Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 3

# Talking Turkey

## 901 posts in this topic

Consider a blob of clay. If you squish it in your palm, it doesn't have motion, it is merely deforming. If you form into the shape of a ball, set it on the ground, and then strike it with a golf club, it almost simultaneously deforms from the impact of the club and then enters into motion due to the club's momentum. At that point the deformed mass of clay has momentum of its own.

Not really how I would look at it. Deforming clay is essentially a rather viscous fluid, which means that properties like velocity and momentum have different values at different points in the blob. There is always a mean velocity for the total object, but you can still have parts in motion even when the mean velocity is zero.

Similarly with a deforming structure. A buckling column may be stationary at its base and have high velocities in varying directions along its length.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

I understand Q's point I think (although I don't agree with how he's treating gravity), you are talking about the net forces; with no other forces acting on it, any momentum the middle layer gains comes from a corresponding loss in the upper block, but just talking about the middle layer, its mass alone is exerting a stronger force on the lower block than before the collapse occurred. Corrections as always welcomed.

Perhaps Q24's problem is that he is so obsessed with what he thinks is a violation of Newton's Third Law that he completely misses the explanation which comes from Newton's Second Law, ie if something is accelerating, there must be a force acting on it.

Every bit of the building has gravity acting on it, but during collapse the different parts experience different accelerations, and this gives rise to forces between them. When the descending upper block first hits stationary structure, it decelerates, so there is an upward force on the upper block and an equal downward force on the lower block. These forces cause damage and parts break off each block, so you now also have a falling debris layer between the blocks.

Gravity accelerates everything no longer attached downwards, but every impact with stationary structure again results in equal and opposite forces. It's now the debris layer which interacts with the lower block, while also interacting on its upper side with the upper block. At both these interfaces there are equal and opposite forces present, but these two sets of forces must be different unless the debris layer is in free fall with no non-gravitational forces acting on it. Since the debris layer is clearly meeting resistance from the lower block and being slowed to less than free-fall acceleration, there must be a net force acting upwards on the layer. In other words, the force acting upwards on the debris layer from the lower block must be greater than the force acting downwards on the debris layer from the upper block.

At each interface Newton's Third Law is satisfied, but the two interfaces see a difference in the size of the forces because of the changing momentum of the growing debris layer between the interfaces can only be caused by such a force difference.

Edited by flyingswan
2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

But it isn't the meaning of "unlikely" that anyone would normally use.

It’s the only strict definition there is of “likely”/”unlikely”. We cannot just apply our personal interpretations otherwise we end up talking at cross-purposes.

> 50% means an outcome is likely

< 50% means an outcome is unlikely

Cutting a pack of cards and getting an ace?

7.7% - unlikely

Rolling 6 on a dice?

16.7% - unlikely

Tossing three coins and getting two heads and a tail?

After the last time, I’m never talking with you about tossing coins again (and actually, after this post, I'm not talking with you about probabilities anymore, because a child could understand this stuff): -

http://www.unexplain...20#entry3073742

The only difference there is that we were talking about “expected” and “unexpected” rather than “likely” and “unlikely”. That was over 3 years ago... nothing changes.

Red coming up on a roulette wheel?

Red, 48.6% - unlikely

Black, 48.6% - unlikely

Green, 2.7% - unlikely

The above is based on a single 0 wheel.

This explains why a gambler is unlikely to win over a prolonged period. What is likely, is that the casino is going to take your money.

Of course we could qualify this example further to say that a red is only ‘mildly unlikely’ but still it falls under the category of unlikely.

Not really how I would look at it. Deforming clay is essentially a rather viscous fluid, which means that properties like velocity and momentum have different values at different points in the blob. There is always a mean velocity for the total object, but you can still have parts in motion even when the mean velocity is zero.

Similarly with a deforming structure. A buckling column may be stationary at its base and have high velocities in varying directions along its length.

Well said.

Who hacked flyingswan’s account and wrote this? Keep up the good work.

I read the first paragraph and thought, “Yes, like a structure breaking apart.” Then, to my amazement, you confirmed it without me needing to say: “Similarly with a deforming structure.”

