something they never dreamed in a million years would be put to the test.

If you add the opinions of experts about things that will probably never happen to the list, there's probably a lot more wrong out there than we could ever imagine.

[Architect]

I think NB just proved that we were correct; he IS beaten.

[Mr.D]

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.



O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged.


Why is it that conspiracy theorists demand standards of evidence from their critics that they REFUSE TO APPLY TO THEMSELVES?

"Non Believer," you are not an expert, so YOUR OPINION DOES NOT EVEN REACH THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR WHICH YOU REQUIRE CORROBORATION.


UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.


Now this is just plain stupid. You got your tail kicked when you attempted to derail the thread with philosophy and now you attempt to intimidate by bringing up "the law."

In a court of law, your "suit" would be thrown out without "our side" having to put on any defense at all, because you have yet to present a positive accusation with evidence sufficient to meet even the lowest standards of legal proof.

[LashL]

Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.


Oh, this ought to be good. :rolleyes:

ETA: Caution, NonB: there are some real lawyers here.

[DavidJames]

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. This is the job of the official story supporters to do first. 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.You have already been shown the proof. The fact that you don't understand it or refuse to believe it your problem. Now go ahead and provide evidence for your CT.

[JonnyFive]

You have already been shown the proof. The fact that you don't understand it or refuse to believe it your problem. Now go ahead and provide evidence for your CT.

Yes, that would be delightful.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged.
Your problem appears to be that you equate all expert testimony with "opinion". Given your reluctance to address the technical details of the NIST report, I can only assume you apply this to... anything written by anyone.

Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.
You have yet to explain where and how the NIST report failed to do this...

[Architect]

Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.


Yes, and this is one of the reasons that:

1. Expert Witnesses have to actually be experts

2. They are cross examined in court.


Now, if we applied the same rules to Dylan & Co, I wonder what the result would be?

[maccy]

I'm hoping that non-believer has run off to prepare a stunning case for us.

:)

With his requests for a testible hypothesis that he understands, is anybody reminded of Intelligent Design and its attempted potshots at Evolution?

[JimBenArm]

With his requests for a testible hypothesis that he understands...



That could take a while, since we would be limited to words with no more than five letters.

[JonnyFive]

That could take a while, since we would be limited to words with no more than five letters.

Is that why they won't read the NIST report?

[Architect]

They are reading it, but it's taking a lot of dictionary time!



Seriously, NB does appear to have thrown in the towel and all we're seeing is some token whining in order that he can deny he ran away.

[LashL]

Seriously, NB does appear to have thrown in the towel and all we're seeing is some token whining in order that he can deny he ran away.

Yes, I think you're right. Too bad, really. I was so looking forward to reading his take on legal principles. :D

[CurtC]

That could take a while, since we would be limited to words with no more than five letters.Here's the theory of relativity, explained completely with words four letters or fewer. (http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html)

[maccy]

Here's the theory of relativity, explained completely with words four letters or fewer. (http://www.muppetlabs.com/%7Ebreadbox/txt/al.html)

And here's Marilyn Monroe explaining some of it to Einstein:

F01-KgiLqkI

from the movies Insignificance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089343/), clip ends a bit early.

[Architect]

Still no sign of NB, I note.

[JonnyFive]

Still no sign of NB, I note.

I'm sure he's gathering his evidence as we speak.

See, I can be funny too!

[Architect]

I'm still trying....

[JonnyFive]

I'm still trying....

The troofers are all funny... just not "ha ha" funny is all.

[Non Believer]

I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself

[JimBenArm]

I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
Oh, thank you for coming down to my level. It is such an honor to have someone of such high position stoop to my lowly station! Please, what other wisdom can you bestow upon us, O Exalted One? I will strain my brain to avoid our blockheadedness, and be worthy of such as you!

Or not.

[LashL]

<snip>How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.


NB: What, praytell, is the source of your apparent belief that you have knowledge about the presentation of expert witness testimony in the legal system that others do not "grasp"?

Before you answer, I should tell you that there are some actual lawyers here, myself included, and that there are some here who have been qualified as experts in their fields for purposes of testifying in court, and that there are many here who not only "grasp" how it works but understand it fully, and that almost everyone else here (with the notable exception of a few woos, perhaps) is fully capable of "grasping" it once it has been explained to them.

So, again, please advise of the source of your alleged superior knowledge in this regard.

[Horatius]

I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either.

