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

#616    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:18 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

what are those number of reasons , in your opinion?

To gain intelligence on a particular person/persons or a terrorist organization. Taking out a particular individual at the wrong time can blow an investigation or even a mission.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#617    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:27 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 October 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

To gain intelligence on a particular person/persons or a terrorist organization. Taking out a particular individual at the wrong time can blow an investigation or even a mission.


true, was probably easier to 'take them out' along with 3,000 other people. :(     wow, just wow. If they 'knew' certain individuals would use this Visa express program, arguably they would WATCH closely the ones who used it....and detained them BEFORE the terror attacks. Of course, i know what you are going to say! wait.....wait.................................it was just a blunder, just how they have always done things....gotcha! :tu:    and of course in the words of Bush admin folks....who could have known?


#618    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

true, was probably easier to 'take them out' along with 3,000 other people. :( wow, just wow. If they 'knew' certain individuals would use this Visa express program, arguably they would WATCH closely the ones who used it....and detained them BEFORE the terror attacks. Of course, i know what you are going to say! wait.....wait.................................it was just a blunder, just how they have always done things....gotcha! :tu: and of course in the words of Bush admin folks....who could have known?

As I have mentioned before, blunders and intelligence failures are nothing new, and even continued after the 9/11 attacks.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#619    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:49 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 October 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

As I have mentioned before, blunders and intelligence failures are nothing new, and even continued after the 9/11 attacks.

sorry, I don't buy the blunder and failure angle. I think much more was known and it warrants CRIMINAL charges not apologists like you. If you don't even want the people who failed held accountable how can I respect a thing you say? you are so flippant and just blow off some serious 'failures'.......like it's just business as usual, you show no outrage over it, you just don't get it IMO. you are an apologist for criminal failures. 3,000 murdered isn't an emotional appeal, it is a serious crime that was not investigated, prevented or dealt with very professionally IMO.


#620    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:51 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 October 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

As I have mentioned before, blunders and intelligence failures are nothing new, and even continued after the 9/11 attacks.


I doubt you have ever heard of 'fundraisers'...............'blunders' and 'failures' are BIG sponsors ;)


#621    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 October 2012 - 04:18 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

I doubt you have ever heard of 'fundraisers'...............'blunders' and 'failures' are BIG sponsors ;)

I have been involved in many fundraisers, however, 'blunders and failures' prior to the 9/11 attacks were a reality and clearly noted  in investigations, and remember, you have spoken for the need of investigations and I have made you aware of investigations after the 9/11 attacks.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#622    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 October 2012 - 04:21 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

sorry, I don't buy the blunder and failure angle. I think much more was known and it warrants CRIMINAL charges not apologists like you.

I am afraid that is reality.

Quote

I think much more was known and it warrants CRIMINAL charges not apologists like you.

If you think so, show the evidence. As far as being an 'apologist,' you got that wrong as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#623    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 28 October 2012 - 04:35 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 October 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

I am afraid that is reality.



If you think so, show the evidence. As far as being an 'apologist,' you got that wrong as well.

you are an apologist, you act like the blunders and failures have to be accepted and that no one has to be held accountable. I find that sad.

what 'fundraisers' were you a part of? lol


#624    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 October 2012 - 04:38 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

you are an apologist, you act like the blunders and failures have to be accepted and that no one has to be held accountable. I find that sad.

I just handed you a dose of reality and you can chose to accept it, or deny it, however, denying will not change reality.

Quote

what 'fundraisers' were you a part of? lol

Mainly aviation-related and community service fundraisers.

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 October 2012 - 04:39 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#625    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 28 October 2012 - 04:42 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 October 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

I just handed you a dose of reality and you can chose to accept it, or deny it, however, denying will not change reality.



Mainly aviation and community service.


I didn't think you had gotten it...........that wasn't the 'fundraisers' I was speaking of. lol..........never mind, you have no clue what I am talking about.


