Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#76    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:00 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 August 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

Until you produce evidence to backup what you say, you have no case. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#77    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:00 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 August 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

You are the one who introduced topics from another thread, Mr. Hypocrite.







Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#78    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:06 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 06 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

It's the 'so happened' that I disagree with if you are asserting that this is somehow unusual; I'm utterly unsurprised that you've found some way that perhaps nanothermite may have been placed in the building; Silverstein leases the building, right there alone we have myriad alternatives for introducing these explosives unseen.


At the risk of repeating myself, all I am asserting is that there was potential for access to the building structure, and setup of the demolition charges, under the guise of legitimate works - this in response to your concern that the setup itself might be unachievable due to the risk.

The additional connections of the company to the White House, military unit, nanothermite and previous demolition works are simply to flesh out that potential. I agree that none of these factors, least of all alone, are untoward, but together build a profile of the type of unit we are looking for with potential to carry out a demolition setup undetected.

I am pleased you see there there are also alternatives to introducing the setup unseen. I have also theorised about such possibilities in the past. With all of the avenues available and no competent investigation to date, it would seem hasty to declare the demolition setup too great a risk.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 06 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Also, you've been mentioning 'coincidence' a lot, which, speaking of 'void', is essentially how I find such arguments. As usual, someone else says it better than I:

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers


Where there is one coincidence I agree. Where there is a seemingly endless list of coincidences surrounding a single event, there comes a point where it is better described as a pattern, or at the least... well... here's someone who can say it better than I also: -

"When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them—for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes."
~Carl Jung

Where some are content to believe in a series of coincidences culminating with the improbable, I prefer to consider reason for the occurrence where it is available - especially where a single answer 'false flag' so comprehensively removes any reliance on 'chance' as a solution. As I have already quoted on this thread: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

Personally I cannot accept the improbable, where such a simple and meaningful alternative answer is presented.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 06 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Turner Construction held the contract I thought because they were going to be part of the conspiracy; I thought I saw some documents from Dec 2000 talking about the renovation work or whatever, but maybe that wasn't when they got the contract. You're making it sound like our conspirators had no choice but to go through Turner because they already held the contract, is that true? This company was awarded contracts based on nothing having to do with 9/11, and they also had access to nanothermite?


Turner Construction were longterm contractors for the WTC (since the early 90s I recall). You are correct there is a 2000 document, I believe discussing the fireproofing and steelwork renovations. As mentioned above, we know there were various possibilities to implement the demolition setup... though I can't think of many better ways to provide access to the building structure than through this company. That is why I am interested in the 1999 appointment of Tom Leppert and the Turner Construction/Hochtief merger (with inevitable company restructuring). I did not say the company had access to nanothermite - I don't know - I just said the company previously contracted for the military unit reported to provide the only reliable source of nanothermite in the U.S. at that time. Make of the facts what you will. I'm not sold on this, but I see some real possibilities.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 06 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

What was Silverstein's link to the neocons, I thought it was just because he's a Zionist. I have a bad feeling you're going to connect him to Wolfowitz because they are both Jewish. Regardless, Zim-Israeli with offices in the building would also have access to the structure, and you underestimate the capabilities of our Black Ops military units. In addition, I just found this on wiki: "ZimAmerican Israeli Shipping Company was on the 16th floor and officially moved out of the World Trade Center to Norfolk, Virginia on Sept. 4, 2001. However, some computer systems were still in use in WTC at the time of the attacks." Ah-HA! (No, not 'ah-ha'...)


I don't get it... there is no apparent military link, no clear demolition link, no direct political link, nothing whatsoever comparable to Turner Construction, except perhaps a loose Zionist connection and their mere presence... and how does having an office in the WTC grant legitimate, unrestricted access to the building structure? Okkk... I think we are threadbare on obvious connections and potential here... but I won't rule them out altogether, for you.

Oh I nearly forgot... Silverstein's link. No, it is not that he is a Zionist and so is Wolfowitz... that is the flimsiest of reasoning (I have come across no evidence of the two even having been in the same room together). On the other hand, there is a better connection in that direction if we look who Silverstein rubs shoulders with - none other than Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin '9/11 is good for Israel' Netanyahu (the two are close longterm associates) and the Neocon link is clear to draw from there - the ideologies of Israeli/U.S. hawks go hand in hand. Still, it is more than simply the Zionist and Neocon connections which place Silverstein under scrutiny... of course evidence of the WTC lease transfer and insurance re-policy 6 weeks prior the attack, along with his subsequent comments and fact he was on the phone seeking demolition authorisation the morning of 9/11, is all a part of the consideration which should not be quickly forgotten.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 06 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

I don't know if we're still just talking about 'possibility' or if you are actually suggesting something about the actual conspirators. Assuming it's the latter, I'm not in the head of these people but you are?! How do you know this? These head conspirators just 'know' who's faithful to the cause, how exactly? None of these conspirators are in it mostly for the money? There are ample precedents for that as I'm sure you know (yeesh, this is America...) as well as for conspirators turning on one another.


I am suggesting something quite possible about the conspirators - I don't think any of these guys are in it for the money - it is a weak motivation next to power, blood and religion.  It was not difficult to know who was 'faithful to the cause'. We have two groups - the political planners and those who implemented the operation...