The comment, “stationary at its base” is important and the reason I keep referring to the failure location. If every failure occurred only at the lowermost connection of each column, and only in the lower block, so the whole lower mass as one could enter immediate downward movement, then I’d agree with LG and booNy. But that is a nonsense – right from the onset of collapse, areas of the uppermost connections, and those in the upper block, must fail too; across the board, generally equal and opposite to the lower. This is why, rather than a ‘flat line’ of forces coinciding at each lower ‘floor’, forces during the chaotic destruction are better represented by a ‘zig-zag line’ between the upper and lower blocks. The end result is that during the crush down, damage must occur to both blocks, until the upper block deteriorates (no longer being a single rigid mass), which observation shows it did, and at which point there is no ‘official theory’ that explains the global collapse.

Speaking of the above, I just came across another amusing computer physics simulation where the creator apparently encountered this inherent 'problem' of the upper block breaking apart. His solution: reinforce the upper block, making it stronger than the lower block, so that it would not break: -

This type of one-sided reinforcement would be better known as... 'cheating'.

Oh dear, the problems the official collapse theory creates.

Perhaps this would be better: -

[media=]

Oh.

It is precisely for these reasons that the official theory of the collapse progression relies on somewhat flexible ‘back of an envelope’ calculations, rather than any computer simulation bound to the laws of physics.

##### Share on other sites

Not really how I would look at it. Deforming clay is essentially a rather viscous fluid, which means that properties like velocity and momentum have different values at different points in the blob. There is always a mean velocity for the total object, but you can still have parts in motion even when the mean velocity is zero.

Similarly with a deforming structure. A buckling column may be stationary at its base and have high velocities in varying directions along its length.

Excellent point. I felt like I was missing a piece when I was typing that out last night. So given this, the lid of the can that LG was describing actually would have velocity and therefore momentum.

##### Share on other sites

It’s the only strict definition there is of “likely”/”unlikely”. We cannot just apply our personal interpretations otherwise we end up talking at cross-purposes.

> 50% means an outcome is likely

< 50% means an outcome is unlikely

.

.

.

Red, 48.6% - unlikely

Black, 48.6% - unlikely

Green, 2.7% - unlikely

We've obviously been at cross purposes. I consider "unlikely" to mean low probability, say no more than 5%, but you don't. You think the building is unlikely to collapse, but you also think red is unlikely to come up next spin at roulette. On your definition of unlikely, you are right, on my definition, I am right.

I read the first paragraph and thought, “Yes, like a structure breaking apart.” Then, to my amazement, you confirmed it without me needing to say: “Similarly with a deforming structure.”

You may think that the load of rubbish that constitutes the rest of your post is somehow logically connected with this statement, but I don't see any logic there at all, just a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

Your toy simulations need a "back of the envelope" reality check. Neither seems to show any signs of elements buckling, meaning that either very significant physics is missing in the simulation or the elements are much stronger in relation to the mass or distance fallen of the upper block than was the case for the actual towers.

Edited by flyingswan

##### Share on other sites
When the descending upper block first hits stationary structure, it decelerates
and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

##### Share on other sites
[media=]
[/media]

This type of one-sided reinforcement would be better known as... 'cheating'.

Oh dear, the problems the official collapse theory creates.

the guy that did that video knows enough about the wtc to know the tower was 110 stories high - he mentions the mast.

why does he restrict his simulation to only the top part. there was 10 times the amount of structure beneath the collapse point than above it, yet he puts the collapse point in the middle of the structure. I would bet his first attempt was for the full building and when that didn't work, he cheated by making the building only a few stories high.

##### Share on other sites

and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

That's because the reality of collapse wasn't structured and balanced like Bazant's model. In reality, the upper block was tilted and slightly off center during the collapse. The missing jolt is expected in this scenario because instead of one big impact you have thousands of smaller impacts happening in rapid succession across the entire surface of the collapse front, not just the core and perimeter columns.

##### Share on other sites

So why when discussion the Ross and Furlong paper, do you detach yourself and bring up another completely different point?

