900 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

flyingswan, on 14 December 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Sky's seems a perfectly good point to me.  If conspirators want to minimize damage, there are simpler options than trying to hit the bit of the building that's been reinforced.  Sky's suggestion of a lower impact speed would be very effective, but why hit the building at all?  Why not a near miss?  Why not a less valuable building? Why not claim something similar to Flight 93 and drop it in the sea?

Why do the conspirators want to minimize damage in the first place?  The whole point of needing a demolition of the towers is because they needed the casualty and damage levels to reach the level of Pearl Harbor according to the supposed significance of the PNAC document.  Now they do the exact opposite and pull their punches when attacking the Pentagon?  This seems extremely post-hoc and doesn't seem supportable without resorting to 'maybe' or 'could be'.  No matter where the Pentagon was struck you can look at what was located there and assume there was intent to hit it at that specific location.  If the Pentagon was struck in a location that maximized casualties, then the story changes and that becomes the conspirators intent.  Q's complaints about sky's 'assumptions' seems pretty hypocritical when he simultaneously is making tons himself.

Q, as far as your probability stuff, fine whatever, 1 in 5 chance that the Pentagon would be struck there for the sake of your argument.  I was not expecting you to move on to another entirely different 'coincidence', I don't think you've demonstrated anything on the coincidental NRO exercise yet so please formulate your argument at this point just using these two 'coincidences'.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss.  Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.




That is not my understanding by far.  I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77.  I’ll dig out the sources if you need them.  Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.  Perhaps you have different radar data to anything I’ve seen?  But I doubt it.

Not that it ultimately matters – radar is simple to fool.  We needed a physical investigation on the plane debris.  Anything less is insufficient as proof.

Radar is very easily fooled, especially 'from the inside'.  For example, if a company had a contract that allowed it 'inside' radar systems.

"injects" are commonly used in training situations, 'from the inside'.

I have long considered the radar data to be suspect and unreliable in this case.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Why do the conspirators want to minimize damage in the first place?

Why suffer their own country more casualties and damage than necessary?  You know, with planning we can do this without being excessive.  The target of a ‘Pearl Harbor’ scale was achieved with the WTC attack.  Though the Pentagon event still had to take place in order to present the attack on symbols of the U.S. economy and military – an evermore effective pretext in driving the foreign/war ideology.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

The whole point of needing a demolition of the towers is because they needed the casualty and damage levels to reach the level of Pearl Harbor according to the supposed significance of the PNAC document.

Yes.

Edit:  Actually no, not the "whole point" - there was more to the WTC target selection and demolition than that - but sure, a main point.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Now they do the exact opposite and pull their punches when attacking the Pentagon?

No, it was not the “exact opposite”.  Damage restriction was always in mind and present throughout.  The punches, like at the Pentagon, were pulled in the attack on the WTC – the aim was only to achieve a scale of destruction comparable to ‘Pearl Harbor’ and apparently present an attack on America’s institutions including of a military nature.  Perhaps you are not aware that the WTC attack could have been far more severe in casualty level with the most minor and obvious of alteration?

Come on LG, let’s do a fun thought exercise.  Let’s be for cave dwelling terrorists for a moment, wanting to cause maximum casualties.  In addition we can run this thought exercise taking the role of those within the U.S. system, wanting to provide a pretext based upon a restricted level of casualties.  In each case, where are we gonna hit the towers, and at what time?  High up and at 8:46, before the general 9-5 working day has started?  Or low as possible to prevent escape and at peak work time?  What actually happened?  So who are we planning this, based on the result? – cave dwelling terrorists or those within the U.S. system?  You know it, don’t you.

Had the aircraft impacted a mid-floor at mid-morning then we could now be talking of tenfold, 30,000, killed!  This is fact determined since (I’ll pull out the references if you need) and which anyone could foresee.  Then the Pentagon is hit in the one largely unoccupied and reinforced area.  Damage restriction throughout.  There is no contradiction here – the necessary was done without being excessive.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

If the Pentagon was struck in a location that maximized casualties, then the story changes and that becomes the conspirators intent.

Please don’t speculate about my argument to make yourself feel better – just ask me if you would really like to know.  Had the Pentagon been impacted in any of the four out of five segments that maximised casualties, I wouldn’t think a thing of it.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Q, as far as your probability stuff, fine whatever, 1 in 5 chance that the Pentagon would be struck there for the sake of your argument.  I was not expecting you to move on to another entirely different 'coincidence', I don't think you've demonstrated anything on the coincidental NRO exercise yet so please formulate your argument at this point just using these two 'coincidences'.