This sentence no verb. I'll just have to assume you meant "I am afraid you didn't receive from me the calculus thing either", since you ran away from explaining it in as much detail as Architect explained the building collapse.

You didn't think I'd forget, did you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2227610#post2227610)? More fool you. Now run along until you learn to play nice.


The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason.

Oh, we don't deny that it's possible to explain things with more than one framework. We're just denying that it's possible for you to explain things with more than one framework. So far, evidence suggests we're right.

Do feel free to prove me wrong, of course. We'll be waiting. Any day now.....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
Ooo... Psychobabble. Pretty meaningless in the context you yourself set up with this thread, too.

[LashL]

Ooo... Psychobabble. Pretty meaningless in the context you yourself set up with this thread, too.

Yes, he appears to be just another run of the mill twoofer with absolutely nothing to back up his ludicrous assertions, who runs around posting tripe while pretending to have knowledge and expertise that he doesn't have, and then runs away when challenged by reality, facts, evidence, knowledge, and expertise.

No surprise.

[Mr.D]

Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.



I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.


Backing off already? Whoops, maybe you should have checked to see if there were any lawyers on this forum before you tried to intimidate with your "knowledge" of the law.


I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers. If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself


Yep, and now on to the next subject you don't really know anything about in a vain attempt to one-up ... well, ANYONE on this forum at some point so your wounded sense of misplaced pride can claim at least some sort of moral victory.

It's been a good fifteen years, but heck, I did come within three credits of a psychology minor. ;) So how about looking in the mirror, NB and explain how our Occam's razor search for the simplest answer THAT LOGICALLY FITS compares to your circular, self-contradictory, amateur hour pseudophilopsychobabble, dodge-the-question, non-search for no answers.


I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason.


Or perhaps you could deign to wallow down at our level just long enough to describe a framework in which a simple closed form integral of a continuous, well defined, bound function yields a diffferent result from "our" framework.


Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.


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.

(Or you can go ahead claim you don't have the time for it while you go and google some more cognointellectual sounding words to string together)

[gumboot]

This is what I love about JREF. A troofer comes in spouting garbage in a particular field while lording it over those less aware of that particular field, and then a REAL expert in that actual field pops up and bitch slaps them. It's like "Punked" for experts.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

This is what I love about JREF. A troofer comes in spouting garbage in a particular field while lording it over those less aware of that particular field, and then a REAL expert in that actual field pops up and bitch slaps them. It's like "Punked" for experts.

-Gumboot

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.

[JonnyFive]

I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.

Perhaps you don't understand that this nonsense doesn't impress or indimidate us. Actually, it makes me, for one, seriously doubt that you have even graduated from college, let alone received a post-graduate degree. Did you get your degree from Patriot U (http://www.patriotuniversity.org/) or something?

Or perhaps you've simply forgotten how to write coherently in the intervening years.

I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself

You need to shut up about frameworks and post some kind of real evidence. You've consistently failed to do that since this thread started, but you've managed to provide us with plenty of mindless psycho-babble.

I hope that you don't believe that you are convincing anyone here.

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?

[volatile]

PS: I just had a quick re-read over the last few pages and just wanted to add that even I, a doctoral philosophy student (and a post-structuralist philosophy student to boot!), can see that NB has no idea what he's talking about, and would also seemingly struggle to construct a coherent argument within the boundaries of his own discipline, let alone those of others.

I think you guys were a little harsh on arts students, philosophers and particularly post-modern philosophers - although I have to admit that people like NB don't really support our credibility (then again, Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and is still a rabid anti-evolutionist, and Stephen Jones carries on spouting crap despite his PhD, so don't tar everyone in a discipline with the same brush).

NB - I love philosophy. And I think I even understand (kinda) where you're coming from, even though you're really debauching that education of yours. The point is - don't try and argue with people on topics you know absolutely nothing about. If I have cancer, I'm not going to ask a nuclear physicist how I should go about getting treated.

People who actually know about how and why buildings collapse have studied the 911 events, and none of them agree with you. You must have missed that point of your philosophy course where the boundaries of the "argument to authority" were discussed. Furthermore, I also suggest you don't understand how the scientific method (advanced, as it happens, through the philosophy of science) actually functions...

[Mr.D]

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?


Dodge, blah blah ... (I fixed the quote for you)


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.


You first. Explain how you applied "political theory" to the collapse of the towers.

[aggle-rithm]

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?


If you don't trust the foundations of scientific knowledge, then, by all means, reconstruct it from scratch. The information is out there.

