900 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

sorry about the double post, and I'm not seeing an edit button anymore.  Q, the only difference between the first and the second post is the edit I did because I misread one of your earlier post; it's the section where I have the strikethrough in the second post.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

I continue to mainly disagree with you about the risk to the perpetrators and your, to me, far too strong and specific claims about other people's psychological makeup and how various simultaneous motivations resolve themselves in these individuals. But I think we're temporarily at an impasse on those topics, so I'm going to skip those with the exception of the following.

What is far too strong and specific about claiming there are exremists in any group? Or that there are individuals with far greater motivating factors than 3,000 lives as we have seen throughout history. Do you think the Islamic radicals alleged to have carried out the attack are any more extreme than certain Neocon and Zionist factions? I don't think so - they are all as bad as each other. Why not express the same disbelief that none of bin Laden's associates spoke out to warn the world of the attack beforehand, or thereafter volunteered evidence of his responsibility? Why do you believe Muslims have this psychological makeup to remain silent about the plot in such a way, yet within the Neocon and Zionist ranks there must be a hero to speak out and save us? It seems you are still projecting your own/common values, which are not applicable, onto those responsible.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Doesn't the Port Authority, I think that's who the contract was through, supervise their contractors? No one in the Port Authority or the building management have access to the areas where the demolitions were supposedly planted? No chance of an unplanned fire or bomb scare resulting in their discovery?

I have seen no evidence the Port Authority supervise/accompany contractors. Why would the Port Authority enter the elevator shafts and/or service areas, remove freshly installed drywall and/or sprayed on fireproofing, then carry out a search of the steelwork? And if so, be at all concerned by a relatively small, non-descript box they might see against a column?

I don't see how a bomb scare causes a problem (even in a sweep of the building responders will not go so far as to check behind all of the fire wall) though a severe fire might be a risk if refurbishment work were required. It's hardly a great risk... what are the chances of there being a largescale fire in the collapse zones within a few weeks prior 9/11?

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

With regards to the actual demolition, If there really is 'no risk', then why set up the demolition event (not just the setup of it) to be so invisible in the first place?

The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Are you arguing they just didn't care even if they got caught? If Cheney got caught he'd be dragged raving to the jail ranting, "...and I'd murder them all again if I had the chance! U.S.A! U.S.A!"

No, he would be ranting, "the orders still stand! I don't care what the American public think!"  

But seriously, Cheney can never be directly tied to the demolition - those responsible for the setup would not report to him - there is no reason they ever even met - and neither would they be American. Remember - Israeli agents detained on the scene with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives had been carried in their van.

In the worst case, if the demolition setup were somehow exposed, then it becomes the work of Israeli/Palestinian terrorists... intelligence services are a dab hand at fabricating identities... and the whole issue dealt with as a foreign affair.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Again, I'm going to try with the drilldown to WTC7 only and I've got to do more research when I have time on all your statements concerning it. I do have some brief questions. Actually, first, a clarification that may not be needed, we refer to the 'official story' in our conversation and I just want to make clear that that means to me in general 'not a demolition', and is not necessarily tied to specifics of the NIST report or anything else when I'm using the term.

The NIST report (the officical collapse theory of the official study) is the detail of the official story. It seems you want to discount the NIST report and all of its scientific analysis to instead follow your own beliefs. That is fine, though makes some points more difficult to demonstrate. Ok, there's still plenty we can work with.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have a ton of confidence in the procedures used by and the expertise of the NIST, to the point that you base your opinion "that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results", but then want to simultaneously assert that their subsequent conclusions are obviously in error. I'm not saying that's entirely invalid, the two can be independent of each other, but it does appear highly selective. The 'removed by NIST's results' is another pretty strong statement, in the face of what looks to me like a lot of controversy and different opinions; the wiki page lists several people, who I don't think are necessarily truthers, that dispute specifics of the NIST report. This is of course entirely understandable, there's only so much evidence to work with and is a chaotic event, and I don't know how you've come to your strong conclusions given this chaos.

Don't you have confidence in the expertise at NIST when it comes to physics, material sciences and computer simulations? If we understand that NIST input x and got result y, then where is the room to argue, so long as we know the premise the results are based on? Yes I do have a ton of confidence that NIST got the modelling and range of simulations right - it is their area of technical expertise.  It is only important to understand what they are simulating and how it compares to reality - I think I already said that.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

And wow, nanothermite, that's a serious list of google results. There seems to be a necessity for some type of explosive to be mixed in to start the reaction? Can you give me some more detail on what these nanothermite charges entailed, and mainly, why were they silent and didn't seem to have any obvious explosive blast that can be differentiated from the results of the collapse? Is there any precedent of a nanothermite demolition being used that is comparable to what you are proposing? Actually, I shouldn't assume this and maybe this conversation is premature, am I correct that you are asserting that WTC7 was brought down by nanothermite?

