900 replies to this topic

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 22 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

You do love misleading cherry-picked quotes, don't you.  What NIST actually said was that while the fires were similar, the other buildings "did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system".

You do love talking nonesense and misrepresentation of my position, don’t you.  NIST found precedent in those previous fires and obviously a degree of similarity in examples of the building structures mentioned (i.e. steel-framed, high-rise structures - otherwise NIST would not have selected those particular examples).  In all, whilst not a perfect match (which was not my point in the first place – this is about precedent, not carbon-copy replication), NIST do indicate in the text quoted that these non-collapse examples are the most relevant comparisons/precedent available (which is my point).  So whinge away, but my point is correct and NIST agree.

Oh and ‘structural differences’?  Yes, only because NIST, to provide the ‘correct’ answer, were forced to conclude that the first skyscraper in history, unlike all other examples, was susceptible to ‘progressive collapse’ due to loss of a few floor trusses - a phenomenon usually reserved for determinate element warehouse type structures, not indeterminate element high-rises.  It’s completely absurd.  The closest example of such a large structure suffering progressive collapse would be the Murrah Federal Building/Oklahoma City bombing, which despite the official study attributing it to, “a chain reaction of successive failures that collapses the whole building” (same investigator as for the initial WTC study by the way), a study by the Air Force at Eglin actually concluded, “it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb ... The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the structure ... It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself.”

Now there’s some precedent.

It is in plain sight: -

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building........ ”




Now are you going to whinge that I cherry-picked the quote to exclude that the demolition was proposed for safety reasons?  Well I don’t care for the reason so much as first establishing that it clearly was a demolition.  Fire indeed, bull****.  As time goes by people will only look more foolish than they already do for making this hopeful argument.  I don’t think most of the public, even official story adherents, really believe it anymore.

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 22 November 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

what made me suspicious was the passport handed in at the wtc.

what made me frightened was the discovery that anthrax was not a plague but an assassin's weapon.

what made me conscious was discovering the targets of that assassin's weapon.

what made me understand the how was the NRO drill exercise.

what made me understand the who was the PNAC document and the pre-911 Zelikow-Deutch-CFR document "Imagining the transforming event"

what made me laugh was reading the improbable mental gymnastics and linguistic brainwashing the official story supporters have to devise to protect their faith.

what made me free was discovering reality.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Ha, yes, the Flight 11 hijacker passport conveniently discovered on the street.

I want to play.

What made me suspicious was the longterm Bush/bin Laden family connections.
What made me frightened was the hopeless lack of investigation leading to viability of the false flag.
What made me conscious was the bizarre series of WTC collapses.
What made me understand the how was the CIA and Cheney’s assistance to the attackers.
What made me understand the why was the Operation Northwoods document.
What made me laugh was that the public bought a declaration of war on a country to combat an ideology.
What made me free was seeing truth in its historical perspective.

Ohhhh, can I play too?

What made me suspicious was the Truth Movement's apparent reliance on distortions, lies, and half-truths.
What made me frightened was seeing that some people actually buy this codswallop.
What made me conscious was discussing the subject with the most stalwart of conspiracists to no avail.
What made me understand the how was seeing the way that conspiracists tie together bits of ambiguity to design unrealistic fantasies.
What made me understand the why was reading about the psychology of conspiracy theorists.
What made me laugh was... well, most of the theories put forward by the Truth Movement make me laugh anymore, when they don't make me cry.
What made me free was realizing that no matter how much time, effort, and energy I devoted to discussing these things, I wasn't going to convince those who are devoted to this silliness.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 23 November 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Ohhhh, can I play too?

What made me suspicious was the Truth Movement's apparent reliance on distortions, lies, and half-truths.
What made me frightened was seeing that some people actually buy this codswallop.
What made me conscious was discussing the subject with the most stalwart of conspiracists to no avail.
What made me understand the how was seeing the way that conspiracists tie together bits of ambiguity to design unrealistic fantasies.
What made me understand the why was reading about the psychology of conspiracy theorists.
What made me laugh was... well, most of the theories put forward by the Truth Movement make me laugh anymore, when they don't make me cry.
What made me free was realizing that no matter how much time, effort, and energy I devoted to discussing these things, I wasn't going to convince those who are devoted to this silliness.

