Q24, on 21 November 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:
Yes this is the point I mentioned. I’d like you to estimate a probability to this in context of the official story, along with a string of other ‘coincidences’ I’ll provide, to determine just how probable or not overall events were.
Ok a report giving an overview of the NRO exercise: -
http://www.boston.co...ne_exercise.htm
A copy of the actual exercise paper: -
http://www.scribd.co...h-Into-Building
At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below:
“The aircraft broke out of the clouds ... various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel. The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway ... Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably”.
Given what followed, no wonder the government spokesperson described it as an,
“incredible coincidence”.
It is an incredible coincidence. And as you well know, or at least should, incredible coincidences happen all the time. I can't estimate the probability of this occurring, neither can you. I know that if this was occurring at any number of buildings, it would count as a 'hit' to you. Estimate for me the number of events that are occurring within the time frame from which you are drawing all your coincidences so we can actually see how 'incredible' the existence of all these coincidences are; if you have enough events occurring, seemingly incredible coincidences move from 'incredible' to 'probable'.
But thanks regardless for a new point to discuss, I've never heard about this. Is there more detail available on what the timeline is and how far they got into this exercise? You say, "At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below", but your link to the article says "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."; the real world events were well under way by 9:30, and the timeline in the document seems to indicate that the exercise was scheduled to get under way right around when the second tower was hit.
I have multiple questions, both on the details of the exercise and others that to some extent need to be answered prior to saying this coincidence potentially has some significance. I don't know who all the acronyms referenced in the exercise detail document are referring to, but am I correct that this exercise only involved the people at NRO and it's purpose is to evaluate response at that building to an emergency? Any number of possible scenarios could have sufficed for this purpose correct, perhaps just a bomb or something? I understand that NRO is responsible for aerial surveillance and spy satellites, but neither of those functions were really involved in the exercise at all, the plane crash was a surprise in this exercise. I'm asking mainly for background but also to understand the significance of the line above you singled out, where the time they had in their fictional exercise matches the time Flight 77 was overhead.
So if I were to guess how this fits in, I'd assume that this is an indication of the plotters specifically setting up an exercise at the exact same time as Flight 77 in order to cause confusion or keep 77 from being monitored or intercepted? Even if I'm on the right path there and especially if I'm not, can you provide a little more detail on what this actually is indicative of and what it's specific intent was, and why the plotters thought it would accomplish anything in the first place? I really don't know much about NRO's role on 9/11, and have only read the wiki article on them. Did this exercise interrupt or delay them in being able to do something on 9/11? Do we know how far in advance this exercise was scheduled? If they are able to call the time 77 was flying overhead so accurately, why were they then so obviously off on the WTC impacts? They must have known that any exercise would be stopped as soon as that occurred. I'm not trying to come across as saying answer all these questions or this point is empty, I honestly only know what is in those two links you provided and I don't think that your point is based solely on what is contained in those documents?
Quote
– though apparently now only a picture is good enough for you, like it’s so unbelievable you cannot visualise such a device, ha.
I can visualize a lot. I can visualize a plane hitting a building, knocking off the fireproofing from the steel, a large fire burning weakening the steel, the building collapsing at the impact point, and the bottom portion of the building being unable to withstand the weight of the collapsing upper section resulting in the complete collapse of the building. You apparently can't, partly because of your particular, specific interpretation of studies that were done, from which you pick what agrees and then handwave away things that don't as being corrupted or biased or fitting a preconceived conclusion, without a lick of evidence that it actually is biased. So I ask that you give me something, anything, by which to do my own Q24-type analysis and you scoff. I guess I'm not even sure at this point if you for sure think that these double standards are a problem given how many times the utterly irrelevant, 'the official story supported a war', line comes up and given the rather unique way you are trying to support a 'certain' conclusion from a whole bunch of disparate speculative points, none of which are what you would call 'killer evidence'.
Quote
Pretty. I must have missed the remote control electronics and black box shielding, so I guess the precedent is worthless (for reference, see: your demanding standards for what you will count as building fire collapse precedents, spare me your drawings of piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job).