#626    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:22 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

I didn't think you had gotten it...........that wasn't the 'fundraisers' I was speaking of. lol..........never mind, you have no clue what I am talking about.

.No matter what fundraiser I have supported, is not going to change reality. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#627    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM

Hey Q, sorry for the delay, I ended up taking an impromptu vacation from work last week as we had a couple days of miraculous October Michigan weather in the 70s, and I needed a break from work anyway.  I have been thinking about our points and conversation though, and how to proceed.  I do disagree with quite a bit of what you had to say in your previous post here,especially concerning Occam, but I'm going to try and take bite-size chunks; work still looms suckily over my free time and I don't want to shortchange you on responses to the posts you have taken the time to put together.

We have talked a few times about 'circumstantial evidence' and how cases are made in courts of law based on this (with the understanding that really all evidence is pretty much circumstantial, I think we both have an idea what circumstantial evidence means in this context).  Do you agree with what I had quoted concerning the responsibilities of someone making a case based on circumstantial evidence, primarily that the onus is on the person making the case to show how other alternatives must be ruled out?  I'm not trying to set up a gotcha or anything, I was thinking it might benefit us to have some kind of framework or standard to appeal to and that one to me seems very reasonable, with the understanding that 'ruling out' is still a subjective measure.  I'm always open to alternatives also.

I'm going to attempt to apply that standard to the molten flow argument.  (FYI - the below is actually from a response you made to sky)

View PostQ24, on 25 October 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

The claim of non-existent explosions in video and audio (not to mention witness statements) is ridiculous and exposed by a brief Google or YouTube search of “WTC explosions”.  I will only address the following point for LG lest he make the same mistake…

Aluminium is not a good explanation because it is a silver colour at its relatively low melting point in daylight conditions.  Please spare me the pictures of molten aluminium in poor light, molten aluminium far above its melting point and photos that are not aluminium at all - these are irrelevant.  For aluminium to attain the near white hot colour seen, it would first need to be somehow contained within the tower so that it could not pool on the floor away from the highest temperatures, flow away from the fire or exit the building, whilst an extremely efficient heat transfer took place, before then somehow being ejected in sporadic bursts.  

Aluminum is a good explanation because it is a silver color which is the color of the material at the lowest part and outside the center of the flow in several photos, apparently because it has cooled enough.  The flow also originates where the wreckage of the plane logically would have ended up, in the midst of the fire. (while acknowledging that if this was a dislodged thermite device, it may also have been knocked in the direction of the plane; but that's more of a maybe then where the wreckage of the plane would end up).  Is there a reason why the aluminum could not have been contained near enough of a heat source, and there were a lot of them, in the midst of floors which have sustained unknown damage and deformation?  Do you have some evidence for believing this not to be the case?  Did the NIST report show that the floors in this vicinity drooped toward the windows and that may have caused the melted material to pour out the window?

Quote

NIST knew this, which is why, rather than appeal to the lacking answer of aluminium alone, in their FAQ it is theorised to be an aluminium and burning debris mix - though that has also been proven incorrect by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect, lack of flame or dark smoke and completeness of the coloration.

I guess I don't get the first part of the sentence, and that's not just you, I've seen 'debunking' explanations that mention this also: I don't know why anyone would theorize that it is aluminum alone, that makes no sense to me, of course there is other burning debris mixed in, the aluminum didn't magically separate itself from the rest of the plane and the contents of the floor and building.  And from what I've been able to find, as soon as we mix in other material, the points that rely on 'coloration' tend to fly out the window, you're going to need to know the composition to know what it should look like when it's burning.  I've been tired lately and my snark motivation is very low, so I'll just say that I believe 'that has also been proven incorrecty by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect...' is just plain false.  Experiments that fail to replicate the effect do not prove that it cannot be aluminum and other material, pretty much period.  It is especially the case in this instance as we have extremely limited information about what all the different materials are, and in what proportion, that may have composed this molten material, where exactly the fire and heat sources are, exactly how hot they are, how much oxygen is feeding them, etc.  These would all seem to be extremely pertinent prior to determining things like lack of flame and color of smoke.

