900 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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'.

This denial of yours is startling, though very interesting to watch.  You first accept that we have an “incredible coincidence” and then immediately set out to convince yourself otherwise – these things, “happen all the time” and perhaps, you say, are even “probable” – it’s a contradiction of the very definition and your initial acceptance.  How can we have a fair discussion when you apparently have a preference to say that black is white where it suits?  It appears that “incredible coincidence” is just too obvious and/or disconcerting a fact for you.  And you talk to me about biases.  Ok, let’s try and salvage something...

You are correct that had this ‘plane impacting building’ exercise occurred at any location within timeframe of the attack it would be a ‘hit’ for me.  The fact that it was a government building, just 5 minutes flight time from the Pentagon and directly below the flight path/location of the alleged Flight 77 takes the ‘hit’ to epic proportions – it really adds the “incredible” to the “coincidence” and I think you know that if you stopped trying to talk yourself out of it.

There is no evidence that this type of exercise took place regularly or is commonplace across the U.S. – the government spokesperson would not describe it as an “incredible coincidence” in the first place if it was.  I’m not going to imagine it happens all the time, every day, just because you’d prefer that.  If you view my post #734 in response to the list of exercises that skyeagle linked, you will see that nine vaguely similar exercises took place in the preceding years up to 9/11.  It amounts to perhaps 2 days solid of such exercise.  As I said there - what probability the real world attack, which may have taken place at any time, happens to take place in the very same timeframe and location as one of the exercises?

I accept that we cannot place an exact probability on this occurrence and there is no right or wrong answer, but just a very rough estimate will do.  If one hundred planes were hijacked and crashed into government buildings, how many do you suppose would fly over at the same time and location as a ‘plane impacting building’ exercise was scheduled to take place?  Shall we be generous and say ten?  Go higher if you really want.  I want you to pick a number so I’m not accused of biased interpretation.  I want you to determine the probability of events so you won’t need to argue it with me.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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.  

Is the spokesperson referring to “real world events” in New York or Washington?  Let’s say the exercise never got underway (though perhaps it continued right up until the Pentagon impact), does this matter?  1) the exercise scenario is in the system – would news of the real world attack and exercise cancellation travel so fast and to all areas involved to mitigate potential confusion? - we know that the separate NORAD hijacking exercise was still being referenced some half an hour after that simulation was cancelled; the doubt lingers.  2) had the exercise intended to facilitate the real world attack, there is nothing to say that the planner could have known the exercise would be cancelled beforehand – it does not take away from the “incredible coincidence” it was scheduled at all.  The fact is that at the time and place the exercise simulated a plane crash, the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead.  It's certainly an attempted safeguard I would put in place if planning an operation.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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.

Again if you view my post #734 I explained how the exercise was headed by a CIA officer, so we can include that agency as well as the NRO.  Also it is possible that Dulles ATC may have been involved in the exercise based on the script.  Why not the FAA and NORAD also as we are dealing with an aerial threat.  It appears that any number of possible scenarios could have sufficed for NRO purposes alone and had such alternatives been implemented then it would remove the ‘hit’.  The fact is, it was a plane crash, close reflection of the real-world event, that was decided upon.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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?

You got it.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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.

In reference to the twin tower study, of course the conclusion is biased and preconceived when it does not reflect the results.  I have shown that NIST’s simulation results demonstrated a damage and fire collapse initiation unlikely (at best, i.e. if possible at all), yet this was concluded the likely cause.  Honestly, what do you want me to do with that?  I won’t turn a blind eye and/or make excuses like you prefer.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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).

You really need examples of remote control devices?  God help us.  You’re being awkward on purpose right?  This is silly.  No I don’t think I need to provide examples of remote control devices.  Please stop being silly.  And on what basis do you label these, “piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job”?  Interesting you want to believe that randomly dispersed diffuse flame can cause the structure to weaken but not strategically placed thermite charges acting at a much higher temperature of 2,500^oC+.  I guess that’s something to do with that confirmation bias again?