Heh, while I was making that post, the precise thought crossed my mind, “this is the type of thing that booNy would respond to with some satirical twist, avoiding facts of the 9/11 event and attacking the ‘truth movement’”.  So either  I’m psychic, or you’re predictable.  And the problem for your take is that your suspicions are founded on a false premise to begin – unfortunately there are no distortions, lies or half-truths whatsoever required to understand any of the facts I mention and you have shown an inability to demonstrate that when it comes to rationale debaters such as myself.  In fact, wasn’t it you not so long ago spreading fiction that the WTC design engineers only considered a low speed aircraft impact case, before being corrected by myself?  Yes, it was.  So your own conclusions have clearly been based on misunderstanding and lack of knowledge...  though there is still time to change your mind, people respect that for the right reasons. Still, congrats for your role in helping me to put down PfffT; time, effort and energy well spent, just a shame your preconception and bias has negative impact on other areas.  Well, thank you for playing.

Edited by Q24, 23 November 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Heh, while I was making that post, the precise thought crossed my mind, “this is the type of thing that booNy would respond to with some satirical twist, avoiding facts of the 9/11 event and attacking the ‘truth movement’”.  So either  I’m psychic, or you’re predictable.

If you want to really impress me, give me the winning lotto numbers.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

And the problem for your take is that your suspicions are founded on a false premise to begin – unfortunately there are no distortions, lies or half-truths whatsoever required to understand any of the facts I mention and you have shown an inability to demonstrate that when it comes to rationale debaters such as myself.  

Oh that's rich coming from you.  Most of your arguments regarding controlled demolition rely on distortions, lies, and half-truths.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

In fact, wasn’t it you not so long ago spreading fiction that the WTC design engineers only considered a low speed aircraft impact case, before being corrected by myself?  Yes, it was.  

You are pretty impressed with yourself over that (perceived) minor victory aren't you?  I conceded the point after you provided better information than I'd had available before then.  Until the moment you provided the substantiation for your argument, the available evidence that I had reviewed supported the position I was conveying.  Once that information was provided, I adopted the position which was more strongly supported.  That is what is known as following the evidence to derive the most likely conclusion instead of attempting to shoehorn evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion.

It takes honesty to do that.  You might want to try that on for size sometime.

Tell me, for example, does that study (which we still don't have the details of) prove that the towers couldn't have been brought down by the impacts of the planes and resulting fires?  I daresay that it doesn't prove that at all.  How much did that (perceived) small victory end up contributing to your overall position?  Not much really.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Though still, congrats for your role in helping me to put down PfffT; time, effort and energy well spent, just a shame your preconception and bias has negative impact on other areas.  Well, thank you for playing.

What bias?  You've proven what exactly?  Nothing even close to what you think you've proven.  But carry on if you'd like Q24.  I found this topic fascinating once upon a time, but not so much anymore.

Cheers.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

You do love talking nonesense and misrepresentation of my position, don’t you.  NIST found precedent in those previous fires and obviously a degree of similarity in examples of the building structures mentioned (i.e. steel-framed, high-rise structures - otherwise NIST would not have selected those particular examples).  In all, whilst not a perfect match (which was not my point in the first place – this is about precedent, not carbon-copy replication), NIST do indicate in the text quoted that these non-collapse examples are the most relevant comparisons/precedent available (which is my point).  So whinge away, but my point is correct and NIST agree.

Where's the misrepresentation?  You said that the fires and the structures were similar, so the outcome should be similar, and provided the NIST quote saying how similar the fires were.  You were certainly trying to give the impression that NIST backed your position.

How am I misrepresenting you when I point out that the same NIST document says the structures were different and that was the reason for the different outcomes?  Are you denying that the WTC7 structure was unusual?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 23 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

If you want to really impress me, give me the winning lotto numbers.

If the lottery were as predictable as you that wouldn’t be a problem.

booNyzarC, on 23 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

You are pretty impressed with yourself over that (perceived) minor victory aren't you?  I conceded the point after you provided better information than I'd had available before then.

No, defence rejected.  You already had the informatin available, just didn’t read properly or take it onboard – this demonstrated in my follow-up post #365.  It’s a reasonable victory in showing your opponent’s argument wrong, when the information that proves it so is readily available but not put to good use or understood; your wider reasoning and conclusions obviously a reflection of similar failure also.  I wonder how much else of what has been said you have never taken onboard that allows your conclusions to exist.

booNyzarC, on 23 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Tell me, for example, does that study (which we still don't have the details of) prove that the towers couldn't have been brought down by the impacts of the planes and resulting fires?  I daresay that it doesn't prove that at all.  How much did that (perceived) small victory end up contributing to your overall position?  Not much really.