Now politicians are half mental anyway... these are individuals who will commit others to untold death and destruction in wars at their behest, in pursuit of land or energy resources, for the greater good of their nation and detriment of others... there was no shortage here, with most of those behind 9/11 having a decades long association derived from the same ideology. You know, these guys had plenty of time and opportunity to discuss between one another just how far they were willing to go in pursuit of their global visions. It is not a subject that would suddenly crop up in conversation one day, but a gradual build-up over those decades. As they say, "power corrupts", and the more deception and political perversion they got away with, the bolder they grew.

As for the implementors, the intelligence/military pool they would be selected from meant that the vetting process was already carried out. You must understand – internally it can be an uncomfortable level of surveillance that agents come under, there are watchers watching watchers, constant monitoring and testing (that includes psychological), everything is known about them, their family and friends, their acquaintances, beliefs and views are analyzed until they know you better than you know yourself – it’s how they remove risk to the secrecy and deception that can come in such a role. And certain roles require a certain person. The higher up the ranks and more classified the project, the more is known about the agents internally. It is how they ensure confidentiallity that comes with the task. From that pool, we select those agents suitable (the racial and religious extremists which exist in any group, that we touched on earlier). Of course we don’t just assign the task there and then – we might make a tentative unrelated suggestion as a final gauge to how the agent will react. So there it is - all the conspirators had to do was read an agent’s profile.

Yes I have researched enough of wars, politics and Zionist history to be in the head of these people - I understand what drives the extremists. You think the 3,000 on 9/11 grate at their conscience? Those who would see that multiplied by hundreds of thousands for the cause? You must understand - they are not playing the same game as me and you - we cannot view them on our level or by our standards.


I have yet to see the necessary risk in the demolition setup or operation. Can you be specific? What can go wrong with the setup given the guise of legitimate works I have set out? Which individual involved would stab their beliefs in the back, and why? These suggestions seem hopeful rather than realistic.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#79    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:48 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Technically, the failure of the official study to explain the collapse adequately shows that they failed to explain the collapse adequately. At best, it removes one possibility from the zillions of alternatives that could have occurred (not just 'employed').


For the tower collapses, had the cause genuinely been a damage and fire scenario, it was within NIST's grasp to demonstrate that conclusion - the modelling was all adequate and ready to go. The way the results were left, with the only collapse case found reliant on damage demonstratably outside of the photographic/video reality, leads me to believe there was no (zero) damage/fire result within that reality that could support the politically desired conclusion. Otherwise, why leave the grey area of the range as NIST's results did? NIST never proved their case. But they could have done. Why didn't they?

Without understanding the simulated cases that NIST set out, you aren't going to know what I'm talking about. I can go into explanation of this if you think it worthwhile. For now I just wanted to contest that only "one possibility" was removed - it is my opinion that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results. NIST proved that the towers could remain standing after the witnessed impacts and fires. NIST did not prove that the towers could collapse after the witnessed impacts and fires. You cannot get a bigger failure than that for the official theory. I believe at this point a real investigation would have looked at alternatives, though politically the conclusion was already set.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

I've found references to witnessed structural deformation, that it was leaning (I'll discuss your 'foreknowledge' below), and I thought the video shows that the south side collapsed first (virtual symmetry?). What should be speaking volumes to us is the fact that there are, what, thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, material scientists, physicists, who are staying silent about this 'blatant' demolition.


Ok, back to WTC7...

The deformation you reference is not the type of a widespread or increasing severity witnessed in fire damaged buildings. The bulge at the south-west corner of WTC7 existed early in the day, from the time a corner was taken out of the building by the falling tower debris. There was then no further change in the building condition over the following hours right up until approximately 10 seconds prior global collapse initiation; a sudden event by all accounts which the prior deformation you reference (on the complete opposite side of the building) had nothing to do with.

Next, sorry I should have said "virtually symmetrical" not "virtual symmetry"! I have seen no indication that the south side of WTC7 collapsed first. Most footage shows the building from the north where it can be seen that upon global collapse initiation the east and west facades drop in unision... despite the official claim that damage propagated from one side to the other.

There are thousands comprising architects, engineers and scientists who have spoken out. Experts can be as complacent and conformist as the next person, and silence does not constitute agreement. I'll set a challenge...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Find 1,700+ construction professionals who have critiqued NIST's results and found agreement with the official theory.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

The lack of any good need to demolish 7, we are way far-removed from any Pearl Harbor tie-in here with piddly irrelevant WTC7.


A valid reason for the demolition of WTC7 is that it was the operations centre for the 9/11 false flag. The collapse was not only the quickest way to dispose of evidence but also of dispersing/relocating the unit responsible.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

The possibility of debris from the twin tower not damaging WTC7 and thus ruining that plot (conspirator risk #4,764,393).


I have already addressed this assumption that the debris damage aided the demoliton at the end of my last post.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Not sure why 'precedent' is even being brought up, unless you have several examples of buildings suffering unknown damage and extensive fires burning for several hours matching the approximate parameters of the WTC7 construction. By definition, precedent has limited applicability to the unprecedented.


Firstly, once we realise that the WTC7 debris damage was irrelevant to the collapse (remember all of those quotes I linked from NIST), then we see the situation was not unprecedented - it was for all intents and purposes a standard office fire. Here is one of those quotes from NIST to reaffirm: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."

