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

#721    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,116 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

Oh, I see--it was a chaotic event.  That explains it all. :innocent:


#722    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:46 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 November 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Oh, I see--it was a chaotic event.  That explains it all. :innocent:

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

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

"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

#723    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM

View PostQ24, on 15 November 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

You are welcome to that but to me it is an empty belief considering that no explanation based on damage and fire has been demonstrated within the bounds of reality – we have been over some of the many failures and false assumptions of NIST and Bazant – yet there is no need for this to be the case were truth in their favour.

Nor have they demonstrated it as being outside the bounds of reality, even if we assume the ludicrous that the NIST is absolutely infallible in their analysis.  What you characterize as failures and false assumptions, and the ramifications you believe they have, are highly debatable.

Quote

The problem is that we know the circumstantial evidence cannot absolutely prove a case to anyone predisposed not to believe it.  

To exactly the same degree that circumstantial evidence provides a vague subjective framework by which almost any idea can seem 'blatant' to the biased.  You don't mind if I put some of my own poison in your well, do you?

Quote

That’s why I think it perhaps necessary to ask what the official theory proposes as an alternative and how likely it is in comparison.  If that draws anyone to a conclusion of, “I don’t know for sure what happened”, I’ll take that as a victory because the most pertinent question that follows is why the official story sold their version of events as an absolute and fired the Western public into a war frenzy.

I guess I don't see how this is superior to the normal rules of circumstantial evidence.  I think it's pretty much settled that there isn't a scientific case for a demolition, there isn't enough evidence, we wouldn't even be talking about circumstantial if that was the case.  So fine, we go to a circumstantial case likening it to a court of law, but you don't apparently want the burden that goes along with that, of disproving other alternatives as is normally required.  We're not even to the point where I'd be 'predisposed' to not believe your circumstantial case based on the positive evidence for it; you haven't given me good enough reason to not think the alternatives for each of your circumstantial evidence points are outside even your definition of 'bounds of reality'.

Quote

I don’t like the idea of testing points in isolation because this precludes corroboration of the evidence.

It doesn't preclude it, they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think the validity of the individual points is just as if not more important than the corroboration of them.  Some testing of the points is necessary to even determine if it's even properly called 'evidence', otherwise it's unknown whether it has any corroboration value at all.  I think I see another Sasquatch hiding behind a bush up this road a ways.

Quote

And I don’t think it really matters whose intuition we use in the end; the official story ends up astronomical anyhow.  Put your own probability on this for me:  a government exercise that morning involving a civilian aircraft departing from the same airport as Flight 77 and simulating a crash into a government building just 30 miles West of the Pentagon at the precise time and location that the real Flight 77 passed overhead, with a government spokesperson describing the reflection of real world events as “bizarre”.  There are logical reasons, accepting a false flag background, which make the probability of that occurrence very high.  In the official theory, that event is treated as non-evidence or just a quirk to be ignored – so what are reasonable odds of this ‘coincidence’?  If we can agree that the occurrence is somewhat peculiar/unlikely, then I have much more to add, which taken together show the official theory beyond belief.

Okay, cool, something new to me, I think this is the fourth point you mentioned in your later post that you'd like to talk about more about.  I can google on my own, but can you give me a good search phrase on this?  Everything I've tried has come up with discussions of the pilot's training and the Hani maneuver and such.

Quote

Perhaps different discussion, but I’m sure the same argument.

“That’s a thermite device.”
“No, it could be anything.”
“But it matches a thermite device.”
“Yes, but it could be somthing else.”
“What?”
“Batteries, crushed metal, aircraft debris, paint chips, rust, a natural thermite reaction.”
“How does that match?”
“I don’t have a step by step explanation.”

Official story adherents will make any case to avoid an unfavourable probable answer.

You have a step-by-step explanation presumably then, what's been taking you so long to provide it?  You can't provide me even a drawing of your selectively indestructible thermite device, can't tell me where and how it was installed, etc, because of course you have no unambiguous evidence of there even being such a device near WTC at all.  You try to use the fact that there is a lack of evidence to work from (how exactly did the molten aluminum pool?) against these alternatives, but spare your own theory from these same critiques that are based on lack of evidence.  To which your critiques are even more applicable anyway, as we have good reason to believe that there was aluminum, fire, other materials, and a UPS system there from which to derive possibilities because there is unambiguous evidence to work from; that's a huge leg up on your thermite devices you're trying to infer into existence.