Yes because it is once you add the ‘coincidences’ up to give the full picture (or rather, multiply them as we do for multiple occurrences), that is when we realise the improbability of the complete event in context of the official story.  How likely is it that the CIA/NRO planned an exercise that mimicked the time, location and crash of the alleged Flight 77, and that impact occurred at the one segment of the Pentagon which would restrict casualties and damage, and etc, and etc, and etc... we could go on and on to considerable degree with such coincidences and peculiarities here if you would allow.  And these are not just any old coincidence as you have tried to present, but meaningful coincidence; linked to and having potential bearing on 9/11 events.  The result of this complete sequence occurring in context of the official story is astronomical.

Next we ask, what is the probability of this all occurring in context of a false flag operation?  Would we set out to potentially delay the air defense response, restrict casualties, etc, etc, etc (which we haven’t got onto).  Yes we would – the probability of this all occurring in context of a false flag operation is extremely high.

And that is my argument – one scenario relies on a belief in the astronomically improbable, and the other accounts for events in a way that is probable, the result of reason and intent – the latter scenario of which the logical and objective mind is more inclined to accept.

Edited by Q24, 14 December 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Radar is very easily fooled, especially 'from the inside'.

Apparently, the radar was not fooled. After all, ATC notified the C-130 pilot where American 77 was and the aircraft was right where ATC said it was. In that respect, the radar wasn't fooled at all and it is very clear you do not  understand radar technology either.

Were you aware that radar can not only has the ability to detect birds, but differentiate between bird species? Were you also aware that the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible to radar? Were you aware that the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft?

Now, take into consideration what I have  just said and begin placing the pieces of the puzzle together to form a picture in order to understand that if you don't know what you are talking about, it is best to remain quiet rather than to cococt up another controversy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 December 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Edit:  Actually no, not the "whole point" - there was more to the WTC target selection and demolition than that - but sure, a main point.

If you are going to claim the WTC buildings were brought down by explosive  demolition, you have to show evidence and it has been over 11  years since the 911 attacks and yet, no explosions are seen nor heard on video as the WTC buildings collapse nor captured by seismic monitors in the area nor were explosives recovered within the rubble of the WTC builds nor found at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Apparently, there is no evidence that explosives were used, which explains why after more than 11 years, no evidence of explosives has surfaced and why demolition experts, who have  combed the WTC rubble, have ruled out explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 December 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Come on LG, let’s do a fun thought exercise.  Let’s be for cave dwelling terrorists for a moment, wanting to cause maximum casualties.  In addition we can run this thought exercise taking the role of those within the U.S. system, wanting to provide a pretext based upon a restricted level of casualties.  In each case, where are we gonna hit the towers, and at what time?  High up and at 8:46, before the general 9-5 working day has started?  Or low as possible to prevent escape and at peak work time?  What actually happened?  So who are we planning this, based on the result? – cave dwelling terrorists or those within the U.S. system?  You know it, don’t you.

You can argue anything with this sort of post-event logic.  Let's try my confirmation bias instead of yours:

We are terrorists who have had a few flying lessons, but are still a bit shaky at controlling the aircraft.  We don't want to miss the target altogether, we don't want to hit the wrong building, so we aim at one of the towers, mid way between the top of the tower and the top of the next highest building.

Which is pretty much where the aircraft hit.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Radar is very easily fooled, especially 'from the inside'.  For example, if a company had a contract that allowed it 'inside' radar systems.

"injects" are commonly used in training situations, 'from the inside'.

I have long considered the radar data to be suspect and unreliable in this case.

Considering that radar data isn't the "only" data available to investigators, you are only relying on cherry picking evidence to confirm your theory.  Outside of radar data, there is eye witness reports, path of destruction, crash debris, etc.

Radar data isn't the only thing used to confirm a crash.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 14 December 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Considering that radar data isn't the "only" data available to investigators, you are only relying on cherry picking evidence to confirm your theory.  Outside of radar data, there is eye witness reports, path of destruction, crash debris, etc.

Radar data isn't the only thing used to confirm a crash.

We absolutely agree on that general point, however I would refine it to say ATC radar is not used to confirm a crash, it is used to confirm flight.  Even if the target is lost on radar, that does not necessarily mean that it crashed.  It means only that radar is not painting the aircraft and/or transponder.