Why are you asking me to decipher documented evidence for you?  You create the reality you would prefer anyhow.  The study proves what it proves; that a study by the WTC head engineer involving a 600mph airliner impact and subsequent fire concluded that the building would not initiate collapse.  It’s a form of precedent that undoubtedly you’d like to belittle and discount for personal reasons of bias.  The question that should be asked is, even after the half-truth you presented about the design study is exposed, why do you need to distort evidence in such way to maintain your beliefs?  It says a lot about where your argument comes from.

When we add that discussion we had where you declared you'd love it if a certain member of the truth movement were wrong, even before the argument had been had (you know what I'm talking about), then your objectivity goes out the window altogether.  That's not to say your argument is always wrong, simply biased in how you set out, which means that statements you make in the game you just joined cannot be accepted at face value.  No, you hold a belief predisposed of the evidence.

Then include your preference to butcher Newtonian physics relating to impacting objects and, oh dear should we really be accepting of your conclusions?  I am still waiting for you to correct that pretty but false animation.

booNyzarC, on 23 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

I found this topic fascinating once upon a time, but not so much anymore.

Likewise, until the mundane reality of the 9/11 false flag took hold.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 23 November 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Where's the misrepresentation?  You said that the fires and the structures were similar, so the outcome should be similar, and provided the NIST quote saying how similar the fires were.  You were certainly trying to give the impression that NIST backed your position.

How am I misrepresenting you when I point out that the same NIST document says the structures were different and that was the reason for the different outcomes?  Are you denying that the WTC7 structure was unusual?

Please read my post at the top of the page again - it already addresses what you say here.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

You do love talking nonesense and misrepresentation of my position, don’t you.  NIST found precedent in those previous fires and obviously a degree of similarity in examples of the building structures mentioned (i.e. steel-framed, high-rise structures - otherwise NIST would not have selected those particular examples).  In all, whilst not a perfect match (which was not my point in the first place – this is about precedent, not carbon-copy replication), NIST do indicate in the text quoted that these non-collapse examples are the most relevant comparisons/precedent available (which is my point).  So whinge away, but my point is correct and NIST agree.

Oh and ‘structural differences’?  Yes, only because NIST, to provide the ‘correct’ answer, were forced to conclude that the first skyscraper in history, unlike all other examples, was susceptible to ‘progressive collapse’ due to loss of a few floor trusses - a phenomenon usually reserved for determinate element warehouse type structures, not indeterminate element high-rises.  It’s completely absurd.  The closest example of such a large structure suffering progressive collapse would be the Murrah Federal Building/Oklahoma City bombing, which despite the official study attributing it to, “a chain reaction of successive failures that collapses the whole building” (same investigator as for the initial WTC study by the way), a study by the Air Force at Eglin actually concluded, “it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb ... The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the structure ... It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself.”

Now there’s some precedent.

It is in plain sight: -

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building........ ”




Now are you going to whinge that I cherry-picked the quote to exclude that the demolition was proposed for safety reasons?  Well I don’t care for the reason so much as first establishing that it clearly was a demolition.  Fire indeed, bull****.  As time goes by people will only look more foolish than they already do for making this hopeful argument.  I don’t think most of the public, even official story adherents, really believe it anymore.

Let's hear what Larry Silverstein really said.



Nothing there to even remotely suggest the use of explosives to demolish WTC7.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

No, defence rejected.  You already had the informatin available, just didn’t read properly or take it onboard – this demonstrated in my follow-up post #365.  It’s a reasonable victory in showing your opponent’s argument wrong, when the information that proves it so is readily available but not put to good use or understood; your wider reasoning and conclusions obviously a reflection of similar failure also.  I wonder how much else of what has been said you have never taken onboard that allows your conclusions to exist.

And my followup post #369 further clarified why I was unwilling to accept the claim without substantiation.  Substantiation that you had NOT previously provided.

This whole line of discussion you've taken is one of the reasons I find talking to you so tedious.  You bring up inconsequential things like that study which proves absolutely nothing other than some people did a study (which we don't have the details of) and reached a conclusion, and then you point to the fact that I accepted the study after you had finally substantiated what you were saying about it as if it was a bad thing on my part.  I conceded the point already.  You're continuously bringing it up to poke at me is petty and ridiculous.

