900 replies to this topic

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 30 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

The whole point about progressive collapse is that the effect is much greater than the cause would lead you to expect.  Hence their conclusion that "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" is correct.  While I haven't studied the Murrah collapse, a brief Google suggests that the "other factors" included a transfer beam supporting the building facade than was pushed out of line by the explosion.  Note pushed, not broken, so the factors they mention more favourable to collapse are not relevant.  I cannot find the full text of the Eglin study, so I've no idea if it included the same key weakness.  However, the fact that it isn't mentioned in the on-line extracts is suggestive.

I don't need to discuss with a cheerleader, I'll just critique the official reports.  Except the above is worth a quick response.  To do you a favour, not that it will help your mental preferences, the most complete online version of the study can be found at 911blogger here.  You need to read it because you obviously don't know what you are talking about - a 60,000 lbs internal transfer beam pushed out of line by a pressure wave indeed.  Apparently the experts at Eglin who did the physical tests did not buy your theory either.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 30 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

You begin by seeking to absolve yourself of any demonstrated ‘confirmation bias’

Oh of course, by saying "I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone", that's clearly the best way for me to try and absolve myself.  I'm being honest there, because I sure I am biased, and because I'm biased, I recognize that I might not be able to spot my bias unless it's pointed out.  Let's compare and contrast that to your apparently desperate need to never admit there is a single thing wrong with anything you argue: "You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue".  Your humility is touching...

Quote

because, you say, you have chosen not to argue in the way of ‘theory vs. theory’ (whether you actually are in practice is another matter – it’s sometimes unavoidable that if you don’t accept demolition then you inherently must accept the official story, and there are clear instances where you have done this).  (emphasis by LG)

False, wrong, I hate to break it to you but you have made an error here.  The bolded part above is called a false dilemma, the choices are not just accept demolition and accept the official story.  In addition to having specifically said ad nauseum that when you don't have enough data it moves you to the 'I don't know' position, a third position that you inexplicably exclude from your binary choices above, I can argue positions that I don't 'accept'; I can make arguments for the pro-life abortion position or for the existence of God even though I'm a pro-choice (essentially) atheist.

Quote

Anyhow, this would be effective in discarding certain demonstrated instances of your ‘confirmation bias’ – such as your apparent selective belief that randomly dispersed 1,000^oC diffuse flame can initiate a collapse, but strategically placed 2,500^oC+ thermite cannot (that’s just one example for you).  

An example you provide without quoting me, and which I dispute actually exists.  Provide a quote from me which you apparently have misinterpreted as my saying 'a thermite device cannot' anything.  I won't get 'whingy' and ask for a retraction when you can't find it.  

I think I've been fairly clear that the argument is that you have no evidence of any thermite device being in the building at all.  You have arrived at your opinion that there was by 'concluding' that a demolition was blatant based on a one-sided view of a bunch of circumstantial evidence, without disproving the other alternatives the circumstantial evidence also suggest which is required for this looser standard, and thereby inferring into existence your demolition charges.  I've argued that I don't find this method very convincing, and yes, biased; there is no reason to remove the requirement that you disprove the alternatives, this circumstantial evidence standard is already loose enough.

Quote

Then, you explain how you perceive my ‘confirmation bias’ to be a result of the ‘theory vs. theory’ method.  So it seems that when I select an option, no matter how much reason I can provide for it, that must be ‘confirmation bias’.  When you select an option, no matter the reason for it, it doesn’t count, because you weren’t, you say (very debatably), making a comparative argument anyway?  Isn’t that a slight double-standard from you to begin with; different rules between us?

First off, no matter how much reason you provide for it, it never reaches the level of 'killer evidence' and there is no best evidence, so your reasoning no matter how valid and sound is only taking you so far.  I don't perceive your confirmation bias as a result of theory vs theory, I perceive your perception of my confirmation bias as possibly being a result of thinking I'm arguing theory vs theory.  In other words like I said, you can't say I 'accept' specific official theory points just because I ask you why you believe these official points are invalid.

Quote

Coming on to ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ (which yes, we both must use in places), you are correct that the official story can rarely ‘get away with it’. You don’t seem to understand that the official story justifies the ‘War on Terror’, even if it was poor logic to proceed with, it justifies need for the decision.  An alternative version of events justifies only a thorough and impartial investigation.  The result of the official story is war.  The result of an alternative story is investigation.  Do ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, support a war, or an investigation?  You understand why if any of those answers come about then I win?  