As I said in my post that you quoted, I have long considered the radar data regarding the events of 11 September to be suspect and unreliable, mainly because of injects and manipulation of radar systems in the name of Vigilant Guardian.  That various companies like MITRE and PTech had access to both FAA and military radar systems strengthens the case for manipulation of radar data.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

We absolutely agree on that general point, however I would refine it to say ATC radar is not used to confirm a crash, it is used to confirm flight.  Even if the target is lost on radar, that does not necessarily mean that it crashed.  It means only that radar is not painting the aircraft and/or transponder.

As I said in my post that you quoted, I have long considered the radar data regarding the events of 11 September to be suspect and unreliable, mainly because of injects and manipulation of radar systems in the name of Vigilant Guardian.  That various companies like MITRE and PTech had access to both FAA and military radar systems strengthens the case for manipulation of radar data.

Only because the radar information does not conform with your theory BR.

Like I said in the post you quoted.

Radar is not the only thing used to identify a crash.  

Quote

Outside of radar data, there is eye witness reports, path of destruction, crash debris, etc.

[Liquid Gardens]

Exactly what swan said.  I assume since you are offering up your fun thought exercise that you have no objections to 'the official story' based on piloting skills of our hijackers, or lack thereof, since you are proposing a scenario where they are flying these planes lower apparently snaking around buildings in a major metropolitan area?  If they could pull this off, they could have saved themselves the whole demolition trouble if they could have just aimed below the half-way point, then when it collapsed it would have been complete and full compliance with your (mis-)application of Newton, the upper block would be larger than the lower and the 'equal damage' would still leave some of the upper block intact.

You are going the entirely wrong direction with your probability argument, you were on the right track when you started to talk about all the other scenarios that you would count as 'hits'.  You can string together any series of probabilities (assuming they are less than 100%) and the overall probability of anything happening the exact way it did is 'astronomical'.  The chances of me getting to work at the exact second I did is astronomical, especially if we break it down and look at the probabilities of me being stopped by the sequence of red lights I hit at the exact second I did.  Shuffle a deck of cards and then flip them up one at a time; the odds of the deck being in that exact order is 1 in a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe.  The chances of the two specific people who won the Powerball lottery a few weeks ago choosing the winning numbers is 1 in 175 million^2.  Do you think it was fixed then?  'Meaningfulness' is a subjective term.  One of my high school classmates has the exact same birthdate as I do; it's a meaningless coincidence unless we are evaluating the question of whether we are actually twins and then it's meaningful.  Did the assignment of 'meaningfulness' in this case change any of those probabilities?

Quote

Please don’t speculate about my argument to make yourself feel better – just ask me if you would really like to know.  Had the Pentagon been impacted in any of the four out of five segments that maximised casualties, I wouldn’t think a thing of it.

Ha ha, yes, of course there is no hypocrisy involved when you ask me not to speculate about your argument but you speculate about what would make me 'feel better'.  I feel fine thanks.  Inconsistency, thy name is Q24.

To your 'point', what is your evidence (not speculation, not what you can imagine, not what could be) that the plotters wanted to limit casualties and damage at the Pentagon?  Don't offer up maybes without first applying that same standard against your case.  

What do you mean you wouldn't think anything of the Pentagon being hit where it maximized casualties, you should.  You're making the case, more like 'assumption' at this point, that they wanted to limit casualties, and now you are not going to be concerned if they hit somewhere that did not achieve that objective?  Why wouldn't that be evidence that is was not a conspiracy?  Why isn't this 'heads you win, tails I lose'?

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 14 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

You can argue anything with this sort of post-event logic.  Let's try my confirmation bias instead of yours:

We are terrorists who have had a few flying lessons, but are still a bit shaky at controlling the aircraft.  We don't want to miss the target altogether, we don't want to hit the wrong building, so we aim at one of the towers, mid way between the top of the tower and the top of the next highest building.

Which is pretty much where the aircraft hit.

That is a pretty crappy argument: -

1.  Looking at the impact points, it would have been very easy to hit considerably lower (especially if Atta and al-Shehhi... or whoever... at the WTC, possessed half the piloting skills of Hani ‘he could not fly at all’ Hanjour... or whoever... at the Pentagon with that military-like descent and turn and rather accurate ground-skimming final approach).  And your last claim is false, I mean Atta... or whoever... didn’t even get anywhere near mid-way down the section of the tower that is visible from miles around.




2.  You failed to address timing of the attack.  Isn’t it obvious that if we wait for the 9:00-5:00 working day to start then we’re going to kill a lot more infidels?  The tourist area of the WTC didn’t even open until 9:30am.  Let’s hear your genius confirmation bias for why the terrorists chose a flight that risked arriving early, say around 8:46am.  I suppose this was just an obvious oversight despite the years of planning?

