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

#166    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Fudge

  • Member
  • 6,682 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.


LMAO!  HAHAHAHA. wow....

Edited by Iron_Lotus, 26 August 2012 - 07:48 PM.

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people and so long as men die liberty will never perish... Soldiers don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder... Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts.  You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts.

#167    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 26 August 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Why can't Q24 see that?
Because he appears to have great difficulty seeing anything except what he wants to see?

"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- )

#168    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:52 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Because he appears to have great difficulty seeing anything except what he wants to see?
I suppose, but I'm at a loss for how to make it any more clear.


#169    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 August 2012 - 08:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.


It is clearly evident that you really do not understand how the fuselage of an aircraft can punch holes in buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#170    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM

View PostQ24, on 24 August 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I think the difference is that a thermite demolition device is quite basic/established technology, whereas the collapse of WTC7 by NIST's own admittance was "extraordinary".  So you see why I might request precedent for the remarkable event but not the mundane?  That's how I see it anyhow and apply the use of precedent.


You are also requesting precedent for a unique event, and trying to use the fact that there is no other case like this to compare it to, against it.

Quote


I put together the graph based on the NIST report and it applies only to the twin towers, the WTC7 study was different.

(*snip*)

Thanks for the detail Q.  I can't see your pics with the arrows for some reason, but I think I see what you're saying.

Quote


NIST needed to demonstrate a collapse case within extent of the actual damage.  


So all it would take to satisfy you on this piece of evidence is for them to have done another test case that was within the range of the photographic evidence that did show a collapse?

Quote


Or better put, NIST needed to find a collapse case that provided best match to the actual damage.  

And how exactly did they know what the actual damage was?  Here's my high-level problem with your argument.  You accept that we have a range of possible damage, why, because we don't know that the actual damage was.  The data we have is imperfect and we thus have to deal with ranges and probabilities, but in spite of that, you demand that they show a collapse case for the 'best' match, a specific data point that has an unknown probability of actually being the true case.  Were they to actually show a case for the best case, then CTs could just turn this whole argument around and say how there is a range of possible damage cases and argue that the NIST's 'best' case isn't actually the best case, and round and round we go.  Regardless, we don't know how best the best case is.  On a roll of dice, the 'best' case is rolling a 7; however, chances are 5-1 against you rolling a 7 on a single roll of dice and thus hitting your 'best' case.  And with 9/11 we have one roll.

You yourself indicated how complicated all this is above, you seem to understand the basics of chaos theory and how changing a few variables can have significant and chaotic results on, in this case, whether the towers collapse or not.  Your photographic evidence line on your graph's left edge is right at the best case; for all we know, one micrometer to the right of the 'best' case on the photographic evidence line results in the building collapse.  But how do you even show something like that?  How do you measure the exact damage from photographic evidence?  You can't, and when dealing with chaos the slightest change in the input parameters and/or starting conditions can have significantly large, and most importantly, unpredictable effects on the result. That is why we have these ranges to begin with.  

Let me try a hypothetical (and let me try and see if I can post my first pic):
Posted Image
Are you saying that if this was what the NIST found, you would have no qualms with these results?  You wouldn't suddenly discover ranges and measurement errors and argue how much of the actual damage range overlaps into the non-collapse range?  Assuming that the data point, 'best' case, has all the significance it seems to under your graphing?

Quote


Without this, NIST have not proven that the collapse is possible within bounds of the actual damage.  NIST failed to prove the collapse is possible within extent of the actual damage, though they did prove non-collapse is possible within extent of the actual damage.  It is bizarre - this is why I say NIST's conclusions are not backed by their own results (this only one of numerous examples).
Proof is in the domain of math and logic, not science.  NIST has not shown that the collapse is impossible, or even unlikely, within the bounds of the actual damage.  Earlier you were saying how you believed the NIST reports ruled out entirely a collapse from fire and damage, and it shows no such thing, and that is far too specific of a conclusion.  What I find bizarre is that you seem to accept that the NIST experts did a great job of analyzing data, modeling multiple scenarios within the possible damage ranges, and basically doing good science by recognizing the amount of data that they do not have.  But I find some of the specific conclusions you then try to reach based on this to be, at the least, overstated and kinda unscientific, in that they are not correspondingly couched in terms of likelihoods nor do they acknowledge the amount of data that is missing, as all good scientific conclusions do.

Quote

Given accuracy of the simulations, what the official theory must do to survive, is assume a collapse case exists within the actual damage range and provides best match to the photographic evidence.  But NIST never simulated an intermediate case to determine that - leaving us to argue over a grey area where official theorists have their usual faith and skeptics say more should have been done.