And more from NIST, confirming the above and providing a selection of precedent: -

"There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1991), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).
...
The differences in the fires were not meaningful... "


The only area NIST do draw a distinction is in the building designs, where simply because WTC7 had a long span floor system to one side of the building, by their 7 year estimation, deduced this meant the whole internal structure would fall in like a pack of cards in approximately 10 seconds start to finish, leaving the exterior shell to come down virtually symmetrical and freefall for a period, all due to the removal of some floor trusses. It is completely bizarre to think that any skyscraper would be reliant on a section of floor trusses; that those trusses essentially supported the load of the entire structure through its connections. It's ridiculous, the whole great building didn't come down due to some failed floor trusses, that is not how these buildings are designed - however, there are many cases of demolition which are proven to have had the witnessed effect.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

I am of a group that claims that what you are seeing is possibly thermite, and possibly several other things. I'm sure you've read up enough on this to know what these several other things can be.


Great, keep in mind that we possibly have thermite in the towers, because the circumstantial evidence for that will build. Also, yes I have discussed the WTC2 molten flow numerous times - due to the characteristics I don't see what the substance can reasonably be other than a thermite reaction - I see only people grasping at straws which are irrational and/or do not match the observation.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

I can find references to this but nothing indicating they are 'intelligence agents'. Are these the same 'agents' who then later filed suit because of their mistreatment during their detainment? How covert.....


Three points to confirm the intelligence connection...

1. A number of the men's names were found in an FBI intelligence database.
2 The men's lawyer admitted the men had worked for Israeli intelligence... but in another country. (yeah, sure).
3. Urban Moving for which the men worked, was a blatant front company.

We could heap the pressure on further with evidence such as their series of failed lie detector tests, instant protests of innocence (before they were even arrested/questioned) and way the investigation was shutdown not for law enforcement reason but under political pressure and the indication the men had carried explosives in their van.

It was a little too late to remain covert by time of the lawsuit.

This was not the only Israeli agent group detained after the attack. There was a further number arrested in the U.S. and which specialised in explosive ordnance and communications intercept, of which an investigator stated there were "tie-ins" between the Israelis and 9/11 but it was reported, "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information."

Why excuse all these guys without investigation?



View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Now that was one helluva long thread I didn't read through all of it, so my criticisms here you may have already dealt with. I'm having trouble picking up from the thread posts the relevance that 'certainty' has to do with anything, but you do seem to trying to make some point concerning the fact that it wasn't purely the firefighters assessment that the building was going to collapse because of the unknown person. You have not shown that the source for every quote concerning indications of collapse comes from this one unknown person. Most importantly, the existence of this anonymous source does not explain the eyewitness accounts of the structural deformation they saw, that you just above said the lack of which was evidence of the demolition. You're not suggesting that this source also planted the idea about the bulge, that it was leaning, the whole corner of the building is missing, didn't look straight, and was creaking? That sounds like structural deformation to me.

You said this in reply to Boony and laid out your timeline concerning how FDNY was 'unconcerned' prior to talking to conspirator #19 (12 for the setup, Silverstein and his two Zionist buds, I'm going very light and only counting Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy in the govt; ah I guess our mystery source could be only #18, maybe one of the 12 is doing double duty):

"The FDNY were not concerned of collapse before the warnings from ‘unnamed’, i.e. they were influenced"

Right, I'm sure that unnamed source was a much larger influence than the fact that they were standing in the rubble and debris from two other buildings-turned-graveyards they also didn't think were going to collapse. In spite of that, I'm supposed to believe that they were still feeling confident about their collapse risk assessments?


It may be worth reading through the thread until your questions are answered.

The relevance of the 'certainty' is that one cannot be certain of a supposed never before witnessed event. After the tower collapses, the concern on scene for WTC7 does not surprise me at all, but then words like, "adamant", "definitely" and "imminent" appear, along with foreknowledge of the severity and timing, with a full collapse perimeter setup, and then media reports that the building is already down... before it is. Yet remember, the official theory is that the collapse only became inevitable due to a quirk of the building design which manifested suddenly 10 seconds prior the collapse. That this level of certainty was somehow apparent beforehand, indicates foreknowledge of a planned event.

In addition to that, every single firefighter concern of the collapse can be pre-empted by warning received from the unnamed individual(s) - I'm not sure if there were one or two, it's difficult to determine when the official investigation deemed not to give them names. Even the famous Hayden quote containing reference to the 'bulge', prior to that he had been provided "on the money" information by the annonymous individual that the building would come down... initially Hayden only admits to a 'concern', then after that information was passed on he was 'sure' - this is indication Hayden was influenced to expect collapse due to this advice, not the 'bulge'.

There was simply no engineering rationale to predict with certainty that whole building would come down, and absolutely not to place an accurate 5 hour countdown on it.

So two challenges for the official narrative, 1) to demonstrate that a single firefighter expected the complete building collapse of their own independent judgement (don't bother, it is impossible - it is already confirmed that the initial collapse warning was received from an external advisor), 2) to provide any engineering rationale for a 5 hour countdown (again, don't waste your time - there is no engineering rationale for this).

What we have are individuals on scene with certain and precise foreknowledge of what was to happen. That cannot be so, due to a chance, first time ever occurrence, but can be aptly explained in the case a planned event; like a demolition.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 07 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Really, you wonder about the demolition setup? Why aren't you wondering what effect that large, unpredictable chuck of WTC1 debris had on the structure of the building? Wouldn't that be the first assessment to thoroughly complete, since we're sure that actually happened? As long as we're bantering about Occam's cutlery and all that. It's an assessment that's going to be tough to complete given the questionable veracity of the NIST study and the few pictures/videos we have though. And our conspirators were feeling pretty confident they could reconfigure the setup in the middle of a large buildlng fire, unseen? Come on, man, at least give me a tiny back-off from 'non-existent' risk.