In all you would have us believe the hijackers came up with a completely unnecessary plan to mitigate risk of ‘hitting the wrong building’ which Atta then did not adhere to anyway when it came to it and further that they were too stupid to maximise effectiveness of the attack which they died for with a very basic alteration of the plan.  Well thank you, but I find the solution that the attack was planned with a purpose greater than casualty/damage maximisation in mind to be more logical and fitting.

We can play the same thought exercise with the Pentagon.  Let’s be for cave dwelling terrorists for a moment, wanting to cause maximum casualties.  In addition we can run this thought exercise taking the role of those within the U.S. system, wanting to provide a pretext based upon a restricted level of casualties.  In each case, where are we gonna hit the Pentagon?  The terrorist decision must be random, unless they had an office plan of officials’ locations, which then still failed to hit the highest ranking, Rumsfeld.  In the latter role shall we pick the area where only 800 of the usual 4,500 staff were working due to the renovation and which would cause least physical damage?  Yes I think so, we’re not wanton murderers after all.   And where does the plane actually impact?  Why, just there!  Events once again fit and have reason in context of a planned false flag... better than to believe one of the terrorists had broke a mirror and was suffering years of (one in five) bad luck.

When we add it up every time this happens, as it does over and over and over again, then the attack and circumstances in context of the official story would have to be a greatest and most complete freak of nature and probability ever heard of.  Why, having absolute objectivity, should I resort to such astronomically improbable belief when I can apply the quite plausible solution of planned cause and effect for the attack and circumstances?

I guess it was just one of those random improbabilities that Atta and Jarrah had associates/family who worked for the CIA and Mossad respectively too.  We could roll through these coincidences and peculiarities all day, which only ever make the complete official story all the wilder, yet fall perfectly into place in context of a false flag operation.

[Babe Ruth]

www.doeda.com/y911.html

That's for you Q.  It helps discover why the precision of the attacks was crucial.  Cantor Fitzgerald at WTC, and the Office of Naval Investigations at the Pentagon.  Those were the important targets, but certainly not the only ones.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Exactly what swan said.

Well that’s a bad move given how poor his argument was.  You’d be better off going back and responding to my post properly than hiding behind the poor arguments of Swanny.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

I assume since you are offering up your fun thought exercise that you have no objections to 'the official story' based on piloting skills of our hijackers, or lack thereof, since you are proposing a scenario where they are flying these planes lower apparently snaking around buildings in a major metropolitan area?

That is 1) ridiculous and 2) not what I proposed at all.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

If they could pull this off, they could have saved themselves the whole demolition trouble if they could have just aimed below the half-way point, then when it collapsed it would have been complete and full compliance with your (mis-)application of Newton, the upper block would be larger than the lower and the 'equal damage' would still leave some of the upper block intact.

Very true about the collapse progression... though there is no evidence the buildings should initiate collapses due to the impacts and fires or that the upper blocks should generate the momentum required to crush the lower blocks in the first place... therefore demolition still required either way.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

The chances of me getting to work at the exact second I did is astronomical, especially if we break it down and look at the probabilities of me being stopped by the sequence of red lights I hit at the exact second I did.

Assuming that you plan to be on work on time and account for traffic and red lights, whose fault is it if you are late?  Was it by chance or reasons of planning?  Let’s say you were an hour late... and you blurt out to your manager how your battery was flat and there was traffic and red lights and a road accident and you had to dash the puppy to the vet that you’d run over and (as we are talking about one in a million type events) lightening hit your car... you think your manager is going to believe in all of these random though quite possible, in culmination astronomically unlikely, excuses... or is he going to fire you, because in actual fact, it’s far more likely that you overslept than due to a terrible bout of chance?

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Shuffle a deck of cards and then flip them up one at a time; the odds of the deck being in that exact order is 1 in a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe.  The chances of the two specific people who won the Powerball lottery a few weeks ago choosing the winning numbers is 1 in 175 million^2.  Do you think it was fixed then?  'Meaningfulness' is a subjective term.  One of my high school classmates has the exact same birthdate as I do; it's a meaningless coincidence unless we are evaluating the question of whether we are actually twins and then it's meaningful.  Did the assignment of 'meaningfulness' in this case change any of those probabilities?

