This denial of yours is startling, though very interesting to watch. You first accept that we have an “incredible coincidence” and then immediately set out to convince yourself otherwise – these things, “happen all the time” and perhaps, you say, are even “probable” – it’s a contradiction of the very definition and your initial acceptance. How can we have a fair discussion when you apparently have a preference to say that black is white where it suits? It appears that “incredible coincidence” is just too obvious and/or disconcerting a fact for you. And you talk to me about biases. Ok, let’s try and salvage something...
You are correct that had this ‘plane impacting building’ exercise occurred at any location within timeframe of the attack it would be a ‘hit’ for me. The fact that it was a government building, just 5 minutes flight time from the Pentagon and directly below the flight path/location of the alleged Flight 77 takes the ‘hit’ to epic proportions – it really adds the “incredible” to the “coincidence” and I think you know that if you stopped trying to talk yourself out of it.
There is no evidence that this type of exercise took place regularly or is commonplace across the U.S. – the government spokesperson would not describe it as an “incredible coincidence” in the first place if it was. I’m not going to imagine it happens all the time, every day, just because you’d prefer that. If you view my post #734 in response to the list of exercises that skyeagle linked, you will see that nine vaguely similar exercises took place in the preceding years up to 9/11. It amounts to perhaps 2 days solid of such exercise. As I said there - what probability the real world attack, which may have taken place at any time, happens to take place in the very same timeframe and location as one of the exercises?
I accept that we cannot place an exact probability on this occurrence and there is no right or wrong answer, but just a very rough estimate will do. If one hundred planes were hijacked and crashed into government buildings, how many do you suppose would fly over at the same time and location as a ‘plane impacting building’ exercise was scheduled to take place? Shall we be generous and say ten? Go higher if you really want. I want you to pick a number so I’m not accused of biased interpretation. I want you to determine the probability of events so you won’t need to argue it with me.
Is the spokesperson referring to “real world events” in New York or Washington? Let’s say the exercise never got underway (though perhaps it continued right up until the Pentagon impact), does this matter? 1) the exercise scenario is in the system – would news of the real world attack and exercise cancellation travel so fast and to all areas involved to mitigate potential confusion? - we know that the separate NORAD hijacking exercise was still being referenced some half an hour after that simulation was cancelled; the doubt lingers. 2) had the exercise intended to facilitate the real world attack, there is nothing to say that the planner could have known the exercise would be cancelled beforehand – it does not take away from the “incredible coincidence” it was scheduled at all. The fact is that at the time and place the exercise simulated a plane crash, the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead. It's certainly an attempted safeguard I would put in place if planning an operation.
Again if you view my post #734 I explained how the exercise was headed by a CIA officer, so we can include that agency as well as the NRO. Also it is possible that Dulles ATC may have been involved in the exercise based on the script. Why not the FAA and NORAD also as we are dealing with an aerial threat. It appears that any number of possible scenarios could have sufficed for NRO purposes alone and had such alternatives been implemented then it would remove the ‘hit’. The fact is, it was a plane crash, close reflection of the real-world event, that was decided upon.
You got it.
In reference to the twin tower study, of course the conclusion is biased and preconceived when it does not reflect the results. I have shown that NIST’s simulation results demonstrated a damage and fire collapse initiation unlikely (at best, i.e. if possible at all), yet this was concluded the likely cause. Honestly, what do you want me to do with that? I won’t turn a blind eye and/or make excuses like you prefer.
You really need examples of remote control devices? God help us. You’re being awkward on purpose right? This is silly. No I don’t think I need to provide examples of remote control devices. Please stop being silly. And on what basis do you label these, “piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job”? Interesting you want to believe that randomly dispersed diffuse flame can cause the structure to weaken but not strategically placed thermite charges acting at a much higher temperature of 2,500oC+. I guess that’s something to do with that confirmation bias again?
Your response here is quite confused. Yes, ‘what could be’ is the route that you have taken us down here. It is not a part of my argument for the devices. Remember, you are the one trying to dispute validity of these devices with ‘what could be’ mental roadblocks. Your speculation, which is well determined to involve instances of denial and bias by now, is not good enough by far rule out the devices. You are correct – your argument here is pointless.
I cannot confirm that the silver material is a part of the molten metal flow. I did say this already – I’m not interested in the silver material – it could be from the building facade, or even lead from those batteries, or something else; silver is unremarkable – I’m most interested in the near white hot to orange material which does maintain its colour throughout the fall. Anyhow, I have said all that I want on this particular piece of evidence. Your next step would be to reconcile this with other evidence such as melted steel in the debris pile which FEMA admitted could have began before the building collapses.
I have noticed that poor memory is a recurrent feature of official story adherents – it hinders in seeing the big picture, which ok, is quite vast. The best match was spelt out in my post #628. Please review and do come back when you have some photographs of batteries or fires or whatever that match the WTC2 thermite flow better than those pictures I provided.