Here's a simple visual image how gravity and jetfuel can melt and blister paint. (mind you I am not saying this happened, but actually shows you how funny this argument is to me.)

1. jetfuel leaks out of broken plane

2. jetful leaks out of the building

3. gravity pulls the jetfuel towards the street onto cars

4. buring falling debris falls on car and ignites jetfuel

5. blistered paint and melted tires

So tell me again how gravity and jetfuel can never do that?

For the most part, we have been doing well so far. Every bit of evidence you have presented so far (regardless of how silly or little it is) has not been held up to scruitny.

Have anything else for us to consider?

And yet,

Laymen believed a C-130 could fire a cruise missle at the Pentagon <---*snicker*

Laymen believed the passengers of flight 93 were unloaded onto a bus and carted off to a secret location

Laymen believed nukes were used to demolish the twin towers

Laymen believed this was plotted by the NWO

Laymen believed that a cruise missle fired from under the helipad at the Pentagon caused the damage

Laymen believed that pods were attached to the airplanes

Laymen believed that the planes were military planes just repainted to UA and AAL colors

I can go on and on here how the layman got it wrong, multiple times.

Pretty sad response my friend, but truly, I understand. A purely hypothetical response, and absurd one at that, regarding the blistered paint and melted tires, and I think blown out glass too.

The point about Ross & Furlong is that IF their work is true and accurate, THEN the Rodriguez testimony is corroborated perfectly, AND that means that huge explosions, along with heat release sufficient to melt human skin without killing the body, took place BEFORE the airplanes struck.

Which in its most basic statement, is yet more circumstantial evidence that the events of the day WERE STAGED. Just that simple Raptor--staged. Which means that the Official Story is a complete fabrication, a hoax.

##### Share on other sites

and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

We've discussed this before, eg here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=207160&st=210&p=3948417entry3948417

MacQueen and Szamboti are effectively measuring the deceleration of the passengers in a car crash and claiming that it is too small to damage the car structure, ignoring the fact that the failure of the car structure is what gives the passengers a survivable deceleration.

##### Share on other sites
and that deceleration does not exist in the ACTUAL data. a deceleration of the top block as it strikes the structure below would manifest as a measurable impulse spike. Szamboti & McQueen looked for it in the data and its not there. you know this. all verinage demolition exmaples show this impulse. the wtc does not show it.

That's because the reality of collapse wasn't structured and balanced like Bazant's model. In reality, the upper block was tilted and slightly off center during the collapse. The missing jolt is expected in this scenario because instead of one big impact you have thousands of smaller impacts happening in rapid succession across the entire surface of the collapse front, not just the core and perimeter columns.

expected?

because you say so?

show me your proof that "no jolt is expected"?

if you KNOW no jolt is expected, then you have a point of reference to show. what is that reference?

and the verinage demolitions? these use jacks to prop up a top block, then the jacks swing and the top block hits the bottom block OFF CENTRE - they SHOW a jolt, so A JOLT IS EXPECTED.

real life data trumps your speculative belief protecting rhetoric.

MacQueen and Szamboti are effectively measuring the deceleration of the passengers in a car crash and claiming that it is too small to damage the car structure, ignoring the fact that the failure of the car structure is what gives the passengers a survivable deceleration.
they are not measuring car passengers.

they have measured the fall of the the top of the top block of the wtc1 tower and it shows NO JOLT.

the verinage demolitions SHOW THE JOLT.

real life data trump your belief protecting analogies.

##### Share on other sites

expected?

because you say so?

show me your proof that "no jolt is expected"?

if you KNOW no jolt is expected, then you have a point of reference to show. what is that reference?

and the verinage demolitions? these use jacks to prop up a top block, then the jacks swing and the top block hits the bottom block OFF CENTRE - they SHOW a jolt, so A JOLT IS EXPECTED.

real life data trumps your speculative belief protecting rhetoric.

The key factor is the tilting of the upper block. That tilting took place because failure began on one side of the building and progressed to the other side. By the time the entire upper block is in downward motion, the collapse front is on a diagonal. By the very fact that the front is diagonal, the upper block will impact with the lower block across that diagonal instead of 'slapping' down all at once like a Verinage demolition or like the scenario in Bazant's limiting case.