I'm not sure we should try to second guess composition of the material used in the demolitions - thermite can be adapted to many forms providing different properties. No I am not asserting that the collapses were initiated specifically by nanothermite or superthermite or even standard aluminium/iron thermite - only some form of thermite, that rather than exploding, reacts at high temperature. I further believe that more conventional demolition charges were used at various other stages of the demolitions (the many explosions reported by eyewitnesses preceding the collapses).

Regarding the thermite initiation method, this could be either chemical or electrical - it does not have to be explosive. I believe the thermite units themselves could be constructed from a heat resistant material which deteriorates either during or after the collapses.

Examples of thermite used, or which could be used, in demolition works: -

* Skyride Tower Felled by Melting Steel Legs

Intense heat was employed by wrecking engineers in toppling the 3,000,000-pound east tower of the "Skyride," a major attraction of Chicago's Century of Progress. Huge "overshoes" in the form of cupolas made of steel and lined with firebrick were constructed around two legs of the tower and filled with 1,500 pounds of thermite, a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide. When fired by electricity the thermite generated a temperature of more than 5,000 degrees about the two legs, melting the ten-foot sections almost instantly, causing the tower to tip and then to crash.

http://books.google....hermite&f=false

[That was back in 1935 - I'm sure there have been developments in efficiency since]

* US Patent Application 20060266204 - Thermite charge

The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

http://www.patentsto...4/fulltext.html

* Linear Thermite Cutting Charge: -

*  And an engineer who actually went out and put together a thermite cutting device in his back garden: -

To me it is common sense that a 2,500^oC+ reaction against a steel column is capable of bringing the structures down - it's not something that needs to be proven.  With the minds of Israeli intelligence working on this, I'm sure a suitable adaptation to their needs would not be beyond their abilities. We need to stop thinking within the boundaries of commercial textbooks and realize this was a unique method for a one-off operation. I'm not sure why so many are incredulous at this - it's a long established chemical reaction that causes extreme temperatures - what's the shocker? What amazes me, is that even in their incredulity these same people are quite content to believe that the waxing and waning diffuse flame of an office fire could weaken the steel.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

I think your argument is fine against the idea that 99.5 or whatever do not agree with your theory, but I have more reasons to think that these experts who have studied it and come to your demolition conclusions but are being silent would not remain silent and would present their strong case; this is exactly what scientists are incentivized to do. Seriously, if you had near unanimity of the physics and structural engineering departments at MIT that the demolition was blatant, you think they'd stay quiet about? A decade later after the proposed perpetrators aren't even in power?

That's the problem - the groups I mentioned means there is no unanimity. Let's take your proposed split and say that 3 of every 10 MIT professionals mentioned do not find the official theory convincing. What incentive is there for them to kick up a fuss? To go it alone against the current establishment (that is, the government with their own Lysenko-like backing, political groups, business and media, not to mention the public loyal to those bodies - do you realise what an enormous task this is?) and the American moral basis for two wars? They would face attacks all round for even suggesting the WTC buildings were demolished - because if those scientists won, America on the world stage is screwed. The perception shift required cannot come from scientists at a high level - there is no safe outlet - but must come from education of the grass roots public over a period of a generation or more - only they have the power to make a difference.

Liquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Let me just stop there, I want to continue about the 'foreknowledge' and the Israeli agents, but want to see if we can take one of these topics first to it's completion, wherever that may be.

I'm not sure we will ever take any topic to completion - rather agreeing to disagree - so I will ask now, as the official narrative is complete and accurate, how do you explain the actions and circumstances of those Israeli agents? Is this an area which should have been investigated more thoroughly in the public eye?

Edited by Q24, 10 August 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 August 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

But seriously, Cheney can never be directly tied to the demolition - ....

Please present evidence that explosives were used because no >>>>BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM<<<<, means  no explosives were used. Here is what a real demolition process sounds like.




Now, let's take a look at the collapse of WTC 7 and you will notice NO sounds of  >>>>BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM<<<<, as WTC 7 collapses



We can sum it up this way;

A.   The sound of traditional implosion demolitions using explosives;   >>>>BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM<<<<.