Quote

Are you now claiming that ‘remote-controlled’ is unbelievable?  Despite there being all manner of remote-controlled devices.  Or is it more that you find the functioning of the electronics after a plane crash unbelievable?  Despite the electronics within aircraft black boxes surviving after a plane crash.  These are really not good arguments you are making.

They don't always survive after plane crashes though, do they?  This device in particular apparently suffered a tremendous force since it was dislodged, or is it your opinion that the technology to protect electronics from impact is more evolved than the ability to firmly attach an object to a steel beam?  Oh but sometimes they do survive, so that's good enough.  Again, my overall point is why are you just free to choose from all of possibility.  In this specific example, I don't consider black boxes to be 'mundane' which is how you characterized them, especially since they are an evolving technology and currently still have a failure rate.  I can't wait to apply probability to the likelihood of your device suffering a force strong enough to dislodge it yet keeps the electronics functioning.  When you don't have any evidence at all to work with to determine probabilities, that doesn't mean you get to just default your theory to 100%; it should be treated as the null value it is.

Quote

About the WTC2 molten metal flow, thank you for your further input.  I think we can summarise the leading theory you have come up with: -
  • Airliner debris crashes through the UPS room, avoiding destroying the battery circuit but conspiring to create a short circuit in the system.
  • The increase in temperature is so rapid that before either the battery or shorting connection fail, the battery lead vaporises.
  • The heat and shockwave from the explosion/vaporisation melts all of the surrounding batteries to 1,000oC+.
  • The fire insulates this molten metal until the floor sporadically fails, releasing the material in bursts.
All points are highly unlikely though 3. In particular is impossible.  Even if a whole battery were vaporised to10,000oC, and given a perfectly efficient energy transfer (which is ridiculous – it’s a random explosion, not a shaped charge), it is still not enough to heat lead of the 20 or so surrounding batteries required to 1,000oC+.  Further, there is no example you can provide of this phenomenon ever having occurred before or since.  The reason is that batteries, short-circuits and explosions or not, simply cannot produce the effect – you cannot go from having a rack of batteries to having a large mass of molten lead in a second.

Nice try, but under the rules of circumstantial evidence this is just another alternative you need to disprove, and this has the huge benefit of being based on things we have reason to believe were actually present.  See, I don't think there is enough evidence to prove what that flow is, and therefore think you're going to have a lot of trouble likewise disproving what it could be.  Maybe we've discussed this, but didn't NIST do studies showing that the building fire could have reached 1000C (gotta learn how to get that degrees sign in there)?  How have you determined the unlikelihood of point 1 above?  You are an expert in the relevant fields plural?  This is again not a snark, at a higher level, what do you think is required as expertise in order to determine unlikelihoods of certain possible events in this scenario?  I don't know what you find unusual about the sporadic nature, you were expecting what and for what exact reason?  If this was molten aluminum from the plane, the counter theory to the flow we witnessed that is more probable, and why, is?

Okay, so having said my peace on circumstantial evidence, I think I'm fine with trying it your way with the competing theories idea, I don't know how it will go.  We seem to have a few roads heading towards a little more discussion of coincidence and overall argument structure, and I also want to look into the simultaneous airplane-flying-into-a-building exercise you mentioned because it's new.  I've got not only Thanksgiving and work this week I have half of my Xmas celebration Sunday so I may be shot on being able to allot the time I need to respond until next week.  If you celebrate, have a good Turkey day!

"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

#724    cerberusxp

cerberusxp

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Third Rock

  • We all look for truth, however when we find it, some times we wish we hadn't. R. Burch

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

Quote: "Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?"

Answer: Separated, for about a hundred years they have been setting themselves up as an aristocratic class above the people.

As for the WTC fires they burned for more than ninety days despite having millions upon millions of gallons of water on top of it. Even being under water logical answer is THERMITE. HERE
Copious amounts no less.

At the very bottom there would be large amounts of gold and silver the steel would have burned away into slag much of the silver would have vaporized as well.

Edited by cerberusxp, 21 November 2012 - 10:57 PM.

What we say and do unto others while here on earth are the vessels of our glory or undoing EXCUSE ME WHILE I KISS THE SKY
credentials http://www.unexplain...amp;pid=2291684

" I want the people of America to work less for the Government and more for themselves" Calvin Coolidge 1924
If one were to try and pidgin hole me I'd say I was a Jeffersonian liberal.