Quote

In addition, aluminium (I assume from the aircraft - if your theory were true and came from the façade, the effect should occur all around the fire zone) does not explain why the phenomenon initiates only in the minutes prior to collapse or the nature of the sporadic flow - each fitting of a thermite charge designed to initiate the collapse.

One explanation as I noted above is that it flowed after the floor had given way somewhat or deformed.  But let's say for a second that there is no explanation at all for that; why does 'initiating only in the minutes prior to collapse' need a specific explanation?  If it would have happened 10 minutes after impact, would that also require an explanation?  I believe it is because your theory is that this was a demolition and so it happening a few minutes before collapse requires a 'special' explanation from theories counter to yours.  I don't believe that is the case; this is only coincidental if you first assume that this was a demolition, which this point is supposed to be helping to show was actually the case, so the point seems a little begging-the-question-ish.  Overall this is something I don't really 'get' Q, and I think having some kind of standard to appeal to such as the circumstantial evidence one above might help:  it might just be my impression, but you seem to demand very specific explanations for counter theories to your own but allow, in my mind, a large amount of vagueness for your own.  What was the thermite charge exactly composed of?  Where else have they been used, I don't think there is anything you can really point to.  The device must have had some shielding so that it didn't detonate on plane impact and subsequent explosion, but this apparently protected it even after being dislodged so that it didn't go off immediately (assuming that is to be expected; since I don't know what the device is there isn't much for me to analyze there, I thought thermite needed some type of explosive or something to get it going)?  Is the theory that these were triggered remote controlled, and if so, it's reasonable to believe that those electronics remained undamaged also by a force that was capable of dislodging it?  

In my more smartassish posts I think I've referred to points you've made being buttressed essentially by just your 'imagination' which is exaggeration on my part in many cases, but what else does anyone have to work with on this specific point?  Why are you allowed to just not have any requirement to provide any information on these devices, specifics on where exactly these charges were set and evidence for it; isn't that exactly the level of detail that is proportional to what you require at least for the official theory?  Your criticisms of the official theory are at that detailed of a level and are on very specific points, but I think part of what you've offered as an explanation for my questions about details on these devices is that of course thermite demolition technology has improved, which is not very specific.  But you are still left pretty much with no known precedent for the devices you are proposing here, correct?  

I am not at all saying that this cannot be a thermite charge, it might be.  I don't see why, on it's own, that's the most likely explanation or how you've assessed that probability.  Perhaps you believe this because of what you have elaborated on in your previous post, concerning your application of Occam, and possibly your belief that because of other points for a demolition, that makes this specific molten flow point more likely also as a result of a demolition, as opposed to evaluating this specific point on it's own.  Regardless, it doesn't seem (ha) 'fair' that you are not required to offer an explanation to this level of detail, so that I can have a turn picking at the details for your theory, and I think there is an implication that this really should be necessary based on how specific your criticisms of specific details of the official theory are.

And of course feel free to steer the convo any way you choose, if you think we should continue on with the 'Occam' and general overall argument structure conversation before hitting this specific point, just let me know; I may be wrong but I think I see an intersection here between those two topics.  Like I said I'm really pressed for time and the upcoming holidays will just further erode it, so my ability to respond to longer posts adequately will be limited, but as long as the pace is slowed I should be good.  I just started to read about the CIA assisting the hijackers/Saudi visa stuff on my lunch hour and there's obviously more to get educated on that point than the molten flow, but that seems to be an important one so I don't plan on letting that drop.

"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

#628    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:19 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Hey Q, sorry for the delay, I ended up taking an impromptu vacation from work last week as we had a couple days of miraculous October Michigan weather in the 70s, and I needed a break from work anyway.  I have been thinking about our points and conversation though, and how to proceed.  I do disagree with quite a bit of what you had to say in your previous post here,especially concerning Occam, but I'm going to try and take bite-size chunks; work still looms suckily over my free time and I don't want to shortchange you on responses to the posts you have taken the time to put together.