What proof do you need of that? A visual of the tilted upper block?

##### Share on other sites

The point about Ross & Furlong is that IF their work is true and accurate,..AND that means that huge explosions, along with heat release sufficient to melt human skin without killing the body, took place BEFORE the airplanes struck. THEN the Rodriguez testimony is corroborated perfectly,...

That is false! William Rodriguez reported hearing rumbling sounds, not explosions in the basement.

Debunking William Rodriguez

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn....ew.york.terror/

http://truthersaresa...liam-rodriguez/

Nothing there about Rodriguez hearing explosions in the basement before American 11 impacted WTC1. Your routine of posting disinformation and misinformation is clearly evident.

William Rodriguez - Last Man Out: Discovered a Fraud!

by; Phil Jayhan & Larry McWilliams

http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-william-rodriguez-t24680.html?amp;

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

they are not measuring car passengers.

they have measured the fall of the the top of the top block of the wtc1 tower and it shows NO JOLT.

the verinage demolitions SHOW THE JOLT.

real life data trump your belief protecting analogies.

The top of the block is protected by deforming structure lower down, just as car crash passengers are protected by deforming structure. Their data is useless because they are looking for the jolt in the wrong place. Moreover, their calculation of how a big a jolt there should be is seriously flawed, as I explained here:

http://www.unexplain...05#entry3943154

Boony is also right in saying that any tilt will also lessen the jolt.

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

The key factor is the tilting of the upper block. That tilting took place because failure began on one side of the building and progressed to the other side. By the time the entire upper block is in downward motion, the collapse front is on a diagonal. By the very fact that the front is diagonal, the upper block will impact with the lower block across that diagonal instead of 'slapping' down all at once like a Verinage demolition or like the scenario in Bazant's limiting case.

What proof do you need of that? A visual of the tilted upper block?

what is your reference to your claim that no jolt is expected in the collapse of north tower (wtc1)?

you have just provided more speculative assertions.

a structure is still a structure, regardless of what angle it is struck at by the top block. the tilt of wtc1 was not significant enough to reject the verinage demolitions as comparisons.

##### Share on other sites

We've obviously been at cross purposes. I consider "unlikely" to mean low probability, say no more than 5%, but you don't. You think the building is unlikely to collapse, but you also think red is unlikely to come up next spin at roulette. On your definition of unlikely, you are right, on my definition, I am right.

Well, I have mentioned your lack of English comprehension a few times previously.

Do tell, how do you describe a 10% probability?

If I had ten cards numbered 1-10, requested you pick one randomly and, before looking, asked you to describe the chance that your card is a 10, would you say, “Oh, that’s likely”? Would you say, “It’s as likely as not”? Of course either of those responses would be wrong. The correct answer is that it is “unlikely” to be the 10.

You see why it’s so difficult for us to agree anything when we can’t agree simple facts like this due to some sort of language barrier? Swanny, are you English? Is English your first language? Please say "No" so I can understand and give you a break.

It really doesn’t matter – on the line of probability, applying a simulated 9/11-like building, airliner impact and fire, NIST showed chance of the tower survival to be some distance greater than 50%.

Yet rather than seeking a more likely answer, NIST simply assumed that the unlikely happened (twice... no, three times) and added further manual “tweaks” to provide the politically acceptable “good answer” desired (a little more on that below).

It’s the most blatant disregard of the scientific method one could ever witness.

You may think that the load of rubbish that constitutes the rest of your post is somehow logically connected with this statement, but I don't see any logic there at all, just a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

Ah, so you would like to disagree with my use of your description? I’m so glad you mentioned it, otherwise I might never have known. The fact is, you cannot handle when your own words support my argument – and I could make a short book of such occurrences: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse."

~flyingswan

Q24: “You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.”

flyingswan: “All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.”

“The intelligence services failure to prevent the attacks deserves an investigation.”

~flyingswan

I guess none of this means what it actually says though. Or is it that you simply change the meaning after realisation of the implications? That would fit better with the wider deceptions and dishonesty of your position. Speaking of which, are you still hiding from the fact the NIST non-collapse simulations provided a better match to the actual impact damage for both towers? I’m finding that amusing.

