Again, I think this is just confusion of us simultaneously discussing possibilities at the same time as the evidence for your theory; I was just summarizing that I was objecting to the faith you have in your ability to know how people think, both in the separate cases of the extremists and of the population as a whole, which I agree is confusing.
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.
Depends on what you mean by 'blow the operation'. As noted in my previous comment, this extensive profiling either inexplicably missed that these five dancing Israelis were morons, or they knew that and risked it anyway, even though the discovery that Israeli agents were involved in 9/11 definitely blows the operation as far as trying to pin the blame on AQ.
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?
Well, since I can't find any reference or precedent for thermite charges with the capability to cut through the steel at WTC that are only the size of a toolbox, and the main thermite demolition from 70+ years ago involving over 1000 lbs of explosives, I'm not sure you're being realistic about what evidence there actually was to find.
It's that difficult to walk some bomb-sniffing dogs through the building? In addition, I think you are also trying to smuggle in the unrealistic idea that the conspirators thought they could foresee every potential risk, which I see no reason to believe, especially in a heavily-trafficked building and with millions of people watching the event occur.
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.
I guess I'm confused; the NIST simulations do not necessarily compare to reality but you have confidence in the computer modeling and their scientific background. Not saying your inconsistent, it's just not clear to me; I think you are saying, yes, they did fine work analyzing the collapse but their conclusions do not follow from that analysis because they are not impartial.
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.
I'm not sure of the whole previous conversation between you and
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.
There is no precedent for demolitions that can do the job you are suggesting being hidden in devices the size of toolboxes. I thought there were other examples of collapses from fire after 9/11 of other steel buildings? Might be wrong on that. Do these thermite demolitions not have an audible explosive component? I've watched several demolitions on youtube since we've been discussing this, some symmetrical, some non-symmetrical, some pretty messy, but none that didn't involve loud clear explosions.
If the charges are initiated simultaneously then damage across the structure will occur likewise until the point of collapse initiation is reached.
What I'm driving at here is the explosion sounds. When WTC7 was demolished, is it your contention that, like all other demolitions I can find, at the time of detonation there was an audible explosion? I don't hear it on the videos I've watched.
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.
Again, if the demolition is blatant to a non-expert, then it should be pretty risk-free to simply present these obvious facts and the undeniable reasoning supporting the demolition. You are insinuating that there is a gigantic secret that is obvious, and therefore easy to demonstrate from a scientific point of view, that is circulating amongst, I'd argue, tens if not over a hundred thousand experts, and they can't get enough interest or critical mass to blow this story open? The influence of our govt is so great, in protecting the actions of a former administration, that there are no international experts either? The only reason these experts would be 'accepting' the official theory is if they hadn't looked into it enough given how obvious it supposedly is, and I've already explained that I don't think that the number of experts who have looked into the greatest building collapses in history is that significantly smaller than the raw number of experts; even half is a huge number of people.
A 'small number' of experts who are lying and might be in on the operation? I've found well over twenty experts who disagree with the demolition possibility who clearly have examined it, there goes our minimal number of people involved. It may also be correct that your experts are in denial, are letting what they want to be true to cloud their objective evaluation of the demolition possibility, or may just be one of the many myriad people who like to draw attention to themselves for all kinds of reasons. And please, Lysenkoism is really not a good analogy; the closed Soviet society of 1948 cannot be compared to an open 21st Century American society where every single person is armed with global communication via the internet. And this does not explain why and how this Lysenkoism concerning demolition has been enforced internationally.
Primarily it appears he was criticized for not putting his paper through the relevant scientific peer review and dotting his i's and crossing his t's before suggesting that 'government-sponsored' studies are not reliable. However, I've looked over his paper and don't agree with BYU's putting him on paid leave because of it; I personally think that universities of all places should bend over backwards to allow free expression, even if it's deemed kinda kooky. However BYU specifically has been critized in the past it appears for other incidents of not exactly supporting free speech, plus it's a religious university, so I don't know that it's representative of what awaits anyone daring to disagree with the govt, especially if it's obvious what actually happened. Again, I struggle with your explanations for this silence and deception on the part of experts who obviously also know that it was demolished given your thesis here. Yes, there's some validity to the psychological make-up of the 'masses', but the masses and this whole country is very political divisive. These experts are so intimidated and aren't willing to go against the official story despite the science clearly being on their side; this ignores that the scientific community is an international one and that we have a large and proud history of protesting the government, along with the opportunity for wealth and fame, depending on how much they can demonstrate. This is Nobel Peace Prize level stuff.
I hope that went well!
Thanks Q, hope you had a good weekend also!
Edited by Liquid Gardens, 14 August 2012 - 01:18 AM.