I'm getting frustrated having to type this to you over and over again.  What the consequences of either of these theories is has no bearing at all on the truth of it.  If you don't believe me then tell me how the theory of relativity is less or more valid because the consequences of it has enabled human beings to destroy all of human civilization.  And no, the result of the alternative version of events isn't just an investigation; when we were discussing why all of these cowardly non-CT experts aren't coming forward despite having to know about the demolition since it was blatant part of the reason is that it would result in a civil war that would tear the nation apart.  Sounds like you should be quiet then as the official story only supports our wars that mostly only kill other nations' people; this is inconsequential to the damage a civil war would cause, right, and is why our cowed experts are staying silent, a civil war is worse than our current ones.  You seem to me to be trying to use this whole 'justified a war' red herring as an excuse why your double-standards are okay, they are not.

Quote

Probably not given that I’ve tried to explain this before, but those ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ answers mean that further investigation is required.  I can use them all day and it should lead to the investigation I support.  You have no right to use them whilst not supporting an investigation.  

Ha, well perhaps we should have reviewed the rules for this game you're insisting we play prior to setting up the game board then.  Why you think your 'you have no right' rules apply outside of your own head is beyond me.  You need good compelling evidenced justification to warrant your investigation, and at this point I think what you'd really like to happen is better called a 'fishing expedition'.

Quote

You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue, because as I said above, I can provide specific and logical reason for my views every time.  I didn’t jump into my current view without heavily critiquing it first.  Even then I wouldn’t accept it and retained belief in the official story for a time, now that was ‘confirmation bias’ which I’m glad to be rid of.

Let's not confuse 'confirmation bias' with 'unsupported arguments'.  The criteria for avoiding bias is not can you provide specific and logical reasons for your views, these specific and logical reasons only take us so far, to only the circumstantial evidence/non-killer-evidence standard, they prove zilch even using your definition of 'prove'.  The criteria is then can the specific and logical reasons for alternative views take us as far as the ones for your views, and the only reason I'm seeing that you believe they don't for some points is because you change your standards on the level of certainty and evidence you require for counter-points.  Here's yet another example.  When steel structures are shown to collapse, you argumentum-ad-labelum them and deem them 'third world' or whatever arglebargle, they're not close enough.  But alternatively, it's just totally okay for you to provide me drawings of a thermite device that has no remote control detonation electronics nor aircraft-collision-withstanding shielding and say 'good enough', even though it suffers from the exact same problems as the 'third-world' examples; these drawings are clearly not of the demolition device that you need to do the job you are asking it to do.

Quote

Anyhow, come on, I would like some probabilities (previous posts) from you, please.  

I'll try to respond to you on this before too long, I'm crazy busy and shouldn't have even taken time to type this.  But what was your calculation again of how many events are occurring from which to draw coincidences to the NRO exercise?  You do know that is required in order to come up with probabilities, right?  No intuition please.  Your point, your burden.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 30 November 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

I don't need to discuss with a cheerleader, I'll just critique the official reports.  Except the above is worth a quick response.  To do you a favour, not that it will help your mental preferences, the most complete online version of the study can be found at 911blogger here.  You need to read it because you obviously don't know what you are talking about - a 60,000 lbs internal transfer beam pushed out of line by a pressure wave indeed.  Apparently the experts at Eglin who did the physical tests did not buy your theory either.

Thanks for the link, it shows that the Eglin test was even less like the actual Murrah Building than I thought. The Eglin structure had concrete walls, while the Murrah Building had an open colonnade at ground level and a glass front above.  That means that instead of a flat blast-resistant facade at Eglin, the Murrah Building had a series of open box structures facing the bomb.  These would have the effect of focussing the blast waves and greatly increasing the effective overpressures.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 30 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Oh of course, by saying "I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone", that's clearly the best way for me to try and absolve myself.  I'm being honest there, because I sure I am biased, and because I'm biased, I recognize that I might not be able to spot my bias unless it's pointed out.  Let's compare and contrast that to your apparently desperate need to never admit there is a single thing wrong with anything you argue: "You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue".  Your humility is touching...