B.   The sound of WTC 7 as it collapses; ______________________________________________________________

Whereas, "A" indicates the use of explosives, and "B" indicates the lack of explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 August 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[skyeagle409]

    How Building Implosions Work

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

http://science.howst...-implosion1.htm

http://www.implosionworld.com/

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 August 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[skyeagle409]

About those Israelis dancing and filming the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. ABC news cited this report on June 21, 2002, adding that the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.

Quote

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCVzISqF80t

The Israelis were released due to lack of evidence and no explosives were found in their white van. It was not a crime to film the 9/11 attacks and in fact, there are many 9/11 videos available for viewing on the Intennet that had nothing to do with the Israelis. Upon returning to Israel,  one of the men, denied they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11.

In addition, Israel sent out warnings of an impeding terrorist attack upon the United States before the 9/11 attacks, so it was not likely the 5 Israelis had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

Officials Told of 'Major Assault' Plans

WASHINGTON — FBI and CIA officials were advised in August that as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into this country and planning "a major assault on the United States," a high-ranking law enforcement official said Wednesday.

The advisory was passed on by the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency. It cautioned that it had picked up indications of a "large-scale target" in the United States and that Americans would be "very vulnerable," the official said.

http://articles.lati...0/news/mn-47840


August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories

As far as Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, many countries, other than Israel were aware of an impeding attack upon the United States before 9/11.

Quote

Before 9/11, Warnings on bin Laden


WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - More than three years before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, American diplomats warned Saudi officials that Osama bin Laden might target civilian aircraft, according to a newly declassified State Department cable.

The cable was one of two documents released Thursday by the National Security Archive, a research organization at George Washington University that obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act. The other was a memorandum written five days after the 2001 attacks by George J. Tenet, then director of central intelligence, to his top deputies, titled "We're at War."

The June 1998 cable reported to Washington that three American officials, the State Department's regional security officer, an economics officer and an aviation specialist had met Saudi officials at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh to pass along a warning based on an interview Mr. bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda, had just given to ABC News.

http://www.nytimes.c...9documents.html


Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11

Associated Press
Friday, February 11, 2005; Page A02

The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda hoped to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks.

The report detailed 52 such warnings to FAA leaders between April 1 and Sept. 10, 2001, about the terrorist organization and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports. But "we had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures," she said.The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. None of the warnings specified what would happen on Sept. 11.

http://www.washingto...-2005Feb10.html


9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

http://www.nytimes.c...s/10terror.html


Report cites warnings before 9/11

U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.

In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said.

http://articles.cnn....=PM:ALLPOLITICS



Intelligence warnings

The 9/11 Commission Report states that "the 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamic extremists had given plenty of warnings that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers."^]The Report continued:

"During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it "something very, very, very big." Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us "the system was blinking red.""

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia. The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored. Some of these warnings include the following:

• March 2001 - Italian intelligence warns of an al Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al Qaeda cell in Milan.
  
• July 2001 - Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al Qaeda Jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.
  
• August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.
  
• August 2001 - The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.
  
• September 2001 - Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.

In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice stated that "the threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time nor place nor manner of attack. Almost all the reports focused on al Qaeda activities outside the United States." However, on August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:

FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.

http://en.wikipedia....igence_warnings

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 August 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 10 August 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

What is far too strong and specific about claiming there are exremists in any group?

You're only claiming that there are extremists in any group? Oh, well, then I agree with this obvious fact. I thought you were making different arguments.  Like that there is no risk to 'them' because of your assessment of the psychology of scientists, politicians, the media, a few hundred million other American citizens, which somehow allows you to conclude how they will react if they were shown some actual good evidence for your conspiracy.  Like that we can be sure that 'they' knew the above, felt 100% confident in it, knew that there's no possible way any of it could be traced back to them despite precedent (hmmm, now who was president again when Cheney started working for the government...).  You are trying to argue that you know what people think and how they will behave under various conditions based on what you have researched and because you're 'in their head'; that is not nearly enough data for you or anyone to make these specific determinations, it isn't really possible short of telepathy or time travel.  And your statements seem to indicate that you are not at all skeptical of your abilities in this regard; the risk is 'non-existent', the idea that the conspirators were worried about being caught is 'without merit'.  Needless to say, I'm seriously skeptical that your research or anything can enable you to determine behavior to this this level of specificity, and I'm not certain why you would think anyone including yourself can.  You may have some idea what 'drives extremists', but how extremists will behave is not as predictable, and the other extremists know that about their fellow conspirators.