[Horatius]

PS: I just had a quick re-read over the last few pages and just wanted to add that even I, a doctoral philosophy student (and a post-structuralist philosophy student to boot!), can see that NB has no idea what he's talking about, and would also seemingly struggle to construct a coherent argument within the boundaries of his own discipline, let alone those of others.

I think you guys were a little harsh on arts students, philosophers and particularly post-modern philosophers - although I have to admit that people like NB don't really support our credibility (then again, Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and is still a rabid anti-evolutionist, and Stephen Jones carries on spouting crap despite his PhD, so don't tar everyone in a discipline with the same brush).

Well, part of that harshness was just the good old artsies vs geeks rivalry. We're smarter, but you guys never had morning classes or friday afternoon labs :)

However, part of it is also the Arts acting as a haven for people like NB. They learn how to string a lot of verbiage together, so that to the uninitiated, it sounds important and impressive, but in reality, it says nothing at all. If someone tries that with engineering, the bridge falls down, and everyone knows the guy screwed up.

It seems in a lot of cases, too many arts folk are willing to nod their heads, and say "Everyone's opinions are valid", when they should really be saying "Bollocks!"

[maccy]

I think you guys were a little harsh on arts students, philosophers and particularly post-modern philosophers - although I have to admit that people like NB don't really support our credibility (then again, Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and is still a rabid anti-evolutionist, and Stephen Jones carries on spouting crap despite his PhD, so don't tar everyone in a discipline with the same brush).

Just to clarify, when, in a general defence of philosophy, I said this:

Philosophy can also, however, encourage a narrowness of thought and certain branches can be dauntingly abstract. Post-structuralism in particular can lead it's students into self-referential loops and an almost fetishistic elevation of the marginal in preference to the mainstream. Even if a philosopher isn't a post-structuralist (and in the UK, at least, such works are general regarded as nonsensical by Philosophy Departments and are generally championed by a subset of academics in English and Art departments, and sometimes under the new banner of Cultural Studies) they can have such a narrow specialisation, in such an abstract area, that they have little interest in, or knowledge of, much else. It is also a discipline well suited to individuals who are disinclined to participate in the non-intellectual world, with everybody else.

I wasn't trying to make out that all post-structualists are necessarily divorced from reality, but that rather that the study of the subject makes that a possibility: it's a risk of the endeavour, if you like. I wasn't trying to be harsh on post-modern philosophers and, to be honest, I don't know enough to make a judgment. So sorry if it came across like that.

I was just trying to explain how some philosophy (and literary criticism, art criticism and cultural studies) students can end up ignoring what is rather obvious to engineer, say, because their rather focussed area of study has taken them off a something of a tangent.

[Mr.D]

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.


I suspect this translates to something like ... "I didn't understand calculus at all until someone explained it to me with pretty pictures. Now I think I understand calculus concepts, but don't ask me to calculate anything."

[maccy]

Well, part of that harshness was just the good old artsies vs geeks rivalry. We're smarter, but you guys never had morning classes or friday afternoon labs :)

However, part of it is also the Arts acting as a haven for people like NB. They learn how to string a lot of verbiage together, so that to the uninitiated, it sounds important and impressive, but in reality, it says nothing at all. If someone tries that with engineering, the bridge falls down, and everyone knows the guy screwed up.

It seems in a lot of cases, too many arts folk are willing to nod their heads, and say "Everyone's opinions are valid", when they should really be saying "Bollocks!"

Non-believer wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a philosophy seminar with the posts he's made so far. Philosophy is pretty exacting. With English you have a little more leeway, but you still get called on BS.

The only tactic that works (and it works well enough to get an average mark at degree level) is regurgitation. It's hard, in an exam situation, to prove that somebody understands what they're saying. This is where science and engineering subjects have an advantage - the solution to a problem is either right or wrong, and to get it right you have to understand it.

If you study Literature or Philosophy in good faith, though, it's tough.

[volatile]

Dodge, blah blah ... (I fixed the quote for you)

You first. Explain how you applied "political theory" to the collapse of the towers.

Well, part of that harshness was just the good old artsies vs geeks rivalry. We're smarter, but you guys never had morning classes or friday afternoon labs :)

We can be geeks too! Heh. You're right about the labs though.

I don't think "smarter" is really fair - it's just your intellect is more applicable to different types of thinking.