Your toy simulations need a "back of the envelope" reality check. Neither seems to show any signs of elements buckling, meaning that either very significant physics is missing in the simulation or the elements are much stronger in relation to the mass or distance fallen of the upper block than was the case for the actual towers.

They are physics simulations and it makes little difference whether the columns buckle or break, you should know that.

real life data trumps your speculative belief protecting rhetoric.

...

real life data trump your belief protecting analogies.

It is true. Apparently real life observation does not matter so much next to what people want to believe. If they can imagine something in their head to retain their worldview, that is what they will do. It applies on both sides of the argument with official theory adherents susceptible as anyone.

##### Share on other sites

what is your reference to your claim that no jolt is expected in the collapse of north tower (wtc1)?

you have just provided more speculative assertions.

a structure is still a structure, regardless of what angle it is struck at by the top block. the tilt of wtc1 was not significant enough to reject the verinage demolitions as comparisons.

My reference is my own observation of the tilting of the upper block during collapse initiation. It is actually fairly pronounced in my opinion, relatively speaking anyway. It will take some time, but I'll put together an animation of one specific video which seems to hi-light the tilting. Or you could watch it yourself and determine whether or not you see it. CBS-Net NIST Dub #7 Clip 22.

Key observables include the lowering of the fire section in the upper right side, the tilting of the antenna, the overall tilting of the Northwest corner, and a wave-like expulsion of smoke starting from the Southwest corner and moving toward the Northwest corner between the 95th and 99th stories just as collapse is initiating.

##### Share on other sites

It is true. Apparently real life observation does not matter so much next to what people want to believe.

Let's take a couple examples because there are those who continue to claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions. First of all, controlled demolitions using explosives make a lot of noise. In the following video do you hear the sound of explosives?

In this video do you hear the sound of explosives?

Of course you don't! Which simply means there is no evidence of controlled demolitions involving the WTC buildings, but there are people who want to believe the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives despite the lack of evidence in the videos, on audio and within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Why are there claims being made of controlled demolitions and the WTC buildings without such evidence?

##### Share on other sites

I apolagize to LG.

This thread was started as something differant from the the other tit for tat threads that pepper this board and LG thought that would be a good idea. So we are supposed to be "talking turkey". The talk this turned into again can keep going along ...as they have in all the other threads... or..it can go along as the thread I started.

I started this thread with this....

""I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln

The warnings are far too numerous to include here, but they are clear. Large governments, ones that no longer respect the people, easily and inevitably rule the people."

"Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?"

I know this threads morphed, but I give LG major kudos for starting it from the beggining.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

I apolagize to LG.

This thread was started as something differant from the the other tit for tat threads that pepper this board and LG thought that would be a good idea. So we are supposed to be "talking turkey". The talk this turned into again can keep going along ...as they have in all the other threads... or..it can go along as the thread I started.

I started this thread with this....

""I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln

The warnings are far too numerous to include here, but they are clear. Large governments, ones that no longer respect the people, easily and inevitably rule the people."

"Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?"

I know this threads morphed, but I give LG major kudos for starting it from the beggining.

W Tell, no need to apologize to me, man. I haven't been here that long, but this is the most productive and educational thread I've been involved in here, and kudos to you and all the participants. I think it has the highest proportion of actual content and debate and engagement of ideas to, well let's just call it 'commenters poking at each other' to be nice, than any other 9/11 thread I've seen since I've been here. (Not that there's anything that wrong with poking of course, I'm not above indulging in it or receiving it. All in good fun and mild annoyance.)

Your quotes above from our presidents are all excellent, but the general idea there has a lot of different applications. Interesting way of putting it that you suggested, the 'separation' of the government from the people; I guess (if for no other reason than to keep this discussion in the correct forum) you might be able to suggest that the US government has some of the attributes of a secret society in a way. But I guess it depends on how we are defining 'large government'. Is that military strength and the exercise of it, degree and amount of secrecy, revenue, dependence of the populace on it/welfare type programs, invasiveness of its laws, sheer number of people employed? Probably all put together. I guess, to me, the most concerning are the exercise of our military and the invasiveness of our laws, the former because of the raw damage and cost and latter because of its insidiousness.