Quote

Or that there are individuals with far greater motivating factors than 3,000 lives as we have seen throughout history. Do you think the Islamic radicals alleged to have carried out the attack are any more extreme than certain Neocon and Zionist factions? I don't think so - they are all as bad as each other. Why not express the same disbelief that none of bin Laden's associates spoke out to warn the world of the attack beforehand, or thereafter volunteered evidence of his responsibility? Why do you believe Muslims have this psychological makeup to remain silent about the plot in such a way, yet within the Neocon and Zionist ranks there must be a hero to speak out and save us? It seems you are still projecting your own/common values, which are not applicable, onto those responsible.

We've talked about a lot, but have I ever argued that people in the Neocon or Zionist factions are not willing morally or something to kill 3000 people or more?  I may have, but I thought I was accepting that they would be willing but were smart enough to know that they shouldn't take on significant more risk, especially with something as subtle as a demolition.  What I have argued is that you can't just attach the word 'Zionist' or 'Neocon' to specific people who you propose are in on the plot and act like you've established something; there are extremists in every group, but not everyone in every group is an extremist.

Quote

I have seen no evidence the Port Authority supervise/accompany contractors. Why would the Port Authority enter the elevator shafts and/or service areas, remove freshly installed drywall and/or sprayed on fireproofing, then carry out a search of the steelwork? And if so, be at all concerned by a relatively small, non-descript box they might see against a column?

I don't see how a bomb scare causes a problem (even in a sweep of the building responders will not go so far as to check behind all of the fire wall) though a severe fire might be a risk if refurbishment work were required. It's hardly a great risk... what are the chances of there being a largescale fire in the collapse zones within a few weeks prior 9/11?

Remember, this is where we are discussing possible 'risk', something that is truly 'blatant'.  I've had contractors come to my home to do work, and yea, I supervised what they did, wouldn't you?  They don't have to 'accompany' them, there only need be the risk that someone who knows something about the construction of the building and works for the PA comes up to look at their progress, and yes, does notice your 'small non-descript box' (!).  Wouldn't the bomb scare potentially cause a problem if they happen to bring in the drug-sniffing dogs that are later destined to nab our Israeli intelligence agents and they caught a whiff behind the wall?

Quote

The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.

I'm not sure but I think this may be you backing off of 'non-existent risk', if so, I thank you for the reality check.

Quote

But seriously, Cheney can never be directly tied to the demolition - those responsible for the setup would not report to him - there is no reason they ever even met - and neither would they be American. Remember - Israeli agents detained on the scene with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives had been carried in their van.

In the worst case, if the demolition setup were somehow exposed, then it becomes the work of Israeli/Palestinian terrorists... intelligence services are a dab hand at fabricating identities... and the whole issue dealt with as a foreign affair.

Maybe.  You nor they obviously can't be sure of that, they can't predict the future.  And this seems to be inconsistent on your part:  Turner Construction gives us unfettered access to the necessary WTC structure and their boss is connected to Cheney, but Cheney can't be tied to the demolition.  Is the connection there or not?

Quote

The NIST report (the officical collapse theory of the official study) is the detail of the official story. It seems you want to discount the NIST report and all of its scientific analysis to instead follow your own beliefs. That is fine, though makes some points more difficult to demonstrate. Ok, there's still plenty we can work with.

No, it has nothing to do with my beliefs, I'm just clarifying what I've been meaning in the past conversation.  I was mainly saying this in case you were going to attack the NIST report because it got some particular detail wrong because of later evidence.  You seem to believe in the analysis the NIST has done, so this is a non-issue.

Quote

Don't you have confidence in the expertise at NIST when it comes to physics, material sciences and computer simulations? If we understand that NIST input x and got result y, then where is the room to argue, so long as we know the premise the results are based on? Yes I do have a ton of confidence that NIST got the modelling and range of simulations right - it is their area of technical expertise.  It is only important to understand what they are simulating and how it compares to reality - I think I already said that.

But am I correct that despite all this expertise you just praised and talked up, the conclusions they reached as to why WTC7 fell are clearly incorrect? I'm not sure that I'm getting your overall point here if it is consistent.

Quote

I'm not sure we should try to second guess composition of the material used in the demolitions - thermite can be adapted to many forms providing different properties. No I am not asserting that the collapses were initiated specifically by nanothermite or superthermite or even standard aluminium/iron thermite - only some form of thermite, that rather than exploding, reacts at high temperature. I further believe that more conventional demolition charges were used at various other stages of the demolitions (the many explosions reported by eyewitnesses preceding the collapses).