#725    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:20 PM

View Postcerberusxp, on 21 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

As for the WTC fires they burned for more than ninety days despite having millions upon millions of gallons of water on top of it. Even being under water logical answer is THERMITE. HERE

Thermite does not leave behind molten metal for days and would not have been capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, which is one reason why demolition companies use RDX, not thermite. You might want to check this out.

Quote

Exothermic Chemical Reactions

Exothermic chemical reactions produce heat. In this reaction vinegar is used to remove the protective coating from steel wool, allowing it to rust. When the iron combines with oxygen, heat is released.

http://chemistry.abo.../exothermic.htm


Edited by skyeagle409, 21 November 2012 - 11:24 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#726    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

This is starting to overlap some of the topics I'm discussing with Q and to whom I'm starting to gradually put together a more thorough response, but real quick here's my issue with what you and I are discussing.  Compare these two arguments:

1:
CT: This Dubai high-rise is yet another example of how buildings don't collapse from fire, thereby making the WTC collapses a 'huge anomaly" and improbability
LG: In order for precedent to be of any use, you have to compare like to like, and this example is so significantly different from WTC and 9/11 that how it behaves tells us almost nothing of how WTC should behave.
CT: (unknown response, assuming it's along the lines of 'well it's close enough')

2:
LG: Look at the pictures sky has been kind enough to take the time to post showing steel buildings collapsing from fire alone, not even including a plane ramming it, I guess it's not true that there is no precedent for these collapses.
CT: In order for precedent to be of any use, you have to compare like to like, and these examples are so significantly different from WTC and 9/11 that how they behave tells us almost nothing of how WTC should behave.
LG: Then if we're going to be consistent, we can disregard the Dubai high-rise...

This argument was going well, until right about here: -

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

... and all your other non-collapse examples...

Those examples that did not end in collapse are all of the most relevant structural and fire comparisons, in particular with regard to WTC7.  As noted by NIST:  “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 51 (2001).”  There are a few other good examples to add, including the Cardington test building fire, the report of which demonstrates why this type of steel-framed structure should not collapse.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

... also then as irrelevant 'precedents', since 9/11 was a unique event.

We require accurate precedents for the structure of and what happened to WTC in order to find anything 'strange' about their collapses, and this Dubai example is a pretty blatant example of cherry-picking of what's going to 'count' as a precedent and what is not.  And when you're dealing with as chaotic an event as 9/11, it is very difficult to identify meaningful precedents for either position that have any relevance anyway.

A wider definition of “precedent” is a case that serves as a guide.  So apart from real-world examples, let’s not forget other forms of precedent such as studies carried out by the WTC design engineers, none of which predicted a collapse, and that of NIST, which as we have seen, if not driven toward a pre-determined conclusion, would also have concluded no collapse likely to occur as result of the situation on 9/11.  You probably don’t realise it because we have not been over it, but NIST would never have predicted the tower collapses, which relied on supposed pull-in forces of the sagging floor trusses, without seeing the footage first.  Even Bazant hammered home how strongly precedent disfavoured collapse when he said, “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001 came as the greatest surprise”.

Yes there is good precedent indeed supporting that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed.  But can you find any equivalent level of precedent supporting that such sturctures should have collapsed suddenly, virtually symmetrically, at near freefall speed and completely?  I’ll help you out – you may want to start with some examples of controlled demolition.

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.

#727    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:40 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Nor have they demonstrated it as being outside the bounds of reality, even if we assume the ludicrous that the NIST is absolutely infallible in their analysis.  What you characterize as failures and false assumptions, and the ramifications you believe they have, are highly debatable.

The failure of official studies to prove the case and false assumptions made along the way are not debatable at all.  The only area of debate is between those who find such lacking answer a problem and the excuses other people make to overlook that fact.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Okay, cool, something new to me, I think this is the fourth point you mentioned in your later post that you'd like to talk about more about.  I can google on my own, but can you give me a good search phrase on this?  Everything I've tried has come up with discussions of the pilot's training and the Hani maneuver and such.

Yes this is the point I mentioned.  I’d like you to estimate a probability to this in context of the official story, along with a string of other ‘coincidences’ I’ll provide, to determine just how probable or not overall events were.