No, the line you quote above had nothing to do with absolving yourself – that was where you admit to suffering from confirmation bias.  Where you seek to absolve yourself, is where you start talking about how you think your confirmation bias doesn’t really matter because, you say, you are not arguing ‘theory vs. theory’.  It’s very clearly here:  “In my case, your charges of bias against me are either at a very high vague level or seem to be predicated on a misunderstanding that I thought I've made clear multiple times, that I haven't been engaging in a 'debate' on this thread as to which theory is most likely or reasonable or evidenced or whatever, we have been analyzing your theory and the evidence for it.”  Which in itself is a false statement, seen when you come out with a preference for the official story every time without exception (despite lack of reason and ‘it just did’ type answers, which you will see in the link I provided are indications of denial) and statements such as, for example: “I can visualize a plane hitting a building, knocking off the fireproofing from the steel, a large fire burning weakening the steel, the building collapsing at the impact point, and the bottom portion of the building being unable to withstand the weight of the collapsing upper section resulting in the complete collapse of the building.”  Is this the theory/debate which you “haven’t been engaging in”??  And I don’t need to be humble here -I know and can demonstrate that my arguments are based in reason and not confirmation bias.

Liquid Gardens, on 30 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

False, wrong, I hate to break it to you but you have made an error here.  The bolded part above is called a false dilemma, the choices are not just accept demolition and accept the official story.  In addition to having specifically said ad nauseum that when you don't have enough data it moves you to the 'I don't know' position, a third position that you inexplicably exclude from your binary choices above, I can argue positions that I don't 'accept'; I can make arguments for the pro-life abortion position or for the existence of God even though I'm a pro-choice (essentially) atheist.

I disagree that this is an error or false dilemma – so far as reality goes it was either some form of demolition or some form of impact and fire based collapse.  ‘I don’t know’ is a position, sure, but also a non-answer; not truth or fact of events.  If you are falling into that position in vital areas then the only right thing to do is support an investigation that would bring about answers.

Liquid Gardens, on 30 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

An example you provide without quoting me, and which I dispute actually exists.  Provide a quote from me which you apparently have misinterpreted as my saying 'a thermite device cannot' anything.  I won't get 'whingy' and ask for a retraction when you can't find it.  

I must have misinterpreted where every time I have given an example of a thermite device, conceptual or working model, then you respond in such terms as, “piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job”.  Or when you act in disbelief of any and every possibility I provide for the devices despite it being based on mundane technology.  So let’s straighten this out, do you actually admit that a thermite device of some design can initiate the collapse?

Liquid Gardens, on 30 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

I'm getting frustrated having to type this to you over and over again.  What the consequences of either of these theories is has no bearing at all on the truth of it.  If you don't believe me then tell me how the theory of relativity is less or more valid because the consequences of it has enabled human beings to destroy all of human civilization.  And no, the result of the alternative version of events isn't just an investigation; when we were discussing why all of these cowardly non-CT experts aren't coming forward despite having to know about the demolition since it was blatant part of the reason is that it would result in a civil war that would tear the nation apart.  Sounds like you should be quiet then as the official story only supports our wars that mostly only kill other nations' people; this is inconsequential to the damage a civil war would cause, right, and is why our cowed experts are staying silent, a civil war is worse than our current ones.  You seem to me to be trying to use this whole 'justified a war' red herring as an excuse why your double-standards are okay, they are not.

Let me try my very simple question again:  do ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, support a war, or an investigation?

Liquid Gardens, on 30 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Here's yet another example.  When steel structures are shown to collapse, you argumentum-ad-labelum them and deem them 'third world' or whatever arglebargle, they're not close enough.  But alternatively, it's just totally okay for you to provide me drawings of a thermite device that has no remote control detonation electronics nor aircraft-collision-withstanding shielding and say 'good enough', even though it suffers from the exact same problems as the 'third-world' examples; these drawings are clearly not of the demolition device that you need to do the job you are asking it to do.

Wait up... what happened to your last example?  The computer simulations?  You accused me of confirmation bias there, I explained my reasoning, then you drop it and throw a new example at me - one which I could explain easily as well – but let’s settle the last one first.

Liquid Gardens, on 30 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

I'll try to respond to you on this before too long, I'm crazy busy and shouldn't have even taken time to type this.  But what was your calculation again of how many events are occurring from which to draw coincidences to the NRO exercise?  You do know that is required in order to come up with probabilities, right?  No intuition please.  Your point, your burden.

If it’s any consolation, I much agree that you should take time responding to either of my previous two posts addressed to you, #775 and #781, rather than jumping into a Q24/flyingswan spat (never a good idea) with your post #789.  And I have kept my response here short because I’m too busy to get involved in it also.

So far as my estimation, I think I counted nine vaguely similar exercises on record in the preceding years based on the list that skyeagle linked.  It doesn’t need to be a precise probability to prove my point here; just an estimation will do.  You seem very hesitant to suggest an answer, I think, because you know where it leads.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Since we're 'talking turkey', and since you agree that the events of the day were a false flag operation, I would like to present a hypothetical to you.

If it was a false flag, then it must have been planned.  I would like to place you and me in the roles of the planners of the events of the day.

If you and I were planning the events, shall we use hand-flown airplanes, or shall we use drones?

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Q

Since we're 'talking turkey', and since you agree that the events of the day were a false flag operation, I would like to present a hypothetical to you.

If it was a false flag, then it must have been planned.  I would like to place you and me in the roles of the planners of the events of the day.

If you and I were planning the events, shall we use hand-flown airplanes, or shall we use drones?

• Lack of reliable (sane) volunteers to ensure success of manual hijacking suicide flight upon which operation hinges.
  
• Use of operatives and drone aircraft significantly increase probability of success.

There’s only one option.

[Babe Ruth]

Agreed Q.

So if use of operatives and drone aircraft increase probability of success, and precision of strike is both desireable in the hypothetical and the reality of the events of the day, why would we want some lousy pilot at the controls?

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 04 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Agreed Q.

So if use of operatives and drone aircraft increase probability of success, and precision of strike is both desireable in the hypothetical and the reality of the events of the day, why would we want some lousy pilot at the controls?

Yes and the potential implementation of drone aircraft on 9/11 is, perhaps surprisingly, simple once we look into it, especially given the lack of investigation.

Though this is all of little value to anyone who does not accept the false flag nature of the event first.

Edited by Q24, 04 December 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Amen, brother!

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 04 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Agreed Q.

So if use of operatives and drone aircraft increase probability of success, and precision of strike is both desireable in the hypothetical and the reality of the events of the day, why would we want some lousy pilot at the controls?

Still does not absolve the fact that you still currently claim that no plane hit the pentagon or crashed in shanksville.

As evident by the FDR of flight 77, the flight towards the pentagon shows sloppy maneuvering (lousy pilot).  If it was a remote controlled drone,  it would have taken a more direct approach as the minute adjustments to correct flight heading towards the pentagon would have increased the chance of failure.

Basically, flight 77 was not on any remote control what-so-ever.

Still, it wouldn't matter to you anyways BR.  You still think no plane hit the Pentagon and Flight 77 just miraculously disappeared off the face of aviation record.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 05 December 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Still does not absolve the fact that you still currently claim that no plane hit the pentagon or crashed in shanksville.

As evident by the FDR of flight 77, the flight towards the pentagon shows sloppy maneuvering (lousy pilot).  If it was a remote controlled drone,  it would have taken a more direct approach as the minute adjustments to correct flight heading towards the pentagon would have increased the chance of failure.

Basically, flight 77 was not on any remote control what-so-ever.

Still, it wouldn't matter to you anyways BR.  You still think no plane hit the Pentagon and Flight 77 just miraculously disappeared off the face of aviation record.

If we go by the FDR sir, the evidence shows the data was completely manipulated or fabricated.  Good heavens, the unit was unassigned.  That data does not support the OCT, it contradicts it.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 05 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

If we go by the FDR sir, the evidence shows the data was completely manipulated or fabricated.  Good heavens, the unit was unassigned.  That data does not support the OCT, it contradicts it.

Oh yes.  The same FDR data where your expert Cimino used the wrong calculation on the ground altimeter reading to clearly show that flight 77 flew well above the Pentagon?

Or the same expert that claimed the cabin door was never opened without first realizing that Flight 77 was not updated to show this data in the FDR?

Some claim.....

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 05 December 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Oh yes.  The same FDR data where your expert Cimino used the wrong calculation on the ground altimeter reading to clearly show that flight 77 flew well above the Pentagon?

