[DrTodd13]

Video

In this video you see George W. on Dec. 4, 2001 responding to a question about what he was doing and how he felt when he first heard about the 9/11 attacks. He states that he was in the hallway of an elementary school _WATCHING A VIDEO OF THE FIRST PLANE_ hitting the tower. As it turns out (and as you might expect), video footage of the first plane is difficult to come by because people weren't expecting it. Nevertheless, some footage did exist but it was not aired immediately, in fact not until Sep. 12. So, Bush's statement is an impossibility. Idiot, liar, or monster?

[Gerben42]

Quote

So, Bush's statement is an impossibility. Idiot, liar, or monster?

Maybe he saw the second plane hit but thought it was the first - or didn't think at all. Hanging politicians on such statements is not fair. Besides, when there is enough to throw him out of office anyway, this isn't needed...

[Winstonm]

DrTodd13, on Oct 18 2006, 02:19 AM, said:

Video

In this video you see George W. on Dec. 4, 2001 responding to a question about what he was doing and how he felt when he first heard about the 9/11 attacks.  He states that he was in the hallway of an elementary school _WATCHING A VIDEO OF THE FIRST PLANE_ hitting the tower.  As it turns out (and as you might expect), video footage of the first plane is difficult to come by because people weren't expecting it.  Nevertheless, some footage did exist but it was not aired immediately, in fact not until Sep. 12.  So, Bush's statement is an impossibility.  Idiot, liar, or monster?

I read an interesting take on this comment - could it be that he did see the first plane hit while watching a closed circuit channel that was broadcast into the presidential limosine?

However, people misspeak all the time, so this is simply another one of those items to put into the hmmm, how odd, category. All else is meaningless speculation. If something untoward occured that day, it will take hard, scientific proof to open Pandora's box.

[DrTodd13]

One would think the events would still be fresh enough in his mind not to make such a mistake. I found the whole "he saw it on close-circuit" pretty silly and the sort of thing that conspiratorialist make up or believe without proof. He could not possibly have seen the second plane hitting the towers because that did not happen until after he entered the classroom.

[mikeh]

Two recent themes: the implausibility or 'impossibility' of the WTC collapses happening as rapidly as seems to have occurred and the Bush video wherein he claims to have been watching a video of the collapse of WTC 1.

1. Reputable scientists calculated that a honeybee cannot fly. Others said that heavier than air flight was mathematically impossible.

I doubt that even the best-programmed, fastest, most powerful computers in the world could accurately simulate exactly what happened in either WTC. I also suspect that it is (for the same basic reason) impossible to pretend to analyze the collapses mathematically, at least not with precision. These disasters involved very large masses (fully loaded large aircraft) flying at significant velocities into large structures, made up of numerous interconnected elements, with any analysis then compounded by massive explosions and fire involving thousands of pounds of jet fuel.

So I would discount any mathematical analysis..... so much depends upon the assumptions that the mathematicians made. There would be so many variables that no-one could pretend to specify the initial constraints, let alone the dynamics of the rapidly evolving disaster.

2. Eyewitness recollection of past events is notoriously unreliable. Our memory tends to recreate itself. Bush is no genius: he may not be technically a moron but he has amply demonstrated that he is not exactly a thinking man's president. He may well be the laziest President in the history of the US but even his days are no doubt extremely busy and even he was no doubt shaken by the events of 9/11. In these circumstances, his faulty recall of exactly what he was doing and when he was doing it cannot form the basis of any conspiracy theory. Besides, if he were involved in a conspiracy, don't you think that he would have remembered his 'alibi': anyone who has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 knows where he was and what he was doing. Of course, I assume that Bush has not seen the film

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Oct 18 2006, 05:14 AM, said:

Here is one very deep analysis that shows mathematically the pancake concept cannot be accurate: http://st911.org/

I tried to follow the URL. The link took me to a clearing house of 1001 different conspiracy theories about 9/11. I have no idea which specific rant you find particularly impressive.

Even if you provide the right link, I'm not sure if I'll spend that much time trying to analyze it. I have a decent enough math background, but I'm not a structral engineer. Equally significant, I typically think that its a waste of time trying to reason with conspiracy nuts or, indeed, any strong ideologues (Creation Science comes to mind as an obvious example). These arguments always turn out the same.

1. Ideologue hates theory ABC and loves theory XYZ
2. Ideologue asserts that he has found a flaw with theory ABC, therefore XYZ must be true
3. People waste a lot of time and effort disproving the ideologue's flaw.
4. Ideologue finds a new flaw with theory ABC and asserts that XYZ must be true

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Oct 18 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 18 2006, 05:14 AM, said:

Here is one very deep analysis that shows mathematically the pancake concept cannot be accurate: http://st911.org/

I tried to follow the URL. The link took me to a clearing house of 1001 different conspiracy theories about 9/11. I have no idea which specific rant you find particularly impressive.