Regarding the thermite initiation method, this could be either chemical or electrical - it does not have to be explosive. I believe the thermite units themselves could be constructed from a heat resistant material which deteriorates either during or after the collapses.

Intense heat was employed by wrecking engineers in toppling the 3,000,000-pound east tower of the "Skyride," a major attraction of Chicago's Century of Progress. Huge "overshoes" in the form of cupolas made of steel and lined with firebrick were constructed around two legs of the tower and filled with 1,500 pounds of thermite, a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide. When fired by electricity the thermite generated a temperature of more than 5,000 degrees about the two legs, melting the ten-foot sections almost instantly, causing the tower to tip and then to crash.

[That was back in 1935 - I'm sure there have been developments in efficiency since]

* US Patent Application 20060266204 - Thermite charge

The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

* Linear Thermite Cutting Charge: -

To me it is common sense that a 2,500^oC+ reaction against a steel column is capable of bringing the structures down - it's not something that needs to be proven.  With the minds of Israeli intelligence working on this, I'm sure a suitable adaptation to their needs would not be beyond their abilities. We need to stop thinking within the boundaries of commercial textbooks and realize this was a unique method for a one-off operation. I'm not sure why so many are incredulous at this - it's a long established chemical reaction that causes extreme temperatures - what's the shocker? What amazes me, is that even in their incredulity these same people are quite content to believe that the waxing and waning diffuse flame of an office fire could weaken the steel.

Yes, this proposed demolition device needs more expounding.  Number one, you are arguing that one of the reasons that WTC7 didn't collapse from fire and damage is because there was no precedent for it and then simultaneously suggesting one of the only reasonable alternatives to this explanation is something for which there is no precedent.  Is precedent important or not?  1500 lbs does not equal 'small non-descript box', and really, a patent application?  The reason I also think this is important is because of this whole 'symmetry of collapse' argument.  My understanding there is that you think the only way this is possible is via demolition, and I'm assuming that is because a collapse like that requires that the necessary supports all be destroyed simultaneously.  All the mentions I can find of explosions are a decent period of time before WTC7 actually collapses.  No one saw the obvious concussive force of these demolition explosions?  If this was to initiate some type of thermite reaction that more gradually melted through the steel columns, then how did they manage to time it so exactly?  I may be making too many guesses on the mechanics of demolitions here though.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 10 August 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

That's the problem - the groups I mentioned means there is no unanimity. Let's take your proposed split and say that 3 of every 10 MIT professionals mentioned do not find the official theory convincing. What incentive is there for them to kick up a fuss? To go it alone against the current establishment (that is, the government with their own Lysenko-like backing, political groups, business and media, not to mention the public loyal to those bodies - do you realise what an enormous task this is?) and the American moral basis for two wars? They would face attacks all round for even suggesting the WTC buildings were demolished - because if those scientists won, America on the world stage is screwed. The perception shift required cannot come from scientists at a high level - there is no safe outlet - but must come from education of the grass roots public over a period of a generation or more - only they have the power to make a difference.

Sorry, I misread your original categories and then further messed up my subsequent edit.  We're mixing my original argument regarding the number of the AEtruthers with the 3 of 10 split, with a point that I think is really something that you are necessarily stuck with.  I believe you are stuck between these two conflicting positions:

1- You have said that this demolition is blatant.  This means that the vast majority if not all of the experts who look into it (which I think are a great number, these are the most spectacular and controversial collapses of all time) will obviously come to the same conclusion as you, it's obvious and you're not even a true expert.  Which then means that we have two gigantic pieces of evidence that require an explanation concerning this group of experts who have looked into this enough to see the obvious conclusion you see:  the experts that are remaining silent and the experts that are lying and saying that a demolition is not the most likely answer.  I see no explanation for the lying experts to assert what they don't believe except that they are being bribed or are connected to the conspiracy, and it is unlikely that they all fit the requirements of the 'vetting' process by which loyalty is somehow assured.  I've mentioned multiple times the benefits to anyone who can bring a good case for what you are suggesting.

-OR-

2- The demolition is not as blatant as you assert.  This means that there is a controversy of undetermined legitimacy on the mechanics of the collapse and the possibility of demolition.  Despite this, you take an unskeptical, unneutral position and assert it is blatantly demolished.