However, part of it is also the Arts acting as a haven for people like NB. They learn how to string a lot of verbiage together, so that to the uninitiated, it sounds important and impressive, but in reality, it says nothing at all. If someone tries that with engineering, the bridge falls down, and everyone knows the guy screwed up.Yeah, that's fair. But believe me, that guy wouldn't last five minutes in a real debate with real philosophers (did I just use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Damnit!). I often have discussions if this sort with my science PhD colleagues - remember, they all sign up to a pre-existing research project, crunch the numbers, then report. Us arts PhDs have to develop our own project, justify its originality and utility (yes, I said utility!) and produce an original contribution. Just as I couldn't get a chemistry PhD, I don't think the science PhD students I know could get one in philosophy. Its different training, different mindsets, and different ways of thinking. Its not just chucking loads of random crap together, much as NB might seem to illustrate that that might be so! If it was, my life would be a hell of a lot easier, trust me! :)


It seems in a lot of cases, too many arts folk are willing to nod their heads, and say "Everyone's opinions are valid", when they should really be saying "Bollocks!"The whole of humanities discourse is based on people pointing out what other people said is bollocks, more or less. I don't know where you get the idea that "everyone's ideas are valid" - if that were the case, all of the humanities disciplines would cease to exist. :)

I think the crucial difference (and it relates to your point) in that, unlike scientists, artists don't claim objective truth. Maybe that's what you mean by "everyone's opinions are valid" - because we're not claiming "proof" then our opinions don't count?

Philosophy provides models of understanding - often metaphorical - that never claim scientific objectivity. It enhances, and doesn't contradict, the scientific process. Its an abstraction, but that's not to diminish its beauty.

In my field, for example, I'm dealing with phenomenology - how people experience their bodies "from within". Science can, and does, interject on phenomenological questions, and I (as well as most other materialist philosophers) understand quite well that lived experience is produced by biochemical interactions in the brain. Nevertheless, phenomenological philosophy lets us present ways in which these biochemical interactions can be understood in a level above the biochemical. Does that make sense?

I accept that that is frustrating to a scientist's mind that we don't reach final, objective conclusions, but that's not what we set out to do in the first place. That, however, is quite a different thing from saying "everyone's right"...

[maccy]

Non-believer wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a philosophy seminar with the posts he's made so far.

Yeah, that's fair. But believe me, that guy wouldn't last five minutes in a real debate with real philosophers (did I just use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Damnit!).

Snap!

[volatile]

I was just trying to explain how some philosophy (and literary criticism, art criticism and cultural studies) students can end up ignoring what is rather obvious to engineer, say, because their rather focussed area of study has taken them off a something of a tangent.

I think that's true of all PhDs though - they are all, by their very nature, focussed obsessively on the minutiae of a particular subset of their field. That goes for science as well as art...

I've never met a graduate level philosopher who was actually so divorced from reality that they'd ignore opinions on engineering from an engineer.

These CT nutters are obstinate, foolish and misguided. This doesn't arise from their humanities training, per se. In fact, philosophy, critical theory and cultural studies would try and explain why these crazies will ignore such overwhelming evidence!

[maccy]

I think that's true of all PhDs though - they are all, by their very nature, focussed obsessively on the minutiae of a particular subset of their field. That goes for science as well as art...

I've never met a graduate level philosopher who was actually so divorced from reality that they'd ignore opinions on engineering from an engineer.

These CT nutters are obstinate, foolish and misguided. This doesn't arise from their humanities training, per se. In fact, philosophy, critical theory and cultural studies would try and explain why these crazies will ignore such overwhelming evidence!

You're absolutely right, I withdraw my speculations. I was trying to explain the likes of Fetzer in terms of their training when, in fact, he is the way he is despite his training.

[volatile]

You're absolutely right, I withdraw my speculations. I was trying to explain the likes of Fetzer in terms of their training when, in fact, he is the way he is despite his training.

The greatest, saddest and most tragic version of this tale is the very depressing case of Dr. Kurt Wise, told by Richard Dawkins in a poignant article (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4).

Wise was a massively promising geologist, and got a PhD from Harvard under one of the greatest geologists of all time. Sadly, he was also a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and he actually sat down and cut out, with scissors, every passage of his beloved bible from Genesis to Revelation which his geologist training told him could not be true.

With his Bible in ribbons, he had a choice - reject the science, or reject the word of God.

Guess which side he picked.

[Mr.D]

I think that's true of all PhDs though - they are all, by their very nature, focussed obsessively on the minutiae of a particular subset of their field. That goes for science as well as art...