Which leads into your first point, who's to blame for what the government does, terrible things that are obviously unjustified to me like the Iraq War. I don't think, if we were to just ridiculously glom 'the American people' together into one averaged stereotyped mass, that I'd say then that the people are not 'in control' inasmuch as I'd say that the American people still have the power ultimately. Unfortunately we don't want to be bothered to use it unless its absolutely essential, which usually just unfortunately means, it affects most of us directly. We don't want to be bothered with even knowing where these countries we're at war with are located, what their history and culture is, don't particularly care to be reminded of the actual cost of these wars with such nuisances as being exposed to relatively benign photos of flag-draped caskets, don't want to keep up with really what's going on, our wars get boring after a few years ya know. We aren't interested in these details, we don't keep that close an eye on what the government does which was a pretty key part of the founders idea of an effective government. Oh but give us something remotely titillating, then we can't get enough of it of course; off the top of my head I can't rattle off the name of 4 cities in Afghanistan but I could probably rattle off 4 names of the lawyers involved in the O.J. trial. (obviously this is a caricature, there are loads of very good unselfish Americans and varying degrees of all of it).

And our government secret society knows how we behave and our apathy, and plays it to a tee. But we could change it if we wanted, everyone making the decisions is very beholden to being reelected, or being recalled in the extreme case. And this simplified discussion assumes that there's something that the people can mostly agree on; it gets even stickier and more complicated when there are a good amount of people that think going to Iraq for example was a good idea. But I don't think it changes where the power is, I blame the people not the government, we've been given all the tools to make change, significant changes to the structure of the government itself, and only a fraction of us use them, are really knowledgable enough to have educated input to provide, or really care enough to. We could punish those who are not talking to us straight and keeping secrets unnecessarily, who are giving us a sales pitch, but many of us don't even bother to fact check; instead it's, 'here's the power and the nuisance, take it.'

But I do have the hope somehow through something like the internet that people can both get themselves interested and educated on what our government is doing at least until it is more 'fixed', and express their will more easily and conveniently. Nowhere near that yet, but I think I see the potential, although I admit that I'm concerned about how a more true will of the people would actually express itself and what it would result in.

##### Share on other sites

And our government secret society knows how we behave and our apathy, and plays it to a tee. But we could change it if we wanted, everyone making the decisions is very beholden to being reelected, or being recalled in the extreme case. And this simplified discussion assumes that there's something that the people can mostly agree on; it gets even stickier and more complicated when there are a good amount of people that think going to Iraq for example was a good idea. But I don't think it changes where the power is, I blame the people not the government, we've been given all the tools to make change, significant changes to the structure of the government itself, and only a fraction of us use them, are really knowledgable enough to have educated input to provide, or really care enough to. We could punish those who are not talking to us straight and keeping secrets unnecessarily, who are giving us a sales pitch, but many of us don't even bother to fact check; instead it's, 'here's the power and the nuisance, take it.'

I understand where you are coming from here and how you draw the conclusion that the people are to blame for their government’s actions. As the master propagandist/dictator said, “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think”. I do half agree with your conclusion, but perhaps the other half of blame rests with the establishment (political, business and media) which sets out to shape public opinion and make it difficult for people to objectively think.

Then, even when people do think, there is often little that can be done. There is evidence of this in the Iraq war example you referred. Taken from an interview in 2008: -

Interviewer:
“Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting [
the Iraq war
].”

VP Cheney:
“So?”

Interviewer:
“So? You don’t care what the American people think?”

VP Cheney:
“No, I think you cannot be.. blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.”

In addition, before and after the onset of the Iraq war, millions around the world (people whose governments would launch the war) took to the streets in numerous protests. One month prior to the invasion, this led the NYT to comment: “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”

So how much blame can be placed on the people compared to the government/establishment? How much should the public reasonably be expected to fact check their leaders and media commentators? Doesn’t that require distrust to begin with?

Here is a question: Could the people really have prevented the Iraq war in face of the political propaganda and drive from Washington, and if so, how?

I’m not saying you are wrong LG, I rather hope you are right; I’m looking for ideas.

Edited by Q24
2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

.

such are the flaws of a representative democracy....

In this video Wesley Clark reports that Rumsfeld says (0:50)....

"nobody's going to tell us where and when we can bomb...nobody."

[media=]

[/media]

this presumably includes the people who voted them into power...

Once individuals get into high office and control the police, military and popular media...there seems to be little

'people' can do to influence them..?

Without devoting huge ammounts of time and energy....and even then they have an uphill struggle to make a dent in the status quo..?

People are generally kept busy earning a wage to pay for rent, mortgages, bills, food etc....too busy to devote that much time to basic change

in the power structures and processes.

(IMO)

don't mean to be gloomy about it......

.

Edited by bee

##### Share on other sites

I think the notion of representative democracy is very much an illusion, at least in the US.

I agree with the thrust of Q's post, and his quotation of Dick Cheney is spot on. There are many many other examples, but the bottom line is that most elected officials do not give a hoot about what the people think, whether the issue be war and empire or fiscal and economic policy.

##### Share on other sites

I think the notion of representative democracy is very much an illusion, at least in the US.

I wouldn't say that because the American people placed those representatives into office and in many cases, the American people voted for additional terms as well.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Well, I have mentioned your lack of English comprehension a few times previously.

My, don't you just love a quibble, particularly if you can combine it with an insult. I suppose it's your way of compensating for your lack of anything resembling evidence for your ideas.

50% probability may be the dividing line between "likely" and "unlikely" in that link you gave, but you can find others if you look, for instance the IPCC use 33%. "Unlikely" in general English doesn't have a fixed probability attached to it, here's someone suggesting 10 or 20%:

http://forumserver.t...nlikely-375564/

I think you would be in the minority in using it for some thing like red coming up in roulette.

In my vocabulary, there's a gap in the probability range between "likely" and "unlikely" where other words are more appropriate. I'd likely use "occasional" for a 10% chance and "frequent" for a 20% one.

It really doesn’t matter – on the line of probability, applying a simulated 9/11-like building, airliner impact and fire, NIST showed chance of the tower survival to be some distance greater than 50%.

...but within the error range of their input parameters.

It’s the most blatant disregard of the scientific method one could ever witness.

Says the man who thinks evidence for is proof and evidence against shows someone is trying to cover something up.

Ah, so you would like to disagree with my use of your description? I’m so glad you mentioned it, otherwise I might never have known. The fact is, you cannot handle when your own words support my argument – and I could make a short book of such occurrences: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse."

~flyingswan

Q24: “You admitted that NIST “tweaked their models”.”

flyingswan: “All engineers do, it's the way to get good answers from them.”

“The intelligence services failure to prevent the attacks deserves an investigation.”

~flyingswan

I guess none of this means what it actually says though.

None of them mean what you would like them to mean.

The first was in response to you asking what NIST's conclusions would have been if they'd done their work for the building design rather than as an investigation of an actual event, and you once again omit the rest of what I said. Taking just a few words from a quote to make it look as if it supports your ideas seems a favourite trick of yours.

The second was in the context of your simultaneously complaining that NIST's models didn't match observed conditions and that they tweaked their models to match observed conditions. Whatever they'd done, you'd find something to complain about. Another example of your dubious logic.

As to the third, it seems plain to me that much of the general shiftiness of the US government before the 911 Commission, which you interpret as evidence of guilt, was in fact due to their covering up the intelligence failures. It's certainly an aspect I'd like to see investigated, but has nothing to do with the current discussion.

They are physics simulations and it makes little difference whether the columns buckle or break, you should know that.

They are computer games with some but not all of the physics included. Note in particular how the second model has all the core structure at the collapse level removed and still needs an explosion to initiate collapse. Obviously the structural elements are much stronger than those in a real building, so hardly surprising that the collapse halts. You'd laugh this sort of thing out of court if I brought it up as evidence of anything.

Edited by flyingswan

## Create an account

Register a new account