I don't see really any way around it.  The more you insist how obvious it is, the more 'splainin you have to do as to why we aren't seeing the required unanimity amongst our experts who would bring this to obvious light.  You're just asserting stuff about what high level scientists can and cannot do and where education needs to come from, how this will affect us on the world stage, so forth.  Not every high level scientist is directly connected to the government you know; we do have private universities.  And better that we be the ones to uncover the obvious demolition as opposed to another country.  There exist other radical extremists too you know, extremists who will serve the truth no matter what the cost.

Quote

I'm not sure we will ever take any topic to completion - rather agreeing to disagree - so I will ask now, as the official narrative is complete and accurate, how do you explain the actions and circumstances of those Israeli agents? Is this an area which should have been investigated more thoroughly in the public eye?

I'll have to get back to you on the agents but I will, gotta play some bad golf tomorrow and need a beer stat.

[Q24]

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

You're only claiming that there are extremists in any group? Oh, well, then I agree with this obvious fact. I thought you were making different arguments.  Like that there is no risk to 'them' because of your assessment of the psychology of scientists, politicians, the media, a few hundred million other American citizens, which somehow allows you to conclude how they will react if they were shown some actual good evidence for your conspiracy.

No, let’s not confuse different threads of the discussion.  The mention of extremists was in response to your suggestion that those responsible were ‘in it for the money’ or would have some unspecified reason to ‘turn on one another’.  It also answers the question of how those responsible for planning the operation knew who was ‘faithful to the cause’ – those extermists were charged with the implementation.  This is all discussed in my post #78, response to your final quote box, to which you did not respond, other than to state you disagree with my analysis of these peoples’ psychological makeup.  The mention of extremists had nothing to do with scientists, the media or a few hundred million citizens.

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

You are trying to argue that you know what people think and how they will behave under various conditions based on what you have researched and because you're 'in their head'; that is not nearly enough data for you or anyone to make these specific determinations, it isn't really possible short of telepathy or time travel.  And your statements seem to indicate that you are not at all skeptical of your abilities in this regard; the risk is 'non-existent', the idea that the conspirators were worried about being caught is 'without merit'.  Needless to say, I'm seriously skeptical that your research or anything can enable you to determine behavior to this this level of specificity, and I'm not certain why you would think anyone including yourself can.  You may have some idea what 'drives extremists', but how extremists will behave is not as predictable, and the other extremists know that about their fellow conspirators.

I’m not sure you understand – the implementers are selected specifically because they are extremists who think the way I have described.  I’m not trying to guess anyone’s thoughts here; extensive psychological profiling is carried out prior to the operation, with implementers chosen on that basis.  One of these guys is going to need a complete meltdown to blow the operation.

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

Remember, this is where we are discussing possible 'risk', something that is truly 'blatant'.  I've had contractors come to my home to do work, and yea, I supervised what they did, wouldn't you?  They don't have to 'accompany' them, there only need be the risk that someone who knows something about the construction of the building and works for the PA comes up to look at their progress, and yes, does notice your 'small non-descript box' (!).  Wouldn't the bomb scare potentially cause a problem if they happen to bring in the drug-sniffing dogs that are later destined to nab our Israeli intelligence agents and they caught a whiff behind the wall?

Well did Port Authority staff strap on a harness and pop up the elevator shafts to examine Turner Construction’s progress?  I’m not sure that’s to be expected.  And if they did, chances are they would never see the charge with each device installed and concealed quickly: firewall removed, place charge, firewall replaced.  And if they did see that non-descript box, why do you expect it would cause panic?  It’s just a toolbox... obviously.  Where is the risk?

To the second imagined ‘risk’ – a bomb threat – there is no full sweep of the building in each case, nevermind searches behind firewall inside the elevator shafts.  In fact, warnings no more specific than, "there's a bomb in the building” were ignored altogether.  It’s going to require a bomb threat specifically stating “there’s a bomb behind the firewall in the elevator shaft”.  It’s not going to happen.  So where is the risk?

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

Maybe.  You nor they obviously can't be sure of that, they can't predict the future.  And this seems to be inconsistent on your part:  Turner Construction gives us unfettered access to the necessary WTC structure and their boss is connected to Cheney, but Cheney can't be tied to the demolition.  Is the connection there or not?

The connection is there insofar as potential discussions between Cheney/Leppert/Netanyahu on subject of the demolitions.  And I don’t need to demonstrate anything more than potential here – the whole discussion is in response to your claim that the demolition cannot be reasonably carried out – I only need show that it ‘could’ be.