You asked, "Why wouldn't they just demolish WTC7 after one of the towers fell?" I provided a possible reason and then you went on the above tangent. Of course I'm wondering about the demolition setup, you specifically asked me about reason for delay in the demolition. :lol:

I'll still briefly address your question about the debris damage to WTC7. Before release of the NIST report, and their admittance that office fires were solely responsible for the collapse initiation, debate used to rage as to the extent of the debris damage. What we find is, that even in the worst case scenario, where over a third of the south face exterior columns and a number of the central columns are removed, this does not compromise the entire building structure leading to the sudden, freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse witnessed.

Regarding the building fire, I don't see it was particularly widespread or severe. The NIST fire simulations confirm this, not to mention there were personnel walking around inside the building carrying out an inspection in the afternoon, who heard some creaking but did not stumble across any fire. The few floors and isolated areas affected by the fire were unimpressive compared to scale of the building. Heck the firefighters could have put out the fire early in the day, as they attempted to do so, had they not been perturbed by those anonymous collapse warnings.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#80    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:28 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

There must be a compelling reason, what with Silverstein's comical statements. :w00t:

I consider comical statements as those claiming that thermite and explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings despite the lack of evidence.

Monitors in the area did not record bomb explosions, which explains why no bomb explosions were seen on video, and that explains why no bomb explosions were heard on audio, which also explains why no one found evidence of explosive devices or detonation cords within the rubble of the WTC buildings, and that all explains why after more than 10 years, not one American government worker or citizen has ever been arrested for blowing up WTC buildings especially since no such evidence of planted explosive devices within the WTC buildings existed in the first place.

Quote

Report: Fire, not bombs, leveled WTC 7 building

http://www.usatoday....-wtc-nist_N.htm


----------------------------------------------------


Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

August 21, 2008

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all






Edited by skyeagle409, 09 August 2012 - 04:45 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#81    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:04 AM



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#82    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,713 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:47 AM

View PostQ24, on 09 August 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

For the tower collapses, had the cause genuinely been a damage and fire scenario, it was within NIST's grasp to demonstrate that conclusion - the modelling was all adequate and ready to go. The way the results were left, with the only collapse case found reliant on damage demonstratably outside of the photographic/video reality, leads me to believe there was no (zero) damage/fire result within that reality that could support the politically desired conclusion. Otherwise, why leave the grey area of the range as NIST's results did? NIST never proved their case. But they could have done. Why didn't they?

My oh my, I go away for months and nothing has changed.  You still have this complete inability to grasp the concept of measurement error margins.  NIST showed that a collapse would occur within the error margins, they showed a collapse process that matched the evidence.  That is sufficient.

I note your typical shuffle above, claiming that the damage to WTC7, which you've always claimed before was negligible, is now so much that it prevents your controlled demolition from taking place.  This contrasts with your position on the towers, where you've always claimed that a demolition set-up would still work after being hit by an airliner.

I also note that your "If it looks like a demolition, then that is what it is, but if it doesn't look like a demolition, then it must be a covert demolition" argument is still alive and well:

View PostQ24, on 29 July 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

the building went down like this... a demolition immitating collapse.

View PostQ24, on 30 July 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

For sure there are some narrow minded demolition experts out there who cannot comprehend a necessarily non-conventional demolition. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc. comes to mind. He believes the WTC buildings were not demolished due to lack of a loud chain of explosions immediately prior collapse and/or lack of miles of detcord found in the debris. Yes, because that would make for a superb covert demolition, fantastic reasoning - what a moron.
As you say, fantastic reasoning.

Quote

I'll set a challenge...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Find 1,700+ construction professionals who have critiqued NIST's results and found agreement with the official theory.

You don't find the truth by a popularity contest.  AE911T have zero credibility because in three years they haven't managed a counter to this demolition of their claims:
http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf




Anyway, I'll leave you to it again and go back to the real world.

Edited by flyingswan, 09 August 2012 - 11:24 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#83    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:47 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 09 August 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

You still have this complete inability to grasp the concept of measurement error margins. NIST showed that a collapse would occur within the error margins, they showed a collapse process that matched the evidence. That is sufficient.

I understand measurement error, and how within such generated margins there will be some computed hypothetical range of probability whereby Usain Bolt did not win gold in the Olympic 100m. Yet when we compare that to the reality of visual evidence, such inputs must be discarded and the measurement errors refined until a realistic result is achieved. Except to you, there would already be sufficient evidence that Bolt perhaps won silver. Likewise the towers on 9/11, where you have always turned a blind eye to the culmination of factors toward the severe case demonstratably placing the simulation outside of any reality that occurred.

The tower collapse simulation did not best match the evidence, either in comparison to the visible impact damage nor the bowing external columns prior to collapse (which were necessary to manually input as the simulation would not match the observation). It was the tower non-collapse simulation which provided best match to the visible impact damage. Despite best match of the tower non-collapse simulation, it was this case that was discarded, simply because it did not meet the pre-determined political conclusion.

None of this is sufficient to proving an impact and fire based collapse occurred in any way, shape or form. It does however prove an impact and fire based non-collapse to be very possible, even likely; it is the only existing simulation which does not exceed the reality of damage seen on 9/11.