Even if you provide the right link, I'm not sure if I'll spend that much time trying to analyze it. I have a decent enough math background, but I'm not a structral engineer. Equally significant, I typically think that its a waste of time trying to reason with conspiracy nuts or, indeed, any strong ideologues (Creation Science comes to mind as an obvious example). These arguments always turn out the same.

1. Ideologue hates theory ABC and loves theory XYZ
2. Ideologue asserts that he has found a flaw with theory ABC, therefore XYZ must be true
3. People waste a lot of time and effort disproving the ideologue's flaw.
4. Ideologue finds a new flaw with theory ABC and asserts that XYZ must be true

Sorry. It was a PDF file and I guess my address bar showed the wrong link.

It was a link within an article - I had to go through that channel as I didn't have the orginal. This is the correct link (I hope) if you have an interest: http://worldtradecen...ransferRoss.pdf.

FYI only, it was a refutation of the NIST claim and made no other mention that I recall of conspiracy - only that the energy available was not sufficient from the weight of the upper floors to cause a total collapse, that the collapse would have ended after 2 stories.

The point I am trying to bring out (not very well it seems) is that although the NIST explained their hypothesis of the collapse they did not offer mathematical proof or computer model proof of their hypothesis, whereas other seemingly credible persons have offered mathematical challenges to that hypothesis. It would seem to me that the simplest way to debunk the challenges would be to provide the computer model that simulated the sequence of collapse.

That really isn't asking a lot of the NIST.

I agree with you that there will be some who will never accept any explanation and will always claim conspiracy - your example of if x is untrue then y must be true is dead on. However, I believe there are a number of legitimate questions that should be explained - and explained consistently within the laws of physics in case of the collapse times. All I have seen is a lot of chest thumping a la Popular Mechanics, but no solid contructive proof of the validity of the NIST hypothesis, and no answers to the other 4 questions I posed.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I doubt that even the best-programmed, fastest, most powerful computers in the world could accurately simulate exactly what happened in either WTC. I also suspect that it is (for the same basic reason) impossible to pretend to analyze the collapses mathematically, at least not with precision. These disasters involved very large masses (fully loaded large aircraft) flying at significant velocities into large structures, made up of numerous interconnected elements, with any analysis then compounded by massive explosions and fire involving thousands of pounds of jet fuel.

It seems to me that you are discussing two separate events - the weight and velocity of the aircraft smashing into the building and subsequent fires are one event. The collapse and progression of collapse is a separate event.

The article I mentioned does not challenge the initial damage or the NIST claims that weakened steel, etc., initiated the collapse. The article only dealt with the dynamics of collapse given the weights and length of fall of the upper floors onto the lower floors - which is what the NIST stated occured - the weight of the upper floors impacted the next floor, adding its bulk to the mass which then impacted the next floor, and so on to the ground. A gentleman named Gordon Ross states in his paper that based on the physics involved, the NIST assertion could not have occured. I don't know who is right or wrong. I do think it odd that the NIST has refused to release the computer model that verified their assertion - seems independent verification would reduce a lot of the mystery and conjecture.

I think this is the correct link: http://worldtradecen...ransferRoss.pdf.

I happen to agree that eyewitness testimony is the least credible of all - and being an attorney, I'm sure you have seen all the problems associated therein.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Oct 19 2006, 01:51 AM, said:

The point I am trying to bring out (not very well it seems) is that although the NIST explained their hypothesis of the collapse they did not offer mathematical proof of their hypothesis, whereas other seemingly credible persons have offered mathematical challenges to that hypothesis. It would seem to me that the simplest way to debunk the challenges would be to provide the computer model that simulated the sequence of collapse.

That really isn't asking a lot of the NIST.

As I said, I'm not an architect and I'm just pulling things out of my ass here, however, I'd like to throw out a hypothesis:

Is it possible that a detailed computer model that describes the collapse of the World Center might be of some value to someone who wanted to blow up another skyscraper? You're providing all sorts of information about maximum load bearing, structural weak points, flaws in the construction...

Its also worth noting that the NIST makes the following claims about the controlled demolition theory:

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

Then, of course, there is my BIG question about the whole conspiracy: The whole theory is just too complex. You don't hijack two airplanes and crash them into a skyscraper to hide a bomb... What would have happened if one of the hijack attemtps had failed or if the plane had crashed into the other tower or one of a million different things had gone wrong? Do you really think that no one would have found the demolition charges?