Ok a report giving an overview of the NRO exercise: -
http://www.boston.co...ne_exercise.htm

A copy of the actual exercise paper: -
http://www.scribd.co...h-Into-Building


At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below: “The aircraft broke out of the clouds ... various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel.  The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway ... Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably”.

Given what followed, no wonder the government spokesperson described it as an, “incredible coincidence”.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

You have a step-by-step explanation presumably then, what's been taking you so long to provide it?  You can't provide me even a drawing of your selectively indestructible thermite device, can't tell me where and how it was installed, etc, because of course you have no unambiguous evidence of there even being such a device near WTC at all.  You try to use the fact that there is a lack of evidence to work from (how exactly did the molten aluminum pool?) against these alternatives, but spare your own theory from these same critiques that are based on lack of evidence.  To which your critiques are even more applicable anyway, as we have good reason to believe that there was aluminum, fire, other materials, and a UPS system there from which to derive possibilities because there is unambiguous evidence to work from; that's a huge leg up on your thermite devices you're trying to infer into existence.

Of course I can provide a plausible step by step explanation of the demolition – a large portion supported by evidence from which to derive those steps.  The starting point is the government contractor, headed by a Neocon and Zionist associate, who carried out work for a military unit with the only reliable source of nanothermite in the U.S. in 2001, had previous large-scale demolition work on record and... who were refurbishing the WTC steelwork... an ideal opportunity for the demolition setup... and then the towers each tilted congruent with elevator shafts where the charges could readily be placed (didn’t we go over all of this previously?).  The next step is to accept all the precedent for thermite demolitions and devices which I have previously provided – though apparently now only a picture is good enough for you, like it’s so unbelievable you cannot visualise such a device, ha.

Here are lots of drawings: -
http://www.docstoc.c...986#viewer-area


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

They don't always survive after plane crashes though, do they?  This device in particular apparently suffered a tremendous force since it was dislodged, or is it your opinion that the technology to protect electronics from impact is more evolved than the ability to firmly attach an object to a steel beam?  Oh but sometimes they do survive, so that's good enough.

Neither did the thermite charges have to survive after a direct impact – the column(s) in question would be severed or damaged in any case.  Therefore, sometimes they do survive, is quite good enough to explain presence of the WTC2 thermite flow.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Nice try, but under the rules of circumstantial evidence this is just another alternative you need to disprove, and this has the huge benefit of being based on things we have reason to believe were actually present.

It already is disproven so far as I’m concerned – it has not been explained how the theory could possibly produce the WTC2 thermite flow – you can’t just throw any old thing down, especially when it doesn’t work in the first place, and demand I reason you out of a position that you did not provide reason for to begin with.  You are welcome to this theory, which I don’t think you can explain yourself.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Maybe we've discussed this, but didn't NIST do studies showing that the building fire could have reached 1000C (gotta learn how to get that degrees sign in there)?

Yes, and promptly supplied physical samples showing no exposure above 600oC from the very same simulated 1,000oC fire areas, tsk.  The temperatures in reality were not unusual inspite of NIST’s ‘turned up’ fire simulation.  Thomas Eagar of MIT, an official story adherent, explains why:  “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.  But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.  It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.”


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

How have you determined the unlikelihood of point 1 above?  You are an expert in the relevant fields plural?  This is again not a snark, at a higher level, what do you think is required as expertise in order to determine unlikelihoods of certain possible events in this scenario?  I don't know what you find unusual about the sporadic nature, you were expecting what and for what exact reason?  If this was molten aluminum from the plane, the counter theory to the flow we witnessed that is more probable, and why, is?

The unlikelihood of point 1 is common sense/life experience.  It is not expected that random damage should produce a working circuit (usually man-made).  I challenge you to take a battery and throw metal at it until you get a short circuit – please let us know how long it takes, be honest now.  There is no such problem to a thermite charge designed to initiate the reaction.  The sporadic flow would be unusual because the unexpected event is unlikely to occur more than once, i.e. it occurs once and the flow is expelled in one sequence.  Not so for a thermite charge which may reasonably be designed to deliver bursts after its initiation.  We have already been over why the flow does not match molten aluminium from the plane and why thermite is best match.  You are now going in circles.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

I've got not only Thanksgiving and work this week I have half of my Xmas celebration Sunday so I may be shot on being able to allot the time I need to respond until next week.  If you celebrate, have a good Turkey day!

Happy Holidays!  :santa:

Edited by Q24, 21 November 2012 - 11:41 PM.

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.

#728    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:58 PM

View Postcerberusxp, on 21 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

As for the WTC fires they burned for more than ninety days despite having millions upon millions of gallons of water on top of it.

That is an indication of Extothermic Chemical Reaction.

Quote

Extothermic Chemical Reaction

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire.

http://www.highlight...on-burns-slowly

Nothing to do with thermite and not much different as when we mixed high levels of MEKP and fiberglass resin together, which produced high heat levels.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 November 2012 - 11:59 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#729    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:25 AM

View PostQ24, on 21 November 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Yes this is the point I mentioned.  I’d like you to estimate a probability to this in context of the official story, along with a string of other ‘coincidences’ I’ll provide, to determine just how probable or not overall events were.

Ok a report giving an overview of the NRO exercise: -
http://www.boston.co...ne_exercise.htm

A copy of the actual exercise paper: -
http://www.scribd.co...h-Into-Building


At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below: “The aircraft broke out of the clouds ... various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel.  The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway ... Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably”.

Given what followed, no wonder the government spokesperson described it as an, “incredible coincidence”.

Perhaps, the number of exercises conducted prior to the 9/11 attacks should be considered.

Quote


THE 46 DRILLS, OPERATIONS, WAR GAMES, AND ACTIVITIES OF 9/11

http://tarpley.net/d...ills_of_911.pdf


Edited by skyeagle409, 22 November 2012 - 12:25 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#730    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

what made me free was discovering reality.


#731    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:13 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what made me free was discovering reality.

What is peculiar is that 9/11 conspiracist continue to make claims they cannot backup, and do so in the face of viable evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 November 2012 - 04:46 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#732    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,954 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:18 PM

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

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

what made me free was discovering reality.

Reality is, the official story is backed by facts and evidence, while on the other hand, claims of 9/11 conspiracist are based on misinformation and disinformation. Let's do a recap.


1. United 93 landed in Cleveland.

FACT: 9/11 conspiracist confused Delta 1989 as United 93


2. Passengers from United 93 were bused to an unknown location from the Cleveland airport.

FACT: 9/11 conspiracist confused scientist from a KC-135 as passengers of United 93


3. ACARS depicted the 9/11 aircraft airborne after they were reported to have crashed

FACT: ACARS depicted on such thing and I have made multiple phone calls to ARINC, the ACARS experts, whose comments threw cold water on 9/11 conspiracist claims concerning ACARS.


4. The WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speeds

FACT: The WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speeds, which was clearly evident in videos and by the fact that falling debris was outpacing the collapse of the buildings themselves.  Seismic data also proved that the WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speeds.


5. Molten steel can be seen flowing from WTC2

FACT: The flow was not indicative of molten steel at all.


6. Thermite was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings

FACT: Thermite alone, is not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings and thermite is not widely used by the demolition companies nor is thermite an explosive.


7. Explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings

FACT: There is no evidence that explosives were used nor evident in the videos. No evidence of explosives was found by recovery crews nor investigators at the scene nor at the Fresh Kills landfill.


8. 9/11 conspiracist claimed that a pod can be seen beneath United 175

FACT: 9/11 conspiracist confused aerodynamic fairings and gear doors as a modified pod. Did they really think that a modified pod would be attached at the same location where the main landing gear and its doors operate?


9. American 77 passed north of the gas station

FACT: American 77 did not pass north of the gas station, which was evident in the video and the path of fallen light poles that led to the Pentagon.


10. United 93 was shot down by an F-16.

FACT: The F-16 in question was not even in the area when United 93 crashed, and in fact, the military had no idea where United 93 was until notified by civilian controllers that United 93 had already crashed.

And, the list goes on and on!!

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 November 2012 - 05:26 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#733    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

View PostQ24, on 21 November 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Those examples that did not end in collapse are all of the most relevant structural and fire comparisons, in particular with regard to WTC7.  As noted by NIST:  “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 51 (2001).”  
You do love misleading cherry-picked quotes, don't you.  What NIST actually said was that while the fires were similar, the other buildings "did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system".

"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- )

#734    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:02 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 November 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

Perhaps, the number of exercises conducted prior to the 9/11 attacks should be considered.

Yes definitely, this assists my case on two counts.

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

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

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

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

They did not even let it happen – they made it happen.

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.

#735    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:05 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what made me free was discovering reality.

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

I want to play.

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

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users