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

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.

Your response here is quite confused.  Yes, ‘what could be’ is the route that you have taken us down here.  It is not a part of my argument for the devices.  Remember, you are the one trying to dispute validity of these devices with ‘what could be’ mental roadblocks.  Your speculation, which is well determined to involve instances of denial and bias by now, is not good enough by far rule out the devices.  You are correct – your argument here is pointless.

I cannot confirm that the silver material is a part of the molten metal flow.  I did say this already – I’m not interested in the silver material – it could be from the building facade, or even lead from those batteries, or something else; silver is unremarkable – I’m most interested in the near white hot to orange material which does maintain its colour throughout the fall.  Anyhow, I have said all that I want on this particular piece of evidence.  Your next step would be to reconcile this with other evidence such as melted steel in the debris pile which FEMA admitted could have began before the building collapses.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

We have already been over lots of stuff, I guess I must have forgotten your devastating argument why thermite is the best match.

I have noticed that poor memory is a recurrent feature of official story adherents – it hinders in seeing the big picture, which ok, is quite vast.  The best match was spelt out in my post #628.  Please review and do come back when you have some photographs of batteries or fires or whatever that match the WTC2 thermite flow better than those pictures I provided.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 29 November 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Please review and do come back when you have some photographs of batteries or fires or whatever that match the WTC2 thermite flow better than those pictures I provided.

What thermite flow? The molten flow was definitely not steel and it was clear that buckling of the WTC buildings was the result of fires, not thermite. Let's do a review.





.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 November 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 29 November 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

All it took was one person to do what was done.

what motivation would there be to terrorize journalists with anthrax just after the events of 911?
there is only one correct answer.

Edited by Little Fish, 29 November 2012 - 08:57 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 29 November 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

what motivation would there be to terrorize journalists with anthrax just after the events of 911?
there is only one correct answer.

There could be a number of reasons,which brings to mind, the Unabomber, who mailed or hand-delivered a series of increasingly sophisticated explosive devices that killed three people and injured 23 more. One person used anthrax and the other, explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 November 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 29 November 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

There could be a number of reasons

can you give your best reason for the anthrax attacks?

the targets for the anthrax attacks were:
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
New York Post
National Enquirer
Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, That would have set up a police state. Senators Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks. At the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11 or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. [The anthrax used was] a trillion spores per gram, [refined with] special electro-static treatment. This is superweapons-grade anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly proclaimed programs, had never developed before. So it was obvious to me that this was from a U.S. government lab. There is nowhere else you could have gotten that."
- Francis A. Boyle

who stands to gain from intimidating congress and high profile journalists just after 911?

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 29 November 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

can you give your best reason for the anthrax attacks?

the targets for the anthrax attacks were:
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
New York Post
National Enquirer
Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, That would have set up a police state. Senators Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks. At the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11 or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. [The anthrax used was] a trillion spores per gram, [refined with] special electro-static treatment. This is superweapons-grade anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly proclaimed programs, had never developed before. So it was obvious to me that this was from a U.S. government lab. There is nowhere else you could have gotten that."
- Francis A. Boyle

who stands to gain from intimidating congress and high profile journalists just after 911?

The U.S. didn't condone the anthrax attacks, if that is what you are implying.

Quote

Amerithrax or Anthrax Investigation

Soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, letters laced with anthrax began appearing in the U.S. mail. Five Americans were killed and 17 were sickened in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history.

The ensuing investigation by the FBI and its partners—code-named “Amerithrax”—has been one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement. In August 2008, Department of Justice and FBI officials announced a breakthrough in the case and released documents and information showing that charges were about to be brought against Dr. Bruce Ivins, who took his own life before those charges could be filed. On February 19, 2010, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service formally concluded the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks and issued an Investigative Summary.

The Amerithrax Task Force—which consisted of roughly 25 to 30 full-time investigators from the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and other law enforcement agencies, as well as federal prosecutors from the District of Columbia and the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section—expended hundreds of thousands of investigator work hours on this case.

Their efforts involved more than 10,000 witness interviews on six different continents, the execution of 80 searches, and the recovery of more than 6,000 items of potential evidence during the course of the investigation. The case involved the issuance of more than 5,750 grand jury subpoenas and the collection of 5,730 environmental samples from 60 site locations. In addition, new scientific methods were developed that ultimately led to the break in the case—methods that could have a far-reaching impact on future investigations.

http://www.fbi.gov/a...hrax-amerithrax

All it takes is one misguided individual working in a government lab to cause havoc.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 November 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 29 November 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

My argument is based upon existing facts/knowledge/precedent provided by others, most often experts in the field, firsthand witnesses, real-world occurrence, etc.  I only bring the most relevant evidence to the surface and piece together in a coherent way.  I have never ‘discovered’ or ‘created’ anything myself.  That I do not have detailed ‘engineering knowledge’ does not matter because those with the expertise (not only engineers, but all manner of scientists and professionalisms) have already provided all necessary.

You only accept the word of the people who you think support your ideas, and even then you have to selectively quote a lot of them, eg Quintiere must be right because he thinks the NIST investigation was flawed, but  he is wrong when he says no to a controlled demolition.  Anyone whose argument you can't find a way around, you accuse of being pressured by the US Government. Classic confirmation bias - you use your intelligence to find ways of convincing yourself that anything you don't like is wrong, but you never apply the same scrutiny to the things you think support you.

AE911T have no credibility because they have still failed to address Urich's paper which undermines their pro-demolition arguments.

Quote

What has any of this to do with ‘my technique’?  I’m stating facts, as noted above, from the experts.  USAF explosives experts found their model to be a good comparison to the Murrah building.

In spite of being much lower and with a list of difference in construction.  The sort of things which you claim rule out everything that anyone brings forward as a precedent for WTC7.

Quote

You are just making a statement and not providing any logic, reason or example to back it up, not that I’m surprised when clearly we are dealing with your preferred belief and not fact.  It’s funny how you talk about ‘progressive collapse’ of steel-framed, high rise buildings now; like it’s par for the course (nevermind the lack of any fitting precedent).  Because if you remember, before the final NIST report on WTC7 (that is, before officialdom told you what to think/parrot), you never mentioned ‘progressive collapse’ in the way it is now proposed.  No, back then your theory was about debris which had to 'bounce' to reach and damage surrounding columns.  Now listen to you.  *Sqwuakkk*... Progressive collapse occurs... Polly want a cracker?  I think that explains everything about from where your unsupported statement comes.  Even were your opinion founded, which it is not, an East to West progression of failures cannot produce a symmetrical, freefall collapse of entire structures... there is plenty of precedent that demolition can.

More insults, you don't see how that underscores how poor your arguments are.

You picked on the word "bounce" because you don't understand structures and thought it was funny, but I was indeed proposing a progressive collapse back in 2007.  Start here:
http://www.unexplain...65#entry1763467
and a few posts on I'm describing progressive collapse to you:
Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading.  One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

Edited by flyingswan, 29 November 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 29 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

You only accept the word of the people who you think support your ideas, and even then you have to selectively quote a lot of them, eg Quintiere must be right because he thinks the NIST investigation was flawed, but  he is wrong when he says no to a controlled demolition.  Anyone whose argument you can't find a way around, you accuse of being pressured by the US Government. Classic confirmation bias - you use your intelligence to find ways of convincing yourself that anything you don't like is wrong, but you never apply the same scrutiny to the things you think support you.

No [sigh], I’m afraid that you have it all back-to-front (which doesn’t make me bat an eyelid anymore coming from you).  The fact, which you are so loathe to consider (but then I know my thought process better than you), is that my ideas are based upon necessary awareness and understanding of what those people have said, along with the wider established facts.  If I thought the content of AE911T or STJ911 statements were rubbish then I’d say so - exactly as I have done when it comes to P4T and CIT (shouldn’t I be on their side given my ‘confirmation bias’ to oppose the official story?) – but on the contrary, those first two groups make a lot of sense.  I still find no problem in accepting only part of Quintiere’s opinions true, when it is based on logic – Quintiere provides many reasons why the NIST study falls short, all of which I can concur through my independent research, yet no reason whatsoever that the demolition cannot be correct.  You see, I’m not being selective to support what I want – I’m analysing exactly what he has said, which of his arguments are strong and which are weak, in addition to marrying up his statements with my own research.  This is not ‘confirmation bias’; this is logic and reason.  I afford just the same level of criticism to NIST or anyone else – it should be noted that I put a lot of stock in large parts of the NIST study (even more so than official adherents when it comes to accuracy of the best estimated simulation inputs – no, not because I want to, but because given the evidence available and detail of the study, I don’t see any reason NIST should be wildly off the mark – see, more explanation).  I think that what NIST did on a damage and fire basis is almost reasonable and the results we have discussed speak for themselves.  Now if only NIST had considered other collapse methods and incorporated that into their conclusions I probably wouldn’t have a problem at all (and I mean seriously considered other collapse methods – not like that farce of a ‘demolition study’ they did for WTC7).  But what you should ultimately realise, given all this, is that there is no preconceived idea with me.  Well, except for a once upon a time belief in the official story, which I held due to ignorance for some four years.  I’m not ‘digging’ to support my beliefs, I am allowing the whole evidence to shape my view in spite of the preconceived beliefs I once held.

Also, I have never alleged in such over-simplified terms that anyone has been pressured by “the U.S. Government”.  When I talk about ‘political pressures’ and ‘politically desired answers’, which I do, it is far more intricate and deep-rooted than due to “the U.S. Government”.  Whilst  elements within the current establishment of “the U.S. Government”, media and military-industrial complex would undoubtedly oppose any movement that threatens their official story (and inherently, global standing of the U.S., which is some pretty heavy issue), it also runs right down to preconceived worldview of the grassroots public and all levels inbetween.  There are many forms of politics throughout – social, economic, geopolitical, and from individuals so much as entire establishments – all of which apply pressure on the truth movement from every angle.  So you see, to blame this whole political pressure that I refer to on ‘the U.S. government’ would not be quite fair.  Then again, Bush certainly applied pressure in his Hitler-esque, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” statement.  And in instances such as his, “is this some sort of insinuation?” retort - the frosty, underlying ire that the journalist received from Bush, in place of answer to a legitimate question, closes down the routes for free speech and open investigation.  It is a taste of the same type of response that NIST or any other government sponsored employee would have received, had any of them stepped forward to seriously consider other collapse methods (reference Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan for the brave who dared to express their views and suffered consequences of the aforementioned political wrath).

So does any of this indicate ‘confirmation bias’ on my part?  Am I taking anything without thinking and auto-slapping it on the table simply because it sounds good to support a set view, or am I providing explanation, logic, reason and evidence for my beliefs; for why these are good answers?  I can go further if need be in any particular area to explain my reasoning; that is the very anti-thesis of ‘confirmation bias’.  The last couple of posts on the subject have made me think about it more, and I don’t believe that the likes of you or LG suffer from ‘confirmation bias’ more than most in the main either – at least I couldn’t say that you don’t try to justify your views.  I think with you it’s rather more basic ‘denial’, choosing to bury, excuse and/or twist core facts rather than accept them.  It’s an interesting area (link below) and I see relevant examples of all these forms of denial used here all the time by official adherents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

flyingswan, on 29 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

In spite of being much lower and with a list of difference in construction.  The sort of things which you claim rule out everything that anyone brings forward as a precedent for WTC7.

You are being ridiculous – the study was specifically designed to test the structure and blast effects in comparison to the Murrah building bombing – that was the whole point of it.  If you read the study, the test building construction was actually more favourable to collapse than the actual Murrah building.  You cannot turn around and say it’s not a good precedent without criticising the whole study and scientists who performed it.  Is this what you’d like to do??  And you talk to me about ‘confirmation bias’??  When any of those silly third-world and/or warehouse structures you provide as [cough] ‘precedent’ are actually designed to replicate the WTC7 structure or fire please do let me know.  I’ve never heard such weak argument, you’ve not got a leg to stand on here.

flyingswan, on 29 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

AE911T have no credibility because they have still failed to address Urich's paper which undermines their pro-demolition arguments.

For the umpteenth time, there is nothing that needs to be addressed in Urich’s paper – it does not refute the core claims for demolition.  Please search the previous discussions, I’m not going over it with you again.

flyingswan, on 29 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

More insults, you don't see how that underscores how poor your arguments are.

You picked on the word "bounce" because you don't understand structures and thought it was funny, but I was indeed proposing a progressive collapse back in 2007.  Start here:
http://www.unexplain...65#entry1763467
and a few posts on I'm describing progressive collapse to you:
Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading.  One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

It is not an insult to point out how your story has changed to regurgitate the official explanation once an authoritative figure decreed it.  The progression of collapse you described back then, with ‘bouncing’ debris and/or thermal weakening that propagated the damage, is nothing like the progression that NIST propose would occur simply due to unsupported columns and which only now you suppose is so commonplace (despite no relevant precedent whatsoever).  It’s hard to blame you for coming up with a theory of your own when the official investigation left you hanging for so many years, yet your instant later conversion is ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ come to life:  “this version of progressive collapse always was so... ” murmured the populace.  Ah you are out of here, the Ministry of Truth NIST could tell you anything – they could have gone with the story of the diesel generators fuelling the fire to induce collapse - and you’d bleat as you followed.

Not to mention, I almost forgot, that your theory long relied additionally on debris impact damage to the WTC7 structure which NIST finally admitted was superficial to the complete collapse – that was a good day for truth – though now of course the debris impact damage was not so important after all, NIST said so, didn’t they.  You have no credibility whatsoever, except as cheerleader to the official story.

[Liquid Gardens]

Quote

Q24 said:
So does any of this indicate ‘confirmation bias’ on my part?  Am I taking anything without thinking and auto-slapping it on the table simply because it sounds good to support a set view, or am I providing explanation, logic, reason and evidence for my beliefs; for why these are good answers?  I can go further if need be in any particular area to explain my reasoning; that is the very anti-thesis of ‘confirmation bias’.  The last couple of posts on the subject have made me think about it more, and I don’t believe that the likes of you or LG suffer from ‘confirmation bias’ more than most in the main either – at least I couldn’t say that you don’t try to justify your views.  I think with you it’s rather more basic ‘denial’, choosing to bury, excuse and/or twist core facts rather than accept them.  It’s an interesting area (link below) and I see relevant examples of all these forms of denial used here all the time by official adherents.

I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone, but I don't think you have pointed it out very clearly to me.  In my case, your charges of bias against me are either at a very high vague level or seem to be predicated on a misunderstanding that I thought I've made clear multiple times, that I haven't been engaging in a 'debate' on this thread as to which theory is most likely or reasonable or evidenced or whatever, we have been analyzing your theory and the evidence for it.  What I see as your confirmation bias doesn't manifest itself as you just slapping things on the table without thinking or explanation, it manifests itself IMO as pretty obvious double standards being applied within these explanations and what they supposedly demonstrate.  You exhibit all the hallmarks of good, maybe over-the-top, skepticism when dealing with the official story, but I don't see anywhere near the same standard applied to the points of your theory.  

You tried to foist on me some computer animation using physics modeling software from an artist showing the tower collapse, and then turn around and start talking about how 'cartoonish' you find the adjustments NIST made to their modeling; this is really consistent? Tell me one topic that we've been discussing where, if I was actually defending the official story, you would let me get away with the statements 'could be' or 'if need be'.  You told me that you can just will into existence black box shielding on your demolition devices 'if need be'; then why can't I just will into existence a 1000C fire where the molten flow came out 'if need be'?  NIST studies have 'shown' that fires this hot may have occurred.  I just asked you and you didn't respond to, "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?".  How is your response consistent here?

If I have engaged in what you think is confirmation bias then feel free to quote me, I may well have.  Tell me what I have accepted as true under a different standard than I apply to your points.  I don't think I have accepted too much as true of the official story or at least haven't communicated it, I've asked what your explanations are as to why these points against your position are not true.  When you've given them, in addition to disagreeing with some of your interpretations which is to be expected, I have also noted that IMO the standards by which you are accepting your points or different than those contrary, and your points don't require and can't withstand the rigor you apply to counter-points.  My arguments in this vein are structured around, "if you don't believe official point A because of B, C, and D, then you shouldn't believe your point W because of X, Y, and Z if you're being consistent."

[Liquid Gardens]

"points or different than those contrary" should say "points are different than those contrary'.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 29 November 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Not to mention, I almost forgot, that your theory long relied additionally on debris impact damage to the WTC7 structure which NIST finally admitted was superficial to the complete collapse – that was a good day for truth – though now of course the debris impact damage was not so important after all, NIST said so, didn’t they.  

Damage to WTC7

Quote

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.


Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://911myths.com/...tc7_damage.html

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 November 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone, but I don't think you have pointed it out very clearly to me.  In my case, your charges of bias against me are either at a very high vague level or seem to be predicated on a misunderstanding that I thought I've made clear multiple times, that I haven't been engaging in a 'debate' on this thread as to which theory is most likely or reasonable or evidenced or whatever, we have been analyzing your theory and the evidence for it.  What I see as your confirmation bias doesn't manifest itself as you just slapping things on the table without thinking or explanation, it manifests itself IMO as pretty obvious double standards being applied within these explanations and what they supposedly demonstrate.  You exhibit all the hallmarks of good, maybe over-the-top, skepticism when dealing with the official story, but I don't see anywhere near the same standard applied to the points of your theory.  

You tried to foist on me some computer animation using physics modeling software from an artist showing the tower collapse, and then turn around and start talking about how 'cartoonish' you find the adjustments NIST made to their modeling; this is really consistent? Tell me one topic that we've been discussing where, if I was actually defending the official story, you would let me get away with the statements 'could be' or 'if need be'.  You told me that you can just will into existence black box shielding on your demolition devices 'if need be'; then why can't I just will into existence a 1000C fire where the molten flow came out 'if need be'?  NIST studies have 'shown' that fires this hot may have occurred.  I just asked you and you didn't respond to, "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?".  How is your response consistent here?

If I have engaged in what you think is confirmation bias then feel free to quote me, I may well have.  Tell me what I have accepted as true under a different standard than I apply to your points.  I don't think I have accepted too much as true of the official story or at least haven't communicated it, I've asked what your explanations are as to why these points against your position are not true.  When you've given them, in addition to disagreeing with some of your interpretations which is to be expected, I have also noted that IMO the standards by which you are accepting your points or different than those contrary, and your points don't require and can't withstand the rigor you apply to counter-points.  My arguments in this vein are structured around, "if you don't believe official point A because of B, C, and D, then you shouldn't believe your point W because of X, Y, and Z if you're being consistent."

You begin by seeking to absolve yourself of any demonstrated ‘confirmation bias’ because, you say, you have chosen not to argue in the way of ‘theory vs. theory’ (whether you actually are in practice is another matter – it’s sometimes unavoidable that if you don’t accept demolition then you inherently must accept the official story, and there are clear instances where you have done this).  Anyhow, this would be effective in discarding certain demonstrated instances of your ‘confirmation bias’ – such as your apparent selective belief that randomly dispersed 1,000^oC diffuse flame can initiate a collapse, but strategically placed 2,500^oC+ thermite cannot (that’s just one example for you).  Then, you explain how you perceive my ‘confirmation bias’ to be a result of the ‘theory vs. theory’ method.  So it seems that when I select an option, no matter how much reason I can provide for it, that must be ‘confirmation bias’.  When you select an option, no matter the reason for it, it doesn’t count, because you weren’t, you say (very debatably), making a comparative argument anyway?  Isn’t that a slight double-standard from you to begin with; different rules between us?

Let’s look at that one example you provided above regarding the computer modelling – I will explain to you how it is quite consistent, or at least does not amount to any sort of ‘confirmation bias’.  First the video(s) I provided.  Whether it was presented by a builder, a baker, or candlestick maker... or an artist... is irrelevant – it is based entirely within bounds of a computer physics engine; an animated model based on the immutable laws of physics.  Follow the process: 1) the model is created, 2) the ‘start’ button is hit, 3) the results are observed.  An additional note:  It was not intended as a direct precedent to any of the WTC buildings, but rather a demonstration of Newton’s third law; equal and opposite forces producing approximately equal and opposite damage between equivalent colliding bodies.  This law is undeniable, applying to equivalent bodies, of any shape or size - and it does not matter which direction either is moving!  And the video(s) proved that fact sufficiently.  Now to my complaint of the NIST modelling where you think I am applying a different standard.  Here, compare and contrast the process with that above:  1) the model is created, 2) the ‘start’ button is hit, 2.5) manual/human inputs are added to induce collapse based on observation, i.e. not predicted by physics of the model, 3) the results are observed.  I tried to make the additional step stand out.  I will leave you to figure out why that part of the NIST modelling really is ‘just an animation’ and ‘cartoonish’; manipulated to show what the editor wants, compared to the video(s) that I provided.  Where is the different standard or bias in any of that?  I have a specific and logical reason for accepting validity of one model but not the other.

Coming on to ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ (which yes, we both must use in places), you are correct that the official story can rarely ‘get away with it’. You don’t seem to understand that the official story justifies the ‘War on Terror’, even if it was poor logic to proceed with, it justifies need for the decision.  An alternative version of events justifies only a thorough and impartial investigation.  The result of the official story is war.  The result of an alternative story is investigation.  Do ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, support a war, or an investigation?  You understand why if any of those answers come about then I win?  Probably not given that I’ve tried to explain this before, but those ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ answers mean that further investigation is required.  I can use them all day and it should lead to the investigation I support.  You have no right to use them whilst not supporting an investigation.  And you are entitled, just about, to believe in a 1,000^oC fire, that’s not impossible (though against expectation and unsupported by the observable and physical evidence).  There is still not going to be a heat transfer of such efficiency from a waxing and waning diffuse flame to bring that metal to the temperature you need to produce the WTC2 molten metal flow.  Honestly, this is even worse than the impossible ‘chain-reaction battery-bomb’ theory.

You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue, because as I said above, I can provide specific and logical reason for my views every time.  I didn’t jump into my current view without heavily critiquing it first.  Even then I wouldn’t accept it and retained belief in the official story for a time, now that was ‘confirmation bias’ which I’m glad to be rid of.

Anyhow, come on, I would like some probabilities (previous posts) from you, please.  

Edited by Q24, 30 November 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 29 November 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

Damage to WTC7

Yes, thank you, we know roughly what the WTC7 impact damage was.

The point is that the WTC7 impact damage was superficial.  I think most rationale people know that a bit of facade and external column damage is not particularly threatening to an entire large structure which is supported on many times more columns, both internal and external.   Even NIST concluded that the damage had no fundamental bearing on the global collapse.  Rather, realising that the damage could not act as a collapse mechanism, NIST concluded that the loss of the single Eastern column 79 alone, for any reason, would result in the whole structure coming down like a house of cards (which of course is a nonsense, but what NIST had to resort to).

So you see, all those official story adherents who pointed a finger at the damage for so many years and argued tooth and nail over it... they were wrong, completely wrong, and I think owe an apology and concessions to parts of the truth movement who always said that the damage was limited/irrelevant to the collapse.

Edited by Q24, 30 November 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 29 November 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

No [sigh], I’m afraid that you have it all back-to-front (which doesn’t make me bat an eyelid anymore coming from you).  The fact, which you are so loathe to consider (but then I know my thought process better than you), is that my ideas are based upon necessary awareness and understanding of what those people have said, along with the wider established facts.  If I thought the content of AE911T or STJ911 statements were rubbish then I’d say so - exactly as I have done when it comes to P4T and CIT (shouldn’t I be on their side given my ‘confirmation bias’ to oppose the official story?) – but on the contrary, those first two groups make a lot of sense.  I still find no problem in accepting only part of Quintiere’s opinions true, when it is based on logic – Quintiere provides many reasons why the NIST study falls short, all of which I can concur through my independent research, yet no reason whatsoever that the demolition cannot be correct.

Your powers of self-delusion are really impressive.  You are no more qualified to to assess whether Quintiere is correct if he gives reasons than if he doesn't.  As comparison of your recent posts with those I linked to of five years ago shows, you didn't have a clue about structures then and you have made no effort to educate yourself in the intervening time.  Your ability to find the flaws in P4T and CIT does you credit, but you manifestly haven't applied the same scrutiny to AE911T and J911S, as your ludicrous statement about Urich shows.  Just to remind you, Urich is a conspiricist, he wants to believe, but he looked at every single claim of evidence for demolition that AE911T made and his conclusion was: "...there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis."

Quote

You are being ridiculous – the study was specifically designed to test the structure and blast effects in comparison to the Murrah building bombing – that was the whole point of it.  If you read the study, the test building construction was actually more favourable to collapse than the actual Murrah building.  You cannot turn around and say it’s not a good precedent without criticising the whole study and scientists who performed it.  Is this what you’d like to do??  And you talk to me about ‘confirmation bias’??  When any of those silly third-world and/or warehouse structures you provide as [cough] ‘precedent’ are actually designed to replicate the WTC7 structure or fire please do let me know.  I’ve never heard such weak argument, you’ve not got a leg to stand on here.

The whole point about progressive collapse is that the effect is much greater than the cause would lead you to expect.  Hence their conclusion that "It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself" is correct.  While I haven't studied the Murrah collapse, a brief Google suggests that the "other factors" included a transfer beam supporting the building facade than was pushed out of line by the explosion.  Note pushed, not broken, so the factors they mention more favourable to collapse are not relevant.  I cannot find the full text of the Eglin study, so I've no idea if it included the same key weakness.  However, the fact that it isn't mentioned in the on-line extracts is suggestive.

Quote

It is not an insult to point out how your story has changed to regurgitate the official explanation once an authoritative figure decreed it.

My story hasn't changed in that respect.  It is a sign of your ignorance of structures that you did not recognise that I was describing a progressive collapse back then.

Quote

Not to mention, I almost forgot, that your theory long relied additionally on debris impact damage to the WTC7 structure which NIST finally admitted was superficial to the complete collapse – that was a good day for truth – though now of course the debris impact damage was not so important after all, NIST said so, didn’t they.  You have no credibility whatsoever, except as cheerleader to the official story.

The WTC7 collapse was obviously progressive, so I was looking for a starting point to explain it, something about the building that was out of the usual.  The damage from the WTC1 collapse was the candidate that caught my eye, though NIST's analysis later showed that it was actually the very long span beams at the Eastern end of the building.  You cannot claim that the damage had no effect, as you picked the NIST collapse simulation without damage and crowed over how little it resembled the actual collapse.  This was typical confirmation bias on your part, you'd found what you wanted and so you stopped looking instead of noticing that there was a second simulation, including the damage, that matched the actuality.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 30 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Follow the process: 1) the model is created, 2) the ‘start’ button is hit, 3) the results are observed.

The artist departs from the engineering process at step 1.  There is no indication whatever that he used a realistic model of the building.  Furthermore, there is no indication that the program he used included the full physics.  It may have gravity and kinematics, but seems to lack the all-important behaviour of the structural elements.

Edited by flyingswan, 30 November 2012 - 04:16 PM.