As for the study itself, it's nice and all, but it still doesn't prove the impossibility of gravity driven collapse no matter how much you may wish it did.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Why are you asking me to decipher documented evidence for you?  You create the reality you would prefer anyhow.  The study proves what it proves; that a study by the WTC head engineer involving a 600mph airliner impact and subsequent fire concluded that the building would not initiate collapse.  It’s a form of precedent that undoubtedly you’d like to belittle and discount for personal reasons of bias.  The question that should be asked is, even after the half-truth you presented about the design study is exposed, why do you need to distort evidence in such way to maintain your beliefs?  It says a lot about where your argument comes from.

It proves that a study was done.  Big deal.  How many studies have been done which seemed to indicate one thing, but were later overturned by better information and/or improved methods?

What am I distorting?  What half truth have I stated?

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

When we add that discussion we had where you declared you'd love it if a certain member of the truth movement were wrong, even before the argument had been had (you know what I'm talking about), then your objectivity goes out the window altogether.  That's not to say your argument is always wrong, simply biased in how you set out, which means that statements you make in the game you just joined cannot be accepted at face value.  No, you hold a belief predisposed of the evidence.

Oh please.  Saying that I hoped he was wrong because he was such a pr1ck doesn't mean that I'm biased.  It means that I thought it would be very satisfying to shove his wrongness back in his pr1ckish face after the way he had mistreated and verbally abused so many here; including if not primarily me.  That doesn't make me biased.  It makes me somewhat vindictive, but not biased.  Kind of like I've relished the times when I show how wrong you are, simply because of your consistently petty and inaccurately portrayed little pokes; especially something that came from a private message like this one did.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Then include your preference to butcher Newtonian physics relating to impacting objects and, oh dear should we really be accepting of your conclusions?  I am still waiting for you to correct that pretty but false animation.

There's nothing false in that animation.  It wasn't intended to model the actual collapse, but to give a very basic illustration for Bazant's limiting case.  Just because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong, especially considering the way that you and your 'faster than gravity momentum' and other physics failures are so blatantly ridiculous that it is laughable.

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Likewise, until the mundane reality of the 9/11 false flag took hold.

In your own mind Q24.  In your own mind.



And oh look, I've burned another hour or two of my life discussing stupid and petty BS with you.  The joke is on me.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Yes definitely, this assists my case on two counts.

First it shows the official story, that the attacks could not be prevented due to a ‘lack of imagination’, to be false- there had been exercises planned and carried out involving terrorists crashing airplanes into government buildings.

Second it shows up to nine such aircraft suicide attack/accident exercises in the preceding years.  Let’s say each exercise played out over 4-5 hours, we’ll round that up to a total of 2 days solid of such exercises.  What probability the real world attack, which may have taken place anytime over the preceding years, happens to take place in the very same timeframe and location as one of the exercises?  Hint:  it’s low; as the government spokesperson said, “an incredible coincidence”.  Oh “incredible” is the word alright.

It would have been "incredible" had the United States not conducted anti-terrorist exercises considering the number of warnings received prior to the 9/11 attacks. Such exercises before the 9/11 attacks shouldn't be of no surprise. After all, the Philippines notified the United States that terrorist had planned to use airliners as weapons and their intention to fly an airplane into CIA headquarters.

In another airline hijacking terrorist planned to fly an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France. In light of those facts, it should be of no surprise why such anti-terrorist exercises were carried out prior the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

Further information to add.  The NRO exercise was actually reported to be headed by a CIA agent with counter-terrorist links.  That connects the exercise to the same element who infiltrated Al Qaeda at the same time 15 of the hijackers so happened to volunteer for the attack (which, despite all the radical Muslims in the world, there was lack of volunteers a few years earlier – reference the Bojinka plot), began meeting top tier of the Bush administration daily in 2001 and guided the hijackers Mihdhar and Hazmi to their fate whilst blocking the FBI from stopping their preparation.

I don't think you understand what was revealed in the Bojinka Plot as far as a planned attack on the CIA is concerned, so let's do a review.

Quote

Phase III, CIA plane crash plot

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed details of Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase two would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.
There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, D.C.), the Willis Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://topics.nytime...plot/index.html

Now, let's take a look at financing.

Quote

Financing

The money that funded the Bojinka Plot came from Osama bin Laden and Hambali, and from front organizations operated by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, bin Laden's brother-in-law.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

Quote

It’s very clear to me who the true hand was behind 9/11 – a core of Neocon and Zionist hawks who hijacked the Bush administration, assisted by a like-minded clique within the intelligence services, domestic and foreign – it was all of they who laid the groundwork, baited bin Laden, ensured the attack would be a success and executed their long planned war agenda as a result.