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

But am I correct that despite all this expertise you just praised and talked up, the conclusions they reached as to why WTC7 fell are clearly incorrect? I'm not sure that I'm getting your overall point here if it is consistent.

I have never looked in detail at the WTC7 simulation since its release.  After determining the methods used for the twin tower simulations, released earlier, I didn’t have to.  I know that NIST’s simulations do not necessarily compare to reality.

Again I will say I have confidence in the physics, material science, computer modelling and the results derived from them (though it is imperative to understand exactly what NIST is simulating).  What I do not have confidence in is NIST’s impartiality or narrative conclusions.

Perhaps if I describe NIST’s method of simulation and conclusion in case of the twin towers this will explain what I mean more…

Ok, NIST began with a “best estimate” for the most important variables.  This included factors such as the aircraft weight and speed, angle of attack (to impart more or less energy to the core structure) and building material strength, amongst others.  The “best estimate” for these factors did not produce a collapse in the simulation – that impact and damage scenario left the tower standing.  NIST also simulated a “severe case” whereby the factors were altered, within measurement errors, to increase damage to the building.  It resulted that the “severe case” caused approximately twice the damage to the core structure and more readily led to collapse in the model.  And this is all fine so far, I don’t have a problem with any of these simulations or results, until the following…

NIST compared the “best estimate” case and “severe case” to photographic evidence of the actual building damage.  What they found is that the “best estimate” (which remember, did not lead to collapse in the simulation) provided the best match to that observable reality.  This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality.  So what did NIST do?  In their conclusion NIST, for no reason other than a desire to provide the politically pre-conceived answer, discarded the “best estimate”/best match case in favour of the “severe case”/non-best match.

If you have followed all the above then you will know why I have confidence in NIST’s technical expertise and results but not in impartiality of their conclusions.

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

Yes, this proposed demolition device needs more expounding.  Number one, you are arguing that one of the reasons that WTC7 didn't collapse from fire and damage is because there was no precedent for it and then simultaneously suggesting one of the only reasonable alternatives to this explanation is something for which there is no precedent.  Is precedent important or not?

Of course precedent/experience is important.  There is no precedent for office fire doing what we saw on 9/11.  There is precedent for thermite melting steel, and that when the columns of steel framed buildings are simultaneously compromised then such a collapse as witnessed will take place.

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

If this was to initiate some type of thermite reaction that more gradually melted through the steel columns, then how did they manage to time it so exactly?  I may be making too many guesses on the mechanics of demolitions here though.

If the charges are initiated simultaneously then damage across the structure will occur likewise until the point of collapse initiation is reached.

LiquidGardens, on 11 August 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

1- You have said that this demolition is blatant.  This means that the vast majority if not all of the experts who look into it (which I think are a great number, these are the most spectacular and controversial collapses of all time) will obviously come to the same conclusion as you, it's obvious and you're not even a true expert.  Which then means that we have two gigantic pieces of evidence that require an explanation concerning this group of experts who have looked into this enough to see the obvious conclusion you see:  the experts that are remaining silent and the experts that are lying and saying that a demolition is not the most likely answer.  I see no explanation for the lying experts to assert what they don't believe except that they are being bribed or are connected to the conspiracy, and it is unlikely that they all fit the requirements of the 'vetting' process by which loyalty is somehow assured.  I've mentioned multiple times the benefits to anyone who can bring a good case for what you are suggesting.

-OR-

2- The demolition is not as blatant as you assert.  This means that there is a controversy of undetermined legitimacy on the mechanics of the collapse and the possibility of demolition.  Despite this, you take an unskeptical, unneutral position and assert it is blatantly demolished.

I don't see really any way around it.  The more you insist how obvious it is, the more 'splainin you have to do as to why we aren't seeing the required unanimity amongst our experts who would bring this to obvious light.  You're just asserting stuff about what high level scientists can and cannot do and where education needs to come from, how this will affect us on the world stage, so forth.  Not every high level scientist is directly connected to the government you know; we do have private universities.  And better that we be the ones to uncover the obvious demolition as opposed to another country.  There exist other radical extremists too you know, extremists who will serve the truth no matter what the cost.

It is number 1.  I think in the link I provided and further discussion on this thread I have already explained why all experts who disagree with the official theory are not necessarily prepared to fight it.  I have also explained why many experts are content to accept the official theory.  You introduce another category above – experts who are lying.  I have not actually mentioned these individuals yet (except brief reference to Lysenko type scientists) and believe it a very small, though influential, number.  It may be correct they are a part of the operation, or otherwise in denial.

Oh and BYU, former employer of Steven Jones, is a private university.  What happened when this expert/physician/scientist attempted to raise the discussion in a professional capacity?

Liquid Gardens, on 11 August 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

I'll have to get back to you on the agents but I will, gotta play some bad golf tomorrow and need a beer stat.

I hope that went well!

Edited by Q24, 12 August 2012 - 04:07 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."  

Brent  Blanchard, Protec Documentation Services, Inc.

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

[skyeagle409]

The Deception of Steven Jones and WTC 7
Conspiracists misrepresent WTC 7's condition

The firefighters

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."
FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."
FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."
FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

Steven Jones, who was not at the scene on 9/11:

“It's not an inferno, certainly.”
“Fires were random, not particularly large, and certainly not an inferno.”
“Here in this photo you see the fires in building 7. A close-up and you see a little bit of fire in there. Not much.”
“Now here are photos seen in the late afternoon. Not a lot of fire here, or damage.”




What Steven Jones didn't want us to see, which are photos of the south side of WTC 7.

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, on WTC 7:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. 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."

https://sites.google...&#39;scondition

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 August 2012 - 05:53 AM.

[skyeagle409]

1993 World Trade Center bombing (No Collapse)


The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY. The 1,336 lb (606 kg)urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device^[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks Q, for a very understandable explanation of the NIST best case/worst case exercise.  I had heard mention of it before, but never quite understood it.  

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 12 August 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

NIST compared the “best estimate” case and “severe case” to photographic evidence of the actual building damage.  What they found is that the “best estimate” (which remember, did not lead to collapse in the simulation) provided the best match to that observable reality.  This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality.  So what did NIST do?  In their conclusion NIST, for no reason other than a desire to provide the politically pre-conceived answer, discarded the “best estimate”/best match case in favour of the “severe case”/non-best match.

You know perfectly well that you are being deceptive here.  For both towers, NIST determined that the less severe case gave the worst match.  This means that the best match actually lies somewhere between "best estimate" and "more severe", and whether or not one of these remaining two cases gives a better match just determines where in the range the best match point lies.  In both cases, NIST found that the tipping point for collapse initiation was also between the same two cases.

You consistently claim that this means that a collapse couldn't happen because the severe case was "beyond reality".  However, the "best estimate" case is similarly "beyond reality" in the opposite direction, but you don't consider that this is significant.  Instead, you have this totally unrealistic idea of how different the probabilities of the two cases are.  The fact is, if a building is predicted to collapse within the range of probable measurement errors, no one in their right mind would stand inside it.  The error ranges that you mistakenly think have such low probabilities of being exceeded are far smaller than the typical safety factor put on structural engineering calculations to allow for uncertainties in materials and construction.

[Babe Ruth]

Swan

I am not qualified to judge the merits of the points you make, but really, don't you think that in the scheme of things the NIST simulations were only that?  They prove nothing, they merely hypothesize about what might have happened?

Assuming your points above are valid, the NIST simulations do not talk about the debris field, do not talk about the collapse times, do not talk about the explosions and molten steel, do not talk about the analysis of the dust, do not talk about thermal imaging reports.  They are a look and a hypothesis trained on a wee tiny part of the big picture.

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 12 August 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Swan

I am not qualified to judge the merits of the points you make, but really, don't you think that in the scheme of things the NIST simulations were only that?  They prove nothing, they merely hypothesize about what might have happened?

What the NIST simulations show is that the fires in all three buildings were sufficiently likely to cause collapse.  That means that the "demolition" theory needs some evidence behind it, it can't just claim that the fires wouldn't do the job.

Quote

Assuming your points above are valid, the NIST simulations do not talk about the debris field, do not talk about the collapse times, do not talk about the explosions and molten steel, do not talk about the analysis of the dust, do not talk about thermal imaging reports.  They are a look and a hypothesis trained on a wee tiny part of the big picture.

I'm afraid that the mere mention of "molten steel" shows that you have not done your homework.  While there is plenty of evidence of molten metal, there is not a single case of a temperature measurement, ie thermal imaging rather than a witness's opinion, that would indicate steel rather than a lower melting point material such as aluminium or lead.

Likewise, the dust simply shows what would be expected from the collapse of large buildings, the collapse times are consistent with the buildings' structural responses following collapse initiation and the explosions' timings are not consistent with collapse initiation and appear to be the normal ones you get in any large fire.

I don't intend to get into a debate with you, you can find my opinion on pretty much every engineering aspect of WTC in the forum archives.