View Postflyingswan, on 09 August 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I note your typical shuffle above, claiming that the damage to WTC7, which you've always claimed before was negligible, is now so much that it prevents your controlled demolition from taking place. This contrasts with your position on the towers, where you've always claimed that a demolition set-up would still work after being hit by an airliner.

I was expecting someone to bring that up - obviously the tower demolitions would be set with the impacts in mind, whilst the WTC7 demolition was not.


View Postflyingswan, on 09 August 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

As you say, fantastic reasoning.

Yes, for anyone who cannot comprehend anything outside of a textbook demolition.

Der wuz no detcord, hur-hur-hur.


View Postflyingswan, on 09 August 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

You don't find the truth by a popularity contest. AE911T have zero credibility because in three years they haven't managed a counter to this demolition of their claims:
http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf
Yes, tell LG it is not a popularity contest - I was responding to the one he started.


The paper is not worth an extended mention - issues such as quibbling over the definition of "extremely rapid", the mention of no explosions during collapse as in conventional demolition, a request for further research on the 'squibs' - there is really nothing worthwhile to respond to.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#84    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:17 PM

Q

Great analysis! :yes:

Your mention of the word "improbable" reminds me of Menken's observation about "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."

I wonder if you have any thoughts regarding Mayor Giuliani's years-long fight with the City Commission to have the EOC placed in WTC 7?  As you probably already know, he fought them tooth and nail to have it placed there.  The Commission wanted to locate it elsewhere, I think on the East River.  Finally they gave in to the mayor.  I think there is some sort of significance to that.


#85    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:44 PM

View PostQ24, on 09 August 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:


Yes, tell LG it is not a popularity contest - I was responding to the one he started.

The paper is not worth an extended mention - issues such as quibbling over the definition of "extremely rapid", the mention of no explosions during collapse as in conventional demolition, a request for further research on the 'squibs' - there is really nothing worthwhile to respond to.

Quick reply, Q.  It was not my intention to start a 'popularity contest' if that's what I've done. Your points concerning the demolition do not rely on the credentials and expertise of the experts you choose to believe?  

I have a point and a question in regard to this.  First, do you personally have expertise in physics, material engineering, architecture, etc, where you can personally evaluate the back-and-forth points between these experts?  If not, which I've been assuming is the case and definitely is the case for myself, at a meta-level how do you propose that you and I resolve the discrepancies between these experts?  I don't mind us interjecting our own analysis of their analysis, maybe that's the only way to plow through it and it is interesting.  But 'the paper is not worth an extended mention' is a pretty accurate paraphrase of what other experts think about Gage's analysis.  Even if I assume worst case that you and I have no ability to assess the correctness of these experts, we are then left with the neutral, 'there is debate amongst the experts so we do not have enough information to determine accurately how and why WTC7 collapsed'.

But you assert the demolition of WTC7 is blatant, not that the reasons for it's collapse are unknown.  This means that there are an unknown number of experts out there who recognize this also who are staying silent for some unknown reason, despite the fame and fortune available to the first person/group to actually provide some good evidence of a demolition.  What is your reasonable explanation for this silence?   The closest I see is 'experts can be as complacent and conformist as the next person, and silence does not constitute agreement'.  First off, no, experts at some point are no longer 'experts' if they are complacent and conformist about their areas of expertise.  Scientists especially are more equipped than laymen to avoid bias; it's built into their training and the scientific method by design.  It doesn't mean it doesn't happen of course, but that makes your experts just as susceptible to these biases.  Can I just assert then that experts can also be as susceptible to the bias of their own political leanings and what they want to be true, as well as attracted to the attention they can get by taking a non-conformist position, and thereby attack the reliability of their analysis?  I'm ready to move beyond 'possibility', and I think that some of my responses to you are not on point because, understandably, we are moving between discussing 'possibility' and 'what probably actually happened' freely.  I'll try to reply to your specific points when I can.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#86    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:27 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 09 August 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

Quick reply, Q. It was not my intention to start a 'popularity contest' if that's what I've done. Your points concerning the demolition do not rely on the credentials and expertise of the experts you choose to believe?

I was only playing - though when we bring in the quantity of expert opinion on either side of the argument, then it does become a 'popularity contest' of the competing theories - a contest the official theory loses once we understand that silence does not constitute agreement (more on that below).


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 09 August 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

I have a point and a question in regard to this. First, do you personally have expertise in physics, material engineering, architecture, etc, where you can personally evaluate the back-and-forth points between these experts? If not, which I've been assuming is the case and definitely is the case for myself, at a meta-level how do you propose that you and I resolve the discrepancies between these experts? I don't mind us interjecting our own analysis of their analysis, maybe that's the only way to plow through it and it is interesting. But 'the paper is not worth an extended mention' is a pretty accurate paraphrase of what other experts think about Gage's analysis. Even if I assume worst case that you and I have no ability to assess the correctness of these experts, we are then left with the neutral, 'there is debate amongst the experts so we do not have enough information to determine accurately how and why WTC7 collapsed'.