I don't have any 'usual faith' in really anything.  We haven't been discussing what should have been done, we are discussing why you think the demolition is so blatant with what we know now.  What the CT must do to survive is assume that the hypothetical 'they' actually exists, that they thought it crucial that the towers be demolished and assume (since it was so covert) that demolitions were placed in WTC unnoticed despite a bombing 7 years earlier.  And since this was so covert, you have, well I hesitate to call it an advantage because logically it is not, it's in the huge bucket of 'things we don't know and have no evidence for', but you have at least the 'convenience' that you can't provide any evidence of how these supposed demolitions were configured so that we could analyze, a la the NIST report, how the way the towers came down fits that specific hypothesis.  By virtue of the specific and over-certain conclusions you have from the NIST report you do implicitly put faith in, and insist, that these types of studies are necessary in order to determine how the collapses unfolded.  Yet you have no data at all we can examine; we don't know what exactly what type of demolition component was used, how much of it, how exactly it was detonated, where the demolitions were placed, let alone adding in how the plane crashes affected these placements.  All we've got is the huge assumption that, 'well, however the towers collapsed, whatever demolition is required to do that is how it was done'.  I've said this a couple times, but except in the case where we have reason to expect some evidence, having no evidence moves us to the unknown position, which I don't find consistent with what your position actually is.

Quote

Why didn't NIST nail it?  Prove it one way or the other.  They could have done.  A real investigation might have asked the question, "Was the collapse initiation possible within the actual bounds of damage present on 9/11?"  Unfortunately for NIST the conclusion was preconceived and they never set out to prove the case.  

No, see above about 'proof'.  The fact that you have a range of possible damages by definition precludes proving anything.

Quote


Or did they try and could not, with the non-collapse case always providing better match?

Yes, all those organizations and people involved with the NIST study are either part of the plot, outright lying, or sheep, that's very likely.  (/sarcasm)

Quote


What I do know is that the only collapse initiation case NIST produced was beyond reality of the actual damage present on 9/11.  The non-collapse case was within reality of the actual damage.  Whose argument does that back?  Honestly.


Yet another issue I have; photographic evidence doesn't tell us fully what the 'actual damage' was, and I don't know why you think it could.  And the non-collapse initiation case is right at the edge of the 'actual damage' according to your graph.  Again, we don't know what the probabilities are of where the actual damage was or where the collapse initiation point is, so you are again overstating with your mentions of specifics like 'beyond' or 'within' reality.

Quote


And this is only the beginning… the next level is in understanding that none of NIST’s simulations, not even the collapse case, predicted the situation on 9/11.  Further manual inputs were required to be made – at which point it became an animation (cartoon-like) more than a simulation.  I have no reason to doubt physics of the models so can only assume the damage and fire process NIST relied on was incorrect.


You acknowledge the need for ranges and thereby seem to recognize that there is necessary imprecision, and then turn around and say because it didn't exactly predict the situation on 9/11 that there's something wrong with it, as if we had all the needed data that would be necessary to actually 'predict the situation' that you seem to understand that we do not have.

Quote

Why, to an extent, do you not think certain occurrences of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany could repeat in America?  


Really?
1) External communication outside of those countries was controlled easily since methods of communications were limited at the time. 2001 America had a world wide web available.
2) The Soviet and Nazi governments had control of nearly all media.  I can find plenty of books in America that accuse our government of all kinds of evils.
3) The Soviet and Nazi governments jailed or executed people who said something they did not like or approve of.

'Could' is again not any standard, give me some precedent for this massive lie/silence of tens of thousands of experts occurring in America.

Quote


the propagandistic techniques are no different, and it really does work the same way in any country.  


No, it 'really' does not work the same way.  You do realize there was a reason the Soviets and Nazis put all media under state control and punished dissenting opinions?  And that the US does not do either of those to even close the same extent as the Soviets and Nazis did?  The propagandists didn't punish opinions for fun, they did it because their propaganda would be more effective if they did squelch dissent.  This isn't even oranges, this is apples and granite.

Quote

It’s so blatant anyone can understand.  Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828.  

Will do, sounds like based on the responses from others here that that's going to take a little time and study.

Quote


Better that I be over-confident, than misplaced confidence in an argument intended to justify a decade of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

No, not better!  What you are saying here, despite providing quotes from Hitler himself, is that you are essentially propagandizing me!  Better that you give me your honest and skeptical evaluation of the evidence, especially when dealing with a largely circumstancial case that selectively relies on exact words that were said and people's states of mind.  You're bringing up the possibility that you are disagreeing with me not because you have a good argument or evidence against me on whatever point, but because it's better that you be over-confident.  I have assumed that you have already been as skeptical as you can get about your own position before assenting to it, maybe that was a bad assumption on my part.  I guess I had wondered about this before you stated it, with the inclusion of such arguments like the recent, 'the media had foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse' which I register as a whopping zero on the evidence scale, and it makes me wonder why on earth you would find something like that convincing of anything with how very little it is based on.  And you do realize that your use of over-stated hyperbole like 'non-existent risk' and 'beyond reality' goes against your arguments like the firefighters' statements where they've possibly used over-stated hyperbole like 'adamant' and 'certain' concerning the WTC7 collapse; thanks for conceding that people don't always use words to mean the exact literal definition you'd like them to for the sake of your arguments.

Having doubts about the evidence for the demolition does not necessarily lead to confidence in the official story; there's a huge gulf of "we don't know" conclusions that I've been trying to convince you of.  One of these possible "I don't know" positions includes, 'WTC may have been demolished, but we don't have nearly enough evidence at this point to conclude that"; that's not a 'confidence in the official story' position.