That was good timing, I’ve been on vacation too.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

We have talked a few times about 'circumstantial evidence' and how cases are made in courts of law based on this (with the understanding that really all evidence is pretty much circumstantial, I think we both have an idea what circumstantial evidence means in this context).  Do you agree with what I had quoted concerning the responsibilities of someone making a case based on circumstantial evidence, primarily that the onus is on the person making the case to show how other alternatives must be ruled out?  I'm not trying to set up a gotcha or anything, I was thinking it might benefit us to have some kind of framework or standard to appeal to and that one to me seems very reasonable, with the understanding that 'ruling out' is still a subjective measure.  I'm always open to alternatives also.

Yes I do agree about the responsibilities of proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, with the qualifier that ‘ruling out’ and also ‘building up’ a case can be subjective.  With this type of evidence there comes a point where we must use our own judgement to determine what is reasonable.  I think that when we have many data points of circumstantial evidence explained in a single answer, i.e. a case of corroborating evidence, then it becomes a realistic theory.  When that corroborating evidence also outweighs any alternative, fits ideally with ever wider bodies of corroborating evidence and makes perfect logical sense, then we are looking at a leading theory that to any rationale mind is all but proven.

I think what you would like to do is write-off circumstantial evidence altogether and thus largely discard the case for the 9/11 false flag.  The only problem with applying that rule is that it also removes the official story, itself based on much circumstantial evidence.  This leaves us nowhere other than asking, ‘what the heck happened on 9/11?’ whilst the unquestioning follow our leaders to war on a pretext.  So for me, wanting answers rather than standing idly by, the best thing is to allow all evidence and build and compare each case ‘official story vs. false flag’… and there is only one clear winner.

With the above in mind, perhaps the way for err... non-believers... to take my argument for the false flag (what with circumstantial evidence being subjective - you and I clearly having different interpretations) is not as a standalone case but rather in a head-to-head with the official story or any other alternative version of events.  Let’s see which theory has the most or strongest data points in its favour and which requires least disparate and coincidental conclusions.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Aluminum is a good explanation because it is a silver color which is the color of the material at the lowest part and outside the center of the flow in several photos, apparently because it has cooled enough.  The flow also originates where the wreckage of the plane logically would have ended up, in the midst of the fire. (while acknowledging that if this was a dislodged thermite device, it may also have been knocked in the direction of the plane; but that's more of a maybe then where the wreckage of the plane would end up).  Is there a reason why the aluminum could not have been contained near enough of a heat source, and there were a lot of them, in the midst of floors which have sustained unknown damage and deformation?  Do you have some evidence for believing this not to be the case?  Did the NIST report show that the floors in this vicinity drooped toward the windows and that may have caused the melted material to pour out the window?

Ok, let’s say the silver material is aluminium from the aircraft or building facade, or any other silver material from inside the building - filing cabinets, computers, desks, etc, I’m sure there are many examples.  Here’s the killer - I’m not interested in the silver material.  I’m interested in the orange to near white hot molten material that indicates temperatures in excess of 1,000oC.  Now that is established…

How could the metal be contained and heated within the building without pooling on the floor or flowing away once it becomes molten?  It usually takes specially designed smelting or forgery pots to produce metal temperatures that high.  I cannot imagine a case where the damaged structure and open/diffuse flame of an office fire can replicate this setup.

Regarding the heat source and temperature observed, it is worthy of note that of all the steel samples NIST recovered from the fire zones, none had exceeded 600oC, yet in the instance discussed the colouration reveals we have a temperature over 1,000oC.  What that tells us is that we are dealing with an isolated occurrence; not a result of the fire which was widespread.