Quote
Neither did the thermite charges have to survive after a direct impact – the column(s) in question would be severed or damaged in any case. Therefore, sometimes they do survive, is quite good enough to explain presence of the WTC2 thermite flow.
Huh? Where did you show that 'sometimes they do survive' after being knocked off the column, where is 'therefore' coming from? What's the matter, you can't visualize the thermite charge being knocked off without the column being damaged or severed? I can. Do you know why I can? Because you have no evidence with which to dispute it. Because we are discussing a device whose only bounds are what 'could be'. Which kinda makes the particular conversation pointless, like the argument derived from it. I just saw also in your link to your 'drawings' that thermite typically burns at 4000C and sometimes hotter. The molten metal, which I thought you said was largely aluminum, is seen to not be glowing at the bottom of the flow out the window, it's silver. Is it reasonable to think that it is cooling that rapidly? That's a question for anyone who knows, not just you Q, just curious, I have no idea.
Quote
It already is disproven so far as I’m concerned – it has not been explained how the theory could possibly produce the WTC2 thermite flow – you can’t just throw any old thing down, especially when it doesn’t work in the first place, and demand I reason you out of a position that you did not provide reason for to begin with. You are welcome to this theory, which I don’t think you can explain yourself.
'Disproven', 'doesn't work in the first place', on what expertise of yours is this based again? You've been arguing via quotation for months now, so hear you go since that is so convincing:
"Why is all this important? Because if there was an uninterruptible power supply on the 80th or 81st floor, in the northeast corner, the impact of the aircraft and the collapse of the floors above, with their conducting metal parts, would have caused countless short-circuits of the batteries, providing currents of tens of thousands of amps (as calculated in
this article), which can produce unimaginable thermal effects."
By an Italian, who if anything we would expect to come to the opposite conclusion if he was biased in some way, given how supportive Italy was of the War on Terror. If you require to be hand-held through the possible explanations and demand probabilities in order to find this evidence to have any value,
then how is your jeering when I note you don't even have a drawing of your thermite device, let alone evidence, at all consistent with this standard?
Quote
Yes, and promptly supplied physical samples showing no exposure above 600oC from the very same simulated 1,000oC fire areas, tsk. The temperatures in reality were not unusual inspite of NIST’s ‘turned up’ fire simulation. Thomas Eagar of MIT, an official story adherent, explains why: “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.”
So 'yes' it is, the NIST showed that the building fires can reach 1000C, I guess our flow being a result of the aluminum from the airplane mixed with other floor stuff is looking more probable all the time. What, you're not going to protest that I'm snipping out the rest that might qualify how far it is reasonable to take that fact, are you, when you don't seem to have a problem with it? (for reference, see for example: noting that NIST named the closest precedents to WTC7 which didn't happen to collapse from fire but omit that they at the same time explained that the precedent is pretty much worthless anyway due to the differing construction of the buildings)
Quote
The unlikelihood of point 1 is common sense/life experience.
Ha! Maybe you missed that conversation, but let's just say that the precedent for either of those being valid evidence points on UM is not in your favor.
Quote
It is not expected that random damage should produce a working circuit (usually man-made). I challenge you to take a battery and throw metal at it until you get a short circuit – please let us know how long it takes, be honest now.
Yes, a perfect analog for the conditions of the building near the flow, throwing metal at batteries, you got me, man.
Quote
The sporadic flow would be unusual because the unexpected event is unlikely to occur more than once, i.e. it occurs once and the flow is expelled in one sequence. Not so for a thermite charge which may reasonably be designed to deliver bursts after its initiation. We have already been over why the flow does not match molten aluminium from the plane and why thermite is best match. You are now going in circles.
Only because of the amount of spin you put into your posts. The flow is possibly sporadic because, amazing coincidence, this is all happening shortly before collapse, exactly the time we would expect components of the building structure to possibly shift and fall and such. We have already been over lots of stuff, I guess I must have forgotten your devastating argument why thermite is the best match. I doubt it was ever made, since the alternatives have the distinct advantage of working with components that were actually known to be there, you have a very selective way of determining 'best'.
3