I have sufficient grounding in the wider subject, both from of my previous career and education, to understand the top level arguments made - as I should think do many people - the arguments here are not rocket science. It is not necessary to understand all of the details regarding physics, chemistry, material science, etc, to follow. In these areas I accept that set out by experts... it is only necessary to understand what is set out. For example, when it comes to NIST's computer simulations, I'm not ever going to challenge the physics of the models or the energy/material inputs of my own accord (I'm not in a position to confirm this for myself - I must accept the expert word). What I will seek to understand is the premises those models are based upon, the probabilities involved and how the results relate to reality (the experts kindly set all of this out for us, the inputs and results, which can then be checked with our own eyes and rationale). Basically I am not challenging the experts on technical detail, only using the information they have provided. In the case of the tower simulations, NIST spell out that the non-collapse case is not only based on the 'best estimate' inputs but provides best match to actual observation... why shouldn't I be irked and see the study as politically deviated when they do not follow through these results in their narrative conclusion.

With the Urich paper linked above, most of it isn't even right or wrong, just irrelevant. For instance, no one is saying there had to be audible explosions during the collapse, so the mention there were no explosions at time of the collapse is pointless. As with Loizeaux, a controlled demolition expert who concluded the lack of detcord at the WTC meant no demolition - where no one ever suggested the use of detcord in the first place. There is an awful lot of useless expert opinion around.

Then there are all of the basic physics arguments that can be demonstrated very easily without an expert at hand. For example, that we cannot have a period of pure freefall in WTC7 (that is, vertical and symmetrical) unless an entire level of columns is simmultaneously removed - buckling at different moments, or any level of resistance, leads to a tilt/non-freefall collapse. Another example is Newton's third law which dictates that a smaller twenty storey block cannot remain intact whilst crushing perpetually through a larger eighty storey block. It is junk science (or perhaps Lysenkoism - see further below) that states otherwise.

So I think there is an awful lot we can discuss and understand around the work of experts.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 09 August 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

This means that there are an unknown number of experts out there who recognize this also who are staying silent for some unknown reason, despite the fame and fortune available to the first person/group to actually provide some good evidence of a demolition. What is your reasonable explanation for this silence? The closest I see is 'experts can be as complacent and conformist as the next person, and silence does not constitute agreement'. First off, no, experts at some point are no longer 'experts' if they are complacent and conformist about their areas of expertise.

We had an interesting discussion about this some time ago after deciding that the 1,700+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth comprised around 2% of the engineering population. Please see my post #422 here explaining why the remaining 98% of the community are not support to the official theory.

And you must realise the demolition is not an easy case to prove in the mainstream under the current political establishment. Have you heard of Lysenkoism? Scientific progress is not immune to politics, and there we have a real example of false/predetermined, government controlled, apparently scientific conclusions which existed for some 40 years.

For sure - I'd say there are not so many real experts out there as we think. It seems that anyone put through a degree course is suddenly an expert, which from my experience is not true.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 09 August 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

Can I just assert then that experts can also be as susceptible to the bias of their own political leanings and what they want to be true, as well as attracted to the attention they can get by taking a non-conformist position, and thereby attack the reliability of their analysis?

Yes, though I should not think that any employed individual is going to have an easy time being non-conformist when it comes to 9/11. There are so many people who are not content with the current state of affairs but will not speak out - it's career suicide. Look what happened to Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Sibel Edmonds. No wonder it is most usually the former/retied government and military workers that speak out.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#87    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 August 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Great analysis! :yes:

Actually, not! First of all, the collapse of WTC 7 was not indicative of a typical implosion. Let's make comparisons.

1. No explosions evident as WTC 7 collapses. The sound of demolition implosions make a lot of noise such as,, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!!! In the case of WTC 7, there is no sound of explosions as the collapses, which alone, dismissed the use of explosives. In addition, monitors did not detect explosions.

2. No evidence of explosives was found in the rubble of WTC 7. No blasting caps, thousands of feet of detonation cords, no evidence of  pre-weakening of its steel structure, which is a normal process in demolition implosions.

3. No evidence of thermite cutting evident on steel of WTC 7, which is understandable since thermite is not used for the demolition of buildings anyway.

We have these comments as well.

Quote


The Firefighters

Battalion Chief John Norman

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]


FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.goog...com/danielnigro


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.

Captain Chris Boyle

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html



Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert


In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

No sound of BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM = no explosives. In other words, the collapse of WTC 7 was the result of impact damage and fires and nothing to do with explosives, which would have been heard all over Manhattan, yet not one peep of a bomb explosion heard anywhere.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 August 2012 - 05:31 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#88    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:49 PM

View PostQ24, on 09 August 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I was expecting someone to bring that up - obviously the tower demolitions would be set with the impacts in mind, whilst the WTC7 demolition was not.


That doesn't work. The collapse of the WTC Towers initiated ONLY were the aircraft struck and any planted explosives would have been detonated upon impact.  Another question, who in their right mind would transport thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives, detonation cords, and other equiment  over the course of many months to those heights? Another problem, how would they spend many weeks pre-weakening the structure of the WTC buildings and not draw attention?

Thermite is not in widespread use by demolition companies and even if thermite was used, you still have to use high explosives to set things into motion, and that will generate a lot of noise of BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM,  which was not heard on audio, nor seen in videos nor detected by seismic monitors, which brings up another question:

Where is the explosive evidence that explosives were used?

The way a building collapsed is not evidence that explosives were used. The 9/11 CT folks claim that squibs seen emanating from the WTC buildings was evidence of explosives, but that is not correct at all. Check out where explosives are not used and note the plumes of dust emanating as the buildings collapse as was the case during the collapse of the WTC buildings,  and remember, no explosives are used in the collapse of the buildings in this video.



Edited by skyeagle409, 09 August 2012 - 07:46 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#89    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

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

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM

Q, this time I'm really going to try and focus, there's a lot of crap to read on a lot of these topics and again I've inadvertantly started too many threads simultaneously for me to keep up.  I don't want you to feel like I'm dodging or avoiding anything though, so if I skip something you'd like me to respond to, just let me know.  I continue to mainly disagree with you about the risk to the perpetrators and your, to me, far too strong and specific claims about other people's psychological makeup and how various simultaneous motivations resolve themselves in these individuals.  But I think we're temporarily at an impasse on those topics, so I'm going to skip those with the exception of the following.

Quote

I have yet to see the necessary risk in the demolition setup or operation. Can you be specific? What can go wrong with the setup given the guise of legitimate works I have set out? Which individual involved would stab their beliefs in the back, and why? These suggestions seem hopeful rather than realistic

How hard can this be; the risk that the demolition is discovered.  I haven't really objected to your suggestion of only 20 conspirators, I'll go with it although it's a minimum that is right at the threshold of being at all realistic, so I think you can think of scenarios, even if they are also at the threshold of realistic, where the demolition set up is discovered.  And risk doesn't involve just the chance of getting caught, it involves the consequences of getting caught where are almost the worst.  Doesn't the Port Authority, I think that's who the contract was through, supervise their contractors?  No one in the Port Authority or the building management have access to the areas where the demolitions were supposedly planted?  No chance of an unplanned fire or bomb scare resulting in their discovery?  


With regards to the actual demolition, If there really is 'no risk', then why set up the demolition event (not just the setup of it) to be so invisible in the first place?  I know you say it's blatant, when it is of course anything but, but it seems clear that 'they' did not want the demolition to be apparent; why if it's risk-free?  The risk, of course, is that the discovery of the use of demolitions, especially nanothermite, puts what actually happened in an entirely, and far more suspicious, light, and suggests more than Al Q was involved.  How did Al Q get nanothermite?  They have access to that many specialists in the use of nanothermite in demolitions?  No one will connect the dots you have and note that Turner has the contract, so how did Turner overlook Al Q planting explosives where they were renovating?  As we agreed, it's what the perpetrators thought that matters.  Why on earth would our perpetrators think they had such perfect clairvoyance and had controlled for all the possible ways this could be pinned on them?  Are you arguing they just didn't care even if they got caught?  If Cheney got caught he'd be dragged raving to the jail ranting, "...and I'd murder them all again if I had the chance!  U.S.A!  U.S.A!", he doesn't care about his legacy, his family, his execution?  Again, no Democrats or 'liberal media' would be interested in the biggest crime in history?  Let me know if I ever stray near 'realistic' here.

Again, I'm going to try with the drilldown to WTC7 only and  I've got to do more research when I have time on all your statements concerning it.  I do have some brief questions.  Actually, first, a clarification that may not be needed, we refer to the 'official story' in our conversation and I just want to make clear that that means to me in general 'not a demolition', and is not necessarily tied to specifics of the NIST report or anything else when I'm using the term.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have a ton of confidence in the procedures used by and the expertise of the NIST, to the point that you base your opinion "that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results", but then want to simultaneously assert that their subsequent conclusions are obviously in error.  I'm not saying that's entirely invalid, the two can be independent of each other, but it does appear highly selective.  The 'removed by NIST's results' is another pretty strong statement, in the face of what looks to me like a lot of controversy and different opinions; the wiki page lists several people, who I don't think are necessarily truthers, that dispute specifics of the NIST report.  This is of course entirely understandable, there's only so much evidence to work with and is a chaotic event, and I don't know how you've come to your strong conclusions given this chaos.

And wow, nanothermite, that's a serious list of google results.  There seems to be a necessity for some type of explosive to be mixed in to start the reaction?  Can you give me some more detail on what these nanothermite charges entailed, and mainly, why were they silent and didn't seem to have any obvious explosive blast that can be differentiated from the results of the collapse?  Is there any precedent of a nanothermite demolition being used that is comparable to what you are proposing?  Actually, I shouldn't assume this and maybe this conversation is premature, am I correct that you are asserting that WTC7 was brought down by nanothermite?

Concerning the 'experts', I don't know how relevant this is at this point given your last reply clarifying we'll try to proceed based on a familiarity with the science behind what we're discussing balanced by our ultimate non-expertise in the relevant specific scientific/engineering disciplines.  I followed the link to the discussion about the 98% of experts not saying anything and give you an A for effort but don't find your argument compelling.  Since we have no way to know the distribution of your proposed three groups and if I just split them by a third, which I believe actually underestimates the number of those experts who have reviewed the evidence enough to believe no demolitions were involved but don't feel the need to sign a petition stating it, the truther architects/engineers are still outnumbered by 15-1.  And that's with me being generous on your 2% number; I just did a quick count of the licensed architects on the petition you linked to and got less than 400; even if I'm way generous and assume there's some reason some of the petition signers want to be anonymous and say 1000, that is still a wee bit short of 1% the licensed architects in just the US which is over 100,000.