About the floors, NIST say the trusses sagged, though with the length of the truss parallel with the wall in area of the molten flow it would be a downward sagging movement rather than sloped toward the window.  In all likelihood any sloping would occur toward the centre face of the building where the maximum inward deflection of perimeter columns occurred, rather than toward a corner.  Whilst such downward movement, if reaching the lower window, could initially release the molten material, there is no reason for sporadic bursts to follow.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I guess I don't get the first part of the sentence, and that's not just you, I've seen 'debunking' explanations that mention this also: I don't know why anyone would theorize that it is aluminum alone, that makes no sense to me, of course there is other burning debris mixed in, the aluminum didn't magically separate itself from the rest of the plane and the contents of the floor and building.  And from what I've been able to find, as soon as we mix in other material, the points that rely on 'coloration' tend to fly out the window, you're going to need to know the composition to know what it should look like when it's burning.  I've been tired lately and my snark motivation is very low, so I'll just say that I believe 'that has also been proven incorrecty by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect...' is just plain false.  Experiments that fail to replicate the effect do not prove that it cannot be aluminum and other material, pretty much period.  It is especially the case in this instance as we have extremely limited information about what all the different materials are, and in what proportion, that may have composed this molten material, where exactly the fire and heat sources are, exactly how hot they are, how much oxygen is feeding them, etc.  These would all seem to be extremely pertinent prior to determining things like lack of flame and color of smoke.

I’m glad you accept that aluminium alone is not a good answer - that rules out your previous paragraph, beginning, “Aluminium is a good explanation because… ”.  I referred to the FAQ to show that neither did NIST find it a good answer alone and had to invoke further materials in attempt to explain the orange to near white hot colouration.  So good - we all agree that the observation requires more than molten aluminium to explain.

You may not accept physical experiments but I will just say that molten aluminium mixed with office materials like glass, plastic and wood did not replicate the effect observed - rather the debris and molten metal remaining separate like oil and water.  Also there is the problem that no flame or dark smoke is emitted from the WTC2 molten flow.  Perhaps you could carry out your own experiment, or find an example, to prove this molten aluminium and debris mix, otherwise I have seen enough to know that it does not work.

I used to have a better link describing details of the experiments but this is the best I can find right now: -

http://www.scholarsf...hypothesis.html


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

One explanation as I noted above is that it flowed after the floor had given way somewhat or deformed.  But let's say for a second that there is no explanation at all for that; why does 'initiating only in the minutes prior to collapse' need a specific explanation?  If it would have happened 10 minutes after impact, would that also require an explanation?  I believe it is because your theory is that this was a demolition and so it happening a few minutes before collapse requires a 'special' explanation from theories counter to yours.  I don't believe that is the case; this is only coincidental if you first assume that this was a demolition, which this point is supposed to be helping to show was actually the case, so the point seems a little begging-the-question-ish.  

The timing of the molten metal flow, minutes prior to the collapse initiation, is just another data point logically explained through the single answer of demolition, opposed to the official theory where the timing must be described more as another coincidence.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

What was the thermite charge exactly composed of?  Where else have they been used, I don't think there is anything you can really point to.  The device must have had some shielding so that it didn't detonate on plane impact and subsequent explosion, but this apparently protected it even after being dislodged so that it didn't go off immediately (assuming that is to be expected; since I don't know what the device is there isn't much for me to analyze there, I thought thermite needed some type of explosive or something to get it going)?  Is the theory that these were triggered remote controlled, and if so, it's reasonable to believe that those electronics remained undamaged also by a force that was capable of dislodging it?

Why does it matter what the flow was composed of, further than acknowledging it matches the appearance of a thermite reaction?  I think we have already been over examples of a thermite demolition, such devices both patented and in practice and the rationale of such focused temperature weakening steel columns.  There is sufficient precedent and logic that the method will work.

I agree with your assertions about some form of shielding and believe the thermite devices would be pre-fabricated units prepared for placement.  If I were planning the demolition I’d certainly make the units robust enough to give best chance of survival during the impacts, and thermite itself is resistant to shock and lower temperatures.  The initiator would perhaps be electrical or chemical and it appears the shielding was enough to protect it in this case.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

In my more smartassish posts I think I've referred to points you've made being buttressed essentially by just your 'imagination' which is exaggeration on my part in many cases, but what else does anyone have to work with on this specific point?  Why are you allowed to just not have any requirement to provide any information on these devices, specifics on where exactly these charges were set and evidence for it; isn't that exactly the level of detail that is proportional to what you require at least for the official theory?  Your criticisms of the official theory are at that detailed of a level and are on very specific points, but I think part of what you've offered as an explanation for my questions about details on these devices is that of course thermite demolition technology has improved, which is not very specific.  But you are still left pretty much with no known precedent for the devices you are proposing here, correct?

No, incorrect - there are examples and logic for thermite devices.  And in this case I’m just saying what I see and determining the best match, based on known example.  Again these are the features: -
  • Complete colouration
  • Lack of flame
  • Lack of dark smoke
  • Light smoke (oxides?)
  • Location (isolated)
  • Timing
  • Sporadic nature

Aluminium could explain 2, 3 and 4 but not 1, 5, 6 And 7.
Debris could possibly explain 4 but not 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.
Sagging trusses could explain 5 and 6 but not 1, 2, 3, 4 And 7.

So as I see it, this alternative theory of yours has 5 and 6 pinned down due to that brilliant official story fallback of ‘coincidence’ and is terrible fit (even contradictory) to the remainder.  Yet guess which one answer all of the above features are ideal fit to, not to mention the wider body of corroborating evidence - a thermite charge, designed to initiate the collapses.

What are you waiting for, a confession?  I don’t mean that literally.  What I’m asking is… how could it possibly appear any more like a thermite charge?  Let’s say there was a thermite charge at that location.  What’s to stop you writing it off with the same non-fitting answers you have provided already?

Here are a few images I put together for comparison: -

Posted Image

Perhaps all of these pictures are molten aluminium with mixed debris?

The centre image is just to show what an engineer can do to steel with thermite in his back garden.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I am not at all saying that this cannot be a thermite charge, it might be.  I don't see why, on it's own, that's the most likely explanation or how you've assessed that probability.  Perhaps you believe this because of what you have elaborated on in your previous post, concerning your application of Occam, and possibly your belief that because of other points for a demolition, that makes this specific molten flow point more likely also as a result of a demolition, as opposed to evaluating this specific point on it's own.  

As you say, a thermite charge fits Occam's requirement, the wider corroborating evidence and is the only comprehensive answer.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I just started to read about the CIA assisting the hijackers/Saudi visa stuff on my lunch hour and there's obviously more to get educated on that point than the molten flow, but that seems to be an important one so I don't plan on letting that drop.

It's an interesting subject and little known fact that the CIA were trailing two of the hijackers pre-9/11, even if nothing else can be found in agreement.

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.

#629    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,589 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

View PostQ24, on 31 October 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Why does it matter what the flow was composed of, further than acknowledging it matches the appearance of a thermite reaction?

But, there was no evidence of thermite in the rubble of the WTC buildings. :no: And, thermite is not an explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

Quote

It's an interesting subject and little known fact that the CIA were trailing two of the hijackers pre-9/11, even if nothing else can be found in agreement.

Were you aware that the CIA was tracking terrorist in Malaysia and unaware the terrorist had slipped into Thailand?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#630    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:24 PM

Q, real quick, I'm having trouble finding a truther rebuttal to the idea that the molten flow may be partly a result of a rack of batteries Fuji Bank had at that location.  I tried searching on the posts here, but I must be screwing it up, I'm getting weird results, and I didn't see anything on 911truth.org or in google countering it.  I'm sure you've heard of it, but if you had any resources on your side you can point me to easily so I can take a look at the counter argument to it, it might save you some time.  Or of course feel free to provide your thoughts on it also.  The first note I saw of the suggestion seems to be from around 2008 I think, I'm sure you guys have already talked about it so sorry if I'm retreading very worn or banal ground, I thought it was an interesting explanation at least.

"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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users