Quote


I’m sure I have already addressed in numerous ways and added to it in each post the reason we have ‘only' thousands of engineers and scientists who oppose the official story.  The explanations provided are lack of interest and/or critical thinking and/or a will to challenge authority, internal doubt and/or bias and/or political/patriotic pressuse, fear of the consequences and/or lack of benefit and/or scale of the fight.  How many explanations do we need?
You haven't explained the non-zero number of experts who are purposely lying and what their motivation is.   You haven't explained those who do have the interest/critical thinking/will, do not fear the consequences, and do not agree with you.  I've explained already the benefit to you of a critical mass of experts coming forward with the obvious truth, which makes me wonder how familiar you are with American culture and how ingrained the allure of money and fame is in it, let alone that occasionally we even encounter some people with principles and courage.  We've been talking about this point for a while, I'll let you let have the last word if you'd like, I'm satisfied by the inability to provide a precedent in the US for what you are suggesting here.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#171    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:19 AM

The most patient man in the world.  My hat is off to you LG.  Truly.  :tu:


#172    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM

View PostQ24, on 24 August 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:


The point, and I think you miss this continually, is that the firefighter level of concern and actions altered at each step after external advice – the firefighters did not abandon WTC7 of their own accord but because that is what they were influenced to do.

What you also fail to acknowledge, continually, is that time is also passing during which the building is continuing to burn and make apparently totally unalarming creaking noises and leaning.  You want to pretend that there is no reason anything else would influence any decisions, which is absurd given what had just happened.  

Even if I set aside the obvious, that these firefighters might just have some reason to fear WTC7 will collapse, at it's highest level our disagreement comes down to these two options:

1) The advisors were part of the demolition plot and were apparently covertly coordinating with whoever triggered the demolitions so they could so 'accurately' predict when WTC7 would fall.
2) The advisors, with or without a conclusive reason to think that the building would collapse from an engineering/scientific standpoint, which is understandable since they have so little data, made a guess on the perhaps over-conservative side (remember those lives) that the building would collapse in a few hours.

Both of these scenarios adequately explain all conversations that happen between firefighters from this point on; the influence has been passed on whether the foundation of it was sound or not.  Now, on it's own, without reference to any other evidence for demolition, explain why 1 is more likely than 2.  If it's just how unlikely you find the ability to guess within 2 hours when 7 will collapse, we've already covered that.  If you'd like to provide some evidence that WTC7 was the control center of the plot or whatever you suggested a while ago, which necessitated it's destruction, now would probably be a good time to hear about it.

Quote


We have evidence the advisor(s) influenced the FDNY to believe WTC7 would collapse.  We have no evidence the FDNY made independent judgement the building would collapse.  I’m accepting the limit of what’s there on record.

I haven't brought this up, but you are also ignoring how much is not on record.  What percentage of the overall communication do you think you have between all these people, less than 1%?  Again, you don't have evidence that they made a 100% dependent judgment either, unless you want to ignore the quotes from the chiefs that skyeagle provided.  

Quote


Hayden was influenced to suspect a collapse even prior to his discussion with the “on the money” advisor.  

And not at all by two other buildings coming down murdering hundreds of his coworkers. Right.

Quote


So why do we have another advisor on scene (or was it the same advisor as for WTC7?  Anonymous, once again), confidently predicting the tower collapses and seeking to influence the FDNY beforehand?  And why didn't the official investigation seek out these clairvoyants?

Contrast the following two statements from above, and you see why I’m asking questions: -

  • “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center … came as the greatest surprise…”
  • “Some engineer type person … very confident … the building is in danger of imminent collapse.”


Alright, you've been arguing based on literalness, so let's go with it.  Let's be absolutely clear that they were NOT 'very confident' the building was in danger of imminent collapse; I'm assuming you are using the ellipses just to shorten the quotes for identification purposes and are not purposely squashing together two separate clauses in that statement to have it say something else.  "In danger" means 'at risk', there are far more confident ways of expressing this 'foreknowledge'.  Only one engineer is noted, yet it was 'they' who thought it may collapse imminently, not just this one engineer.  Sounds like some firefighters may have had some say, unless you have evidence that they didn't and you know who this conversation group was composed of.

Quote


So to clarify, this is the twin tower situation: -
  • Not one of the FDNY personnel expected collapse.
  • All of the responders displayed some surprise at the information.
  • The information was not their own deduction but was passed up the chain of command.
  • This foreknowledge of collapse was not based on firefighter observation.
  • The foreknowledge originated from an anonymous advisor.
If it happened this way for the towers, then why not again for WTC7?  Except this time of course, the FDNY took the advisor(s) warning more seriously.

The FDNY didn't need to take the advisor more seriously, because by that time they had reason to fear on their own that the north tower and eventually WTC7 would collapse also, as the first tower had already collapsed.  We've switched from WTC7, but the unknown engineer was referring to the North Tower's danger of collapse in the quote above, yet the South Tower came down first.  So he forgot to mention that the South Tower was more imminent? 'Maybe' he did