It was very clear who was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

Echoes of Early Design to Use Chemicals to Blow Up Airliners

Mr. Mohammed has told his interrogators that after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which involved explosives loaded onto a truck that failed to bring down the building, he “needed to graduate to a more novel form of attack,” as the 9/11 report puts it. That led to Bojinka, and the first thoughts about using planes to bomb the World Trade Center.

http://www.nytimes.c...rsbombplot&_r=0

And, you might want to check as to whom was responsible for the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434. He was the same person who was involved in the 1993 World Trade bombing and nephew of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 November 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Likewise, until the mundane reality of the 9/11 false flag took hold.

The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with a false flag operation and to underline that point, you have have failed to provide a single shred of evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 November 2012 - 07:07 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

It is in plain sight: -
Well I don’t care for the reason so much as first establishing that it clearly was a demolition.

First of all, you have to provide evidence that explosives were used and as of 11/23/2012, you have failed to provide such evidence. No evidence of explosives was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings nor was such evidence recovered at the Fresh Kills landfill. There were no explosions seen on the videos nor captured by seismic monitors nor even heard during the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

The folks at the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, Protec Documentation Services, Inc., and other demolition companies have confirmed that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings, and the Air line Pilot Association, and the Allied Pilots Association, blamed terrorist for the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 November 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Okay, since it's peeing match day apparently and I'm in the mood for some venting..

Q24, on 23 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

1) You do love talking nonesense and misrepresentation of my position, don’t you.  NIST found precedent in those previous fires and obviously a degree of similarity in examples of the building structures mentioned (i.e. steel-framed, high-rise structures - otherwise NIST would not have selected those particular examples).  In all, whilst not a perfect match (which was not my point in the first place – this is about precedent, not carbon-copy replication), NIST do indicate in the text quoted that these non-collapse examples are the most relevant comparisons/precedent available (which is my point).  So whinge away, but my point is correct and NIST agree.

2) Oh and ‘structural differences’?  Yes, only because NIST, to provide the ‘correct’ answer, were forced to conclude that the first skyscraper in history, unlike all other examples, was susceptible to ‘progressive collapse’ due to loss of a few floor trusses - a phenomenon usually reserved for determinate element warehouse type structures, not indeterminate element high-rises.  It’s completely absurd.

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

Quote

confirmation bias

"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.

Bing.  O.

Quote

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building........ ”

Now are you going to whinge that I cherry-picked the quote to exclude that the demolition was proposed for safety reasons?  Well I don’t care for the reason so much as first establishing that it clearly was a demolition.  Fire indeed, bull****.  As time goes by people will only look more foolish than they already do for making this hopeful argument.  I don’t think most of the public, even official story adherents, really believe it anymore.

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

What I can't believe is the hay you are trying to make out of this Silverstein demolition phone call stupidity.  It doesn't matter at all merely that Silverstein is getting authorization, that is an entirely understandable conversation between a property owner and his insurance company after a building is damaged to that extent.  Didn't they pull down one of the other damaged WTC buildings, WTC6 I think, for safety reasons?  So then why is likewise looking into demolishing 7 so indicative of something nefarious?  What was the proposed demolition time that he was trying to get authorization for?  Because if they were talking about demolishing it in the future assuming the building stood, this also is entirely normal.  Why is Silverstein trying to get authorization when 'they' are going to such extreme efforts to hide that it was demolished in the first place?  Are you suggesting that Silverstein was trying to get authorization so that they could demolish it with the demolitions they already have planted, in other words the insurance company is in on the plot?  Under your theory, why is Silverstein calling at all?  Why isn't he concealing this conversation?  He's calling to get authorization of a pre-planted criminal demolition which they are going to conceal as a natural collapse?  Insurance companies provide coverage for the perpetrators of criminal acts now?  Since he is in on the plot and knows that there will be a concealed demolition, won't (and wasn't) he be reimbursed for the destruction of WTC7 if everyone thinks it just collapsed?  If so, what more is he looking to get out of the insurance company? I clearly still don't get any of this, and am having trouble imagining anything feasible to get.

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

/vent

[Czero 101]

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

Bing.  O.

Classic....






Cz

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 20 November 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Ha, that's it?  Do you think that is at all an accurate paraphrase of what I just bothered to type to you?  This is as deep of a response as you are capable of mustering concerning the subject of 'precedent'?

Oh well, I tried to have a normal conversation with you and tried to not hold the history of your past discussions with me, and almost anyone who disagrees with you, against you.  Maybe I'll try again in a month or two to see if anything's changed.

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving!