Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#751    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

It is as "deep" a response as your posts inspire LG.  You concentrate and fixate on trivia, while completely ignoring, by way of dismissal, any and all evidence that contradicts the official story.  

Do you mean contradictions on the level of a P700 anti-ship cruise missile striking the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 November 2012 - 03:58 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#752    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

It is as "deep" a response as your posts inspire LG.  You concentrate and fixate on trivia, while completely ignoring, by way of dismissal, any and all evidence that contradicts the official story.  For you there is nothing unusual about molten steel or hot spots lasting weeks, the testimony of Rodriguez and others is dismissed as lies, dancing Israelis have no significance to you, and neither do impossible aviation events and obviously planted evidence.

Well I'm in good company then as it's not just my posts that don't inspire deep responses from you, it's apparently no one.

Quote

So your claim that it was a chaotic event as an explanation for any and all anomalies is consistent.  My response was a bit of a compliment for your consistency LG :tu:

Ha, yes, that was exactly my claim, you nailed it.  Unfortunately your compliments don't mean any more to me than your criticisms and for the same reason:  I've seen how you reach your conclusions.

Quote

Happy Thanksgiving!

You also!

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#753    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:43 PM

View PostQ24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Please read my post at the top of the page again - it already addresses what you say here.
When you post such a weak argument, I can only echo Boony.

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 November 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

In your own mind Q24.  In your own mind.


"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#754    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:09 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

What I find absurd is that you want us to simultaneously be impressed and convinced in some way by the precedents NIST identified, because they're the NIST after all, but then they're biased and irrational and not to be trusted when they say that different structures (duh) led to different results.  Which is it going to be, does NIST know what they're talking about or not, pick one.  As it is now, the only pattern is, speaking of remarkable coincidences, whether a particular point agrees with you or not.

Your question is simply addressed – sometimes NIST are correct and sometimes NIST are incorrect.  Even individuals can show this trait and for NIST, which comprises a collection of opinions, i.e. not some mega-brain entity, it is even more so.  Also I’m not asking you to be convinced at this stage.  What would be nice right now, is just some honesty.  I’m asking you to accept an obvious fact: that the best examples we have of precedent to the WTC7 situation (those listed by NIST, amongst others) did not result in collapse.  If you only deny and prance around such obvious facts, in the unfortunate way of booNy and flyingswan, then certainly you will never hold all of the pieces which may culminate to impress.  If you can first reach the stage of laying all such obvious facts on the table, then it would be sensible to talk about differences in the precedent.  Such alleged uniqueness of WTC7 I did note, though inherently no precedent you will find, let alone reason or evidence of this conclusion.

Do you really think it reasonable this whole structure collapsed in a matter of seconds due to a sequence of failures initiated by a collapsed floor truss?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Bing.  O.

I am trying to establish and lay obvious facts on the table, to eventually be evaluated as a whole. I am entertaining of and willing to discuss how different or similar the best precedent is to WTC7, and that will also be taken into consideration.  Is that confirmation bias so much as the denial of obvious facts to begin?  I hope you heard the echo of that “Bing. O.” reflected back at you.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

It doesn't really matter what 'the public' thinks, they don't have the knowledge to evaluate the question.  Do you know how many of the public don't believe in evolution?  Does it have any validity on determining whether it is true or not?

I agree with your point, and yet, perception shapes our reality.  I could hardly say, “It doesn’t really matter”.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

What I can't believe is the hay you are trying to make out of this Silverstein demolition phone call stupidity.  It doesn't matter at all merely that Silverstein is getting authorization, that is an entirely understandable conversation between a property owner and his insurance company after a building is damaged to that extent.

What “extent”?  Nevermind, again this is avoidance of the obvious fact that is attempted.  Honesty, please.  On the day, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7, wasn’t there?  Can you accept this first?  Do you dare to be honest about such obvious facts that build the case?  Then, with all of the facts present, we can discuss what is reasonable.

Here are the two facts: -

1.    The best precedent available to WTC7 shows no collapse.

2.    On 9/11, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7.


True or not?  Will you agree this?  At the most basic level let’s see who suffers from confirmation bias and denial of the most obvious facts.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Didn't they pull down one of the other damaged WTC buildings, WTC6 I think, for safety reasons?  So then why is likewise looking into demolishing 7 so indicative of something nefarious?

There was time to evaluate WTC6 which was damaged beyond repair, not so WTC7.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Why is Silverstein trying to get authorization when 'they' are going to such extreme efforts to hide that it was demolished in the first place?  Are you suggesting that Silverstein was trying to get authorization so that they could demolish it with the demolitions they already have planted, in other words the insurance company is in on the plot?  Under your theory, why is Silverstein calling at all?  Why isn't he concealing this conversation?

We have already spoken about this on the thread.  It appears that the WTC7 demolition was hindered by the WTC1 collapse and thus came down later than intended.  The phone call from Silverstein was his effort to provide cover to the demolition as necessary for safety concerns - a cover that was not eventually required in the public domain.  Without knowing response of the insurance company, I can’t say that they are necessarily aware of the true nature of the downfall of WTC7; there is no reason at all the insurance company has to be aware.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 23 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Tell me what is necessarily abnormal about this conversation between Silverstein and the insurance company, and I do mean 'necessarily', I'm going to hold you to the very basic standards of coincidental evidence here which, if you had as strong a case as you are crowing about, should be effortless for you to meet.

I’m not trying to make a case at this moment that it was abnormal.  I could easily do so – e.g. how had the building been evaluated for demolition?  What input does the building owner have when it comes to FDNY safety actions?  When has this ever happened before? -  but given that it’s somewhat subjective, I’m sure I’d be wasting my time.  The actual fact I would like to establish right now is that on the day, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#755    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:44 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 November 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Your question is simply addressed – sometimes NIST are correct and sometimes NIST are incorrect.
And how does someone without any engineering knowledge determine which applies?  Simple - if they support Q24's ideas, then they are correct, but if they don't, they are incorrect.

Quote

Do you really think it reasonable this whole structure collapsed in a matter of seconds due to a sequence of failures initiated by a collapsed floor truss?
Yes.  Progressive collapse is a well-known structural phenomenon, with plenty of the precedents you so like.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#756    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:29 PM

Progressive collapse, generating temperatures sufficient to keep iron in a molten state for weeks.  Yeah, sure.

I forgot, the proper tactic is to deny that molten iron existed, and to pretend that jetfuel and gravity could do what was done.


#757    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:19 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 26 November 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

And how does someone without any engineering knowledge determine which applies? Simple - if they support Q24's ideas, then they are correct, but if they don't, they are incorrect.

Where did you get the idea that anyone must have “engineering knowledge” to apply my arguments which are based on common sense and logic?  I’m sure we agree that some engineers are fools - as an example, you would point to AE911T, and I would point to you - so what has “engineering knowledge” got to do with it?  If I were actually challenging engineering concepts then I’d understand, but that is never necessary to the argument - the existing engineering facts and precedent, not set out by me incidentally, speak for themselves.


View Postflyingswan, on 26 November 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Yes. Progressive collapse is a well-known structural phenomenon, with plenty of the precedents you so like.

For the second time, please read my post at the top of the last page.  There is not one example of precedent for this phenomenon in steel framed high-rise structures despite the many instances of severe fire and, oh my gosh truss failures.  It is “well-known” only in your dreams, not in reality… oh wait, ignore the best precedent and show me those third-world warehouse structures again, tsk, or not.  What do you think of the precedent for progressive collapse of such a large structure by the way – the Murrah building?  I guess those guys at Eglin AFB who did the real-world experiments just didn’t have the “engineering knowledge” to your liking, ha.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#758    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Progressive collapse, generating temperatures sufficient to keep iron in a molten state for weeks.  Yeah, sure.

The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire. The 3 steel frame buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire, so it shouldn't be of no surprise that the WTC buildings collapsed due to fires. Unlike the WTC buildings, the Windsor building and the 3 buildings in Thailand were not struck by B-767s nor suffered impact damage on the level of WTC7.

Quote

I forgot, the proper tactic is to deny that molten iron existed,...

Since thermite does not leave behind molten metal for days, you might want to educate yourself on exothermic reactions of iron.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 November 2012 - 09:57 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#759    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:54 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 November 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Do you really think it reasonable this whole structure collapsed in a matter of seconds due to a sequence of failures initiated by a collapsed floor truss?

Yes!

Quote

Buckling of the WTC buildings

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Add to the fact there were no explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. To sum it up, we have evidence of impact damages suffered by WTC1, WTC2, an WTC7, and fires raging within each of those buildings, but what we don't have evidence for, is evidence that explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 November 2012 - 10:34 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#760    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:40 AM

View PostQ24, on 26 November 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

We have already spoken about this on the thread.  It appears that the WTC7 demolition was hindered by the WTC1 collapse and thus came down later than intended.  The phone call from Silverstein was his effort to provide cover to the demolition as necessary for safety concerns - a cover that was not eventually required in the public domain.  Without knowing response of the insurance company, I can’t say that they are necessarily aware of the true nature of the downfall of WTC7; there is no reason at all the insurance company has to be aware.

I’m not trying to make a case at this moment that it was abnormal.  I could easily do so – e.g. how had the building been evaluated for demolition?  What input does the building owner have when it comes to FDNY safety actions?  When has this ever happened before? -  but given that it’s somewhat subjective, I’m sure I’d be wasting my time.  The actual fact I would like to establish right now is that on the day, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7.

A review of what occurred in court on November 21, 2012.

Quote

Judge removes United from World Trade Center case

2:52PM EST November 21. 2012 - United Airlines cannot be held responsible for the terrorist hijacking Sept. 11, 2001, that destroyed a building in the World Trade Center complex, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The owner of 7 World Trade Center, a building that stood next to the Twin Towers, sued United and American Airlines by arguing that the building was destroyed because of the airlines' negligence. But U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that United bears "no responsibility for Tower 7's destruction" because it wasn't responsible for the hijacking of American Flight 11 or its hitting the Trade Center.

United had no comment on the ruling Wednesday.

The hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz, passed through security in Portland, Maine, which was the responsibility of Delta Air Lines, before they transferred to the American flight in Boston, according to Hellerstein. American was responsible for the Boston checkpoint, Hellerstein wrote. Flight 11 crashed into 1 World Trade Center, which spewed flaming debris that pierced Tower 7, where fires burned until the building collapsed, Hellerstein wrote.

The hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz, passed through security in Portland, Maine, which was the responsibility of Delta Air Lines, before they transferred to the American flight in Boston, according to Hellerstein. American was responsible for the Boston checkpoint, Hellerstein wrote.

"It was not within United's range of apprehension that terrorists would slip through the (Portland) security screening checkpoint, fly to Logan, proceed through another air carrier's security screening and board that carrier's flight, hijack the flight and crash it into 1 World Trade Center, let alone that 1 World Trade Center would therefore collapse and cause Tower 7 to collapse," Hellerstein wrote in his 11-page ruling.

Larry Silverstein, the World Trade Center leaseholder, was seeking $8.4 billion for the loss of business. But Hellerstein has limited the amount to the $2.8 billion that Silverstein paid for the leases.
Bud Perrone, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, expressed disappointment with Wednesday's ruling but said he looked forward to their prospects in a different lawsuit against United that alleges security lapses that led the terrorists to hijack United Flight 175.

"We are determined and look forward to presenting the facts before a jury, which will decide whether the defendants' insurance companies should finally be forced to pay up in order to finish the rebuilding of the World Trade Center," Perrone said.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/


And, still nothing there that implicates the United States government in the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 November 2012 - 01:13 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#761    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:29 PM

anyone want to offer a plausible explanation for the anthrax attacks?


#762    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:29 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 November 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

anyone want to offer a plausible explanation for the anthrax attacks?

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 November 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

anyone want to offer a plausible explanation for the anthrax attacks?

To intimidate Congress (and the public too) into passing the previously denied USA Patriot Act.

The tactic worked, as Congress 'in absentia' as it were, passed the bill at 0300 without having read it.


#763    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:40 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 November 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Where did you get the idea that anyone must have "engineering knowledge" to apply my arguments which are based on common sense and logic?
In your own mind, perhaps.  

I've been really enjoying LG's series of posts showing how you rely far more on confirmation bias than anything else.

Quote

I'm sure we agree that some engineers are fools - as an example, you would point to AE911T, and I would point to you
Resort to insult indicates lack of confidence in your argument.

Quote

For the second time, please read my post at the top of the last page.  There is not one example of precedent for this phenomenon in steel framed high-rise structures despite the many instances of severe fire and, oh my gosh truss failures.  It is "well-known" only in your dreams, not in reality… oh wait, ignore the best precedent and show me those third-world warehouse structures again, tsk, or not.  What do you think of the precedent for progressive collapse of such a large structure by the way – the Murrah building?  I guess those guys at Eglin AFB who did the real-world experiments just didn't have the "engineering knowledge" to your liking, ha.
That's really typical of your technique.  Criticise me for not providing a high-rise precedent while you compare the Murrah building to a three-storey structure at Eglin.

Progressive collapse occurs in many different types of structures, high and low, steel, concrete and masonry, so only an engineering ignoramus would think that steel-framed high-rises were somehow immune to the phenomenon.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#764    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:52 PM

Regarding precedent, has government set a precedent regarding mendacity and deception, or am I just getting too damn old?


#765    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Regarding precedent, has government set a precedent regarding mendacity and deception, or am I just getting too damn old?

Regarding mendacity and deception, those 9/11 conspiracy websites have left the government in the dust.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users