Let me just stop there, I want to continue about the 'foreknowledge' and the Israeli agents, but want to see if we can take one of these topics first to it's completion, wherever that may be.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#90    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

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

Posted 10 August 2012 - 03:42 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Q, this time I'm really going to try and focus, there's a lot of crap to read on a lot of these topics and again I've inadvertantly started too many threads simultaneously for me to keep up.  I don't want you to feel like I'm dodging or avoiding anything though, so if I skip something you'd like me to respond to, just let me know.  I continue to mainly disagree with you about the risk to the perpetrators and your, to me, far too strong and specific claims about other people's psychological makeup and how various simultaneous motivations resolve themselves in these individuals.  But I think we're temporarily at an impasse on those topics, so I'm going to skip those with the exception of the following.



How hard can this be; the risk that the demolition is discovered.  I haven't really objected to your suggestion of only 20 conspirators, I'll go with it although it's a minimum that is right at the threshold of being at all realistic, so I think you can think of scenarios, even if they are also at the threshold of realistic, where the demolition set up is discovered.  And risk doesn't involve just the chance of getting caught, it involves the consequences of getting caught where are almost the worst.  Doesn't the Port Authority, I think that's who the contract was through, supervise their contractors?  No one in the Port Authority or the building management have access to the areas where the demolitions were supposedly planted?  No chance of an unplanned fire or bomb scare resulting in their discovery?  


With regards to the actual demolition, If there really is 'no risk', then why set up the demolition event (not just the setup of it) to be so invisible in the first place?  I know you say it's blatant, when it is of course anything but, but it seems clear that 'they' did not want the demolition to be apparent; why if it's risk-free?  The risk, of course, is that the discovery of the use of demolitions, especially nanothermite, puts what actually happened in an entirely, and far more suspicious, light, and suggests more than Al Q was involved.  How did Al Q get nanothermite?  They have access to that many specialists in the use of nanothermite in demolitions?  No one will connect the dots you have and note that Turner has the contract, so how did Turner overlook Al Q planting explosives where they were renovating?  As we agreed, it's what the perpetrators thought that matters.  Why on earth would our perpetrators think they had such perfect clairvoyance and had controlled for all the possible ways this could be pinned on them?  Are you arguing they just didn't care even if they got caught?  If Cheney got caught he'd be dragged raving to the jail ranting, "...and I'd murder them all again if I had the chance!  U.S.A!  U.S.A!", he doesn't care about his legacy, his family, his execution?  Again, no Democrats or 'liberal media' would be interested in the biggest crime in history?  Let me know if I ever stray near 'realistic' here.

Again, I'm going to try with the drilldown to WTC7 only and  I've got to do more research when I have time on all your statements concerning it.  I do have some brief questions.  Actually, first, a clarification that may not be needed, we refer to the 'official story' in our conversation and I just want to make clear that that means to me in general 'not a demolition', and is not necessarily tied to specifics of the NIST report or anything else when I'm using the term.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have a ton of confidence in the procedures used by and the expertise of the NIST, to the point that you base your opinion "that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results", but then want to simultaneously assert that their subsequent conclusions are obviously in error.  I'm not saying that's entirely invalid, the two can be independent of each other, but it does appear highly selective.  The 'removed by NIST's results' is another pretty strong statement, in the face of what looks to me like a lot of controversy and different opinions; the wiki page lists several people, who I don't think are necessarily truthers, that dispute specifics of the NIST report.  This is of course entirely understandable, there's only so much evidence to work with and is a chaotic event, and I don't know how you've come to your strong conclusions given this chaos.

And wow, nanothermite, that's a serious list of google results.  There seems to be a necessity for some type of explosive to be mixed in to start the reaction?  Can you give me some more detail on what these nanothermite charges entailed, and mainly, why were they silent and didn't seem to have any obvious explosive blast that can be differentiated from the results of the collapse?  Is there any precedent of a nanothermite demolition being used that is comparable to what you are proposing?  Actually, I shouldn't assume this and maybe this conversation is premature, am I correct that you are asserting that WTC7 was brought down by nanothermite?

Concerning the 'experts', I don't know how relevant this is at this point given your last reply clarifying we'll try to proceed based on a familiarity with the science behind what we're discussing balanced by our ultimate non-expertise in the relevant specific scientific/engineering disciplines.  I followed the link to the discussion about the 98% of experts not saying anything and give you an A for effort but don't find your argument compelling.  (Edit: misread your 3 groups on your link Since we have no way to know the distribution of your proposed three groups and if I just split them by a third, which I believe actually underestimates the number of those experts who have reviewed the evidence enough to believe no demolitions were involved but don't feel the need to sign a petition stating it, the truther architects/engineers are still outnumbered by 15-1. )   I think your argument is fine against the idea that 99.5 or whatever do not agree with your theory, but I have more reasons to think that these experts who have studied it and come to your demolition conclusions but are being silent would not remain silent and would present their strong case; this is exactly what scientists are incentivized to do.   Seriously, if you had near unanimity of the physics and structural engineering departments at MIT that the demolition was blatant, you think they'd stay quiet about?  A decade later after the proposed perpetrators aren't even in power?  Not just these lone dudes who can't even convince the other members of the faculty in his own university department.  Also I just did a quick count of the licensed architects on the petition you linked to and got less than 400; even if I'm way generous and assume there's some reason some of the petition signers want to be anonymous and say 1000, that is still a wee bit short of 1% the licensed architects in just the US which is over 100,000.

Let me just stop there, I want to continue about the 'foreknowledge' and the Israeli agents, but want to see if we can take one of these topics first to it's completion, wherever that may be.


"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users