Or the same expert that claimed the cabin door was never opened without first realizing that Flight 77 was not updated to show this data in the FDR?

Some claim.....

No, neither of those issues.  A much more fundamental error was made by whomever it was that doctored or generated the "data" belonging to the supposed FDR.  The "data recorder" was unassigned.  That is, it was not assigned to any aircraft at all.  Small error leaves the government with egg on its face.

So for Flight 77, we have Inertial Navigation System data that conflicts with the location of the gate the flight supposedly departed from, we have witnesses on the ground who saw a Boeing of some sort pass by on a course that conflicted with the damage done, we have an FDR with all sorts of comical errors and one significant assignment error, and we have a lousy pilot first time in a Boeing performing a maneuver that is impossible.

Yeah Raptor, your story is SOOOOO plausible!

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 05 December 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

No, neither of those issues.  A much more fundamental error was made by whomever it was that doctored or generated the "data" belonging to the supposed FDR.  The "data recorder" was unassigned.  That is, it was not assigned to any aircraft at all.  Small error leaves the government with egg on its face.

So for Flight 77, we have Inertial Navigation System data that conflicts with the location of the gate the flight supposedly departed from, we have witnesses on the ground who saw a Boeing of some sort pass by on a course that conflicted with the damage done, we have an FDR with all sorts of comical errors and one significant assignment error, and we have a lousy pilot first time in a Boeing performing a maneuver that is impossible.

Yeah Raptor, your story is SOOOOO plausible!

Here is where the separation between you and Q24 comes in.

Q24 realizes that a plane DID strike the pentagon.  I mean, its pretty hard to get around the fact that there is tons of evidence of airline wreckage inside and outside the pentagon to corroborate the official story that a passenger plane did strike the pentagon.

Your theory is based on possible coercion of witnesses, planted evidence, and fly-over with a cruise/anti-ship missile striking the pentagon.

Unfortunately, your theory is just based on speculation and no actual evidence.

Forget that Cimino had miscalculated and cherry picked information.  For your story of a fly-over to even be considered plausibile, you would have to account for all the other 100 or so eye witnesses that witnessed a plane fly right into the pentagon (and i don't mean hand-waving by claiming coercion by the evil gubmint).

I mean, it has been pretty easy for you to dismiss witness testimony using that method right?  Since you can claim coercion on any witness *cough* Wally Miller *cough* that comes up with testimony that counters your own theories.

Edited by RaptorBites, 05 December 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 05 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Here is where the separation between you and Q24 comes in.

Q24 realizes that a plane DID strike the pentagon.  I mean, its pretty hard to get around the fact that there is tons of evidence of airline wreckage inside and outside the pentagon to corroborate the official story that a passenger plane did strike the pentagon.

Your theory is based on possible coercion of witnesses, planted evidence, and fly-over with a cruise/anti-ship missile striking the pentagon.

Unfortunately, your theory is just based on speculation and no actual evidence.

Forget that Cimino had miscalculated and cherry picked information.  For your story of a fly-over to even be considered plausibile, you would have to account for all the other 100 or so eye witnesses that witnessed a plane fly right into the pentagon (and i don't mean hand-waving by claiming coercion by the evil gubmint).

I mean, it has been pretty easy for you to dismiss witness testimony using that method right?  Since you can claim coercion on any witness *cough* Wally Miller *cough* that comes up with testimony that counters your own theories.

Raptor Raptor Raptor, you seem to think I am some child looking for answers from an authority figure.  At least you frequently post that way.

Forget Cimino?  Really?

Here is another bit of information.  You and I communicate with each other WITHOUT the benefit of body language.  In a perverse way that is part of the cyber experience, that restricts our communication to some degree.

I read Cimino's work over the past several years online.  Some of it was impressive, some of it I had problems with.  Certainly his credentials were outstanding.

A few months back, for the first time, I was lucky enough to catch an amateur video of him making a presentation at some event in Vancouver this past summer.  Thus, I was lucky enough to be able to judge his body language as he was making his presentation.

Just like you probably, I'm really into body language as a way to assess the statements of humans.

Cimino's body language was persuasive to me.  He had nothing to hide, was proud of his credentials and experience, and was certain of the material he was discussing.

So my friend, YOU may certainly dismiss Cimino and embrace your government.  I choose to do the opposite.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Raptor.  It's really just that simple.