These are all examples of random chance that have no coherent bearing on anything around them and cannot be intentionally influenced/setup.  They are as you say ‘meaningless’.  You really need to consider the difference between this and the coincidence and peculiarity that surround 9/11 which did have foreseeable, potential and realised, bearing on events, always in the same direction falling into place with a false flag.  Without understanding this basic fact - the differences between the examples I have provided and those that you provide above - I see why you are struggling to appreciate the argument.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Ha ha, yes, of course there is no hypocrisy involved when you ask me not to speculate about your argument but you speculate about what would make me 'feel better'.  I feel fine thanks.  Inconsistency, thy name is Q24.

Way to avoid the point.  Then please let me rephrase for you:  Please don’t speculate about my argument – just ask me if you would really like to know.  Had the Pentagon been impacted in any of the four out of five segments that maximised casualties, I wouldn’t think a thing of it.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

To your 'point', what is your evidence (not speculation, not what you can imagine, not what could be) that the plotters wanted to limit casualties and damage at the Pentagon?  Don't offer up maybes without first applying that same standard against your case.  

The predetermined scale was that of ‘Pearl Harbor’.  Again, you would do better responding properly to my previous post and questions.  Why suffer their own country more casualties and damage than thought necessary?

And I am applying the same standard to each case – first I am considering from the position of our cave dwelling terrorists, and then from the position of those within the U.S. system – to determine which is most probable cause of results.  And the answer to that is quite clear.

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

What do you mean you wouldn't think anything of the Pentagon being hit where it maximized casualties, you should.  You're making the case, more like 'assumption' at this point, that they wanted to limit casualties, and now you are not going to be concerned if they hit somewhere that did not achieve that objective?  Why wouldn't that be evidence that is was not a conspiracy?  Why isn't this 'heads you win, tails I lose'?

If the impact had occurred elsewhere there would be no argument to be made.  Like if a couple of hundred other coincidences and peculiarities had not happened surrounding 9/11 there would be no argument to be made.  This in effect would leave the official story unquestioned.  But the fact is that these meaningful occurrences did happen, and leave a great question in this case whether we are to believe in astronomical random probability or planned cause.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

www.doeda.com/y911.html

That's for you Q.  It helps discover why the precision of the attacks was crucial.  Cantor Fitzgerald at WTC, and the Office of Naval Investigations at the Pentagon.  Those were the important targets, but certainly not the only ones.

I would have to say the terrorist conducted what they set out to do except for crashing United 93 into the Capitol building. BTW, were you aware of the interview the other day with a Philippine official who revealed terrorist plans to use airliners as weapons and among the targets were American landmarks in the financial district in New York City, which includes the WTC buildings? Additional targets revealed was the Pentagon, the Capitol building, the White House, and CIA headquarters. Terrorist plans were revealed in 1995, six years before the 9/11 attacks.

As I have said all along, there was no 9/11 government conspiracy to begin with.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 December 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

1.  Looking at the impact points, it would have been very easy to hit considerably lower (especially if Atta and al-Shehhi... or whoever... at the WTC, possessed half the piloting skills of Hani ‘he could not fly at all’ Hanjour... or whoever... at the Pentagon with that military-like descent and turn and rather accurate ground-skimming final approach).  And your last claim is false, I mean Atta... or whoever... didn’t even get anywhere near mid-way down the section of the tower that is visible from miles around.

How much skill does it take to turn the yoke and maintain altitude of a B-757? I can teach a child who had never flown in an airplane how to conduct a simple 360 degree turn in a B-757. In regards to Hani, he had many hours of flying time and did not require skills to takeoff or land a B-757. I might add that it has been revealed that the terrorist were using flight simulators to practice their attacks, so add that to their flying hours in real aircraft.

Quote

We can play the same thought exercise with the Pentagon.

Excercises, which were prudent in light of warnings from the international community on terrorist plans to use aircraft as weapons to attack American landmarks.

Quote

I guess it was just one of those random improbabilities that Atta and Jarrah had associates/family who worked for the CIA and Mossad respectively too.  We could roll through these coincidences and peculiarities all day, which only ever make the complete official story all the wilder, yet fall perfectly into place in context of a false flag operation.

There is no evidence of a 'false flag' operation by any means. I do not see anything resembling a 'false flag' operation. BTW, Philippine officials revealed a terrorist plan to fly an airplane into CIA headquarters, so it was not likely the terrorist and the CIA were working together.

Additonally, the Israeli Mossad issued warnings of an impending attack on the United States by Muslim terrorist. Mossad warned the CIA about the 911 threat on several occasions. In August 2001, Israel warned the US that an al-Qaeda attack is imminent.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 December 2012 - 03:20 AM.