I've never met a graduate level philosopher who was actually so divorced from reality that they'd ignore opinions on engineering from an engineer.


Thank you for following up and posting that. I for one have no problems with the arts folks per se. My best friend is a painter and I'm actually a published poet (two short poems in a publication of no consequense - the point is that I wrote and submitted them).

In fact, I think it is just as depressing when the woo-types misapply "arts vocabulary" as when they misapply "science vocabulary." It not only gives them an air of credibility to those with poor skeptical skills but really does a disservice to those whose expertise they abuse.

[Horatius]

We can be geeks too! Heh. You're right about the labs though.

I don't think "smarter" is really fair - it's just your intellect is more applicable to different types of thinking.



You don't seem to get the spirit of artsie-bashing.....You're supposed to come back with a crack about me not getting chicks, or something. :)

As for the rest, I agree that when done right, philosophy and arts can be rigourous, it just seems that in too many cases, it isn't. That may be more a function of undergrad vs. grad level studies, however.

[volatile]

You don't seem to get the spirit of artsie-bashing.....You're supposed to come back with a crack about me not getting chicks, or something. :)

If I knew what a pocket protector was, I'd have deployed that as an insult... I have seen Revenge of the Nerds, you know! :)

As for the rest, I agree that when done right, philosophy and arts can be rigourous, it just seems that in too many cases, it isn't. That may be more a function of undergrad vs. grad level studies, however.

I think you're right, definitely (but then again, my undergrad degree wasn't in philosophy, so I can't comment on the general level of philosophy undergrad studies). I get the impression, though, that U/G degrees across all disciplines are actually much less rigorous than those who hold them would have us believe, and I suspect this applies as much to maths and physics as it does to humanities.

That said, part of the problem is probably something to do with what Maccy pointed out - seeing as there is no quantifiable "right answer" in most humanities studies, rigour can slip a little easier. You don't necessarily judge an arts PhD on his answer so much as on the quality and rigour of his argument (and this is where it's quite obvious how we must judge NonBeliever and his ilk!).

[maccy]

You don't seem to get the spirit of artsie-bashing.....You're supposed to come back with a crack about me not getting chicks, or something. :)

As for the rest, I agree that when done right, philosophy and arts can be rigourous, it just seems that in too many cases, it isn't. That may be more a function of undergrad vs. grad level studies, however.

I think it's better to say that it's harder to enforce the rigour in arts subjects, especially at undergrad level. In my experience, the people who put together degree courses try their best to make them rigorous and students are unlikely to make it to further study without working hard.

An example of an attempt to do this: in my English final exam on the core course (Victorians to the Present Day), every year they would make the questions as left-field and unusual as possible in order to force people to think on their feet and show an understanding of the subject. The questions were also worded so that they would be hard to decipher without some understanding. When you have four essays to write in three hours this can be quite daunting.

Despite this, the subject isn't clear cut enough to be able to assess in terms of the correct solutions to a problem. It means that people can "get by", to an extant, by rote learning and a bit of bluffing - they rarely get high marks doing this, though.

[JonnyFive]

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.

This is true.

Note that I used the qualifier "believe". :)

[maccy]

I now work in computers - Network Engineering to be more precise (Cisco Routers and the like). When I was working for one of the large UK ISPs we'd often have people with computer science degrees starting in technical support (which is where I also started). These people seemed to be as generally useless or brilliant as those who didn't have any relevant degree. It was the people that had taken a genuine interest in the subject and were willing to learn new things who were brilliant. Others, who may well have worked hard in a structured environment and learned and understood all the things they needed to pass the exams, were completely useless in a practical environment.

[Brainache]

The greatest, saddest and most tragic version of this tale is the very depressing case of Dr. Kurt Wise, told by Richard Dawkins in a poignant article (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4).

Wise was a massively promising geologist, and got a PhD from Harvard under one of the greatest geologists of all time. Sadly, he was also a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and he actually sat down and cut out, with scissors, every passage of his beloved bible from Genesis to Revelation which his geologist training told him could not be true.

With his Bible in ribbons, he had a choice - reject the science, or reject the word of God.

Guess which side he picked.

I didn't read the Dawkins article, but did Kurt Wise think that the bible was a geology text? What a strange man. Did he ever try using a dictionary to solve maths problems or a recipe book to learn chemistry?

ETA I just read the Dawkins article and am now as puzzled as him about Dr "Wise".

[chran]

... no, Bush didn't see the first plane impact the World Trade Center on a TV outside the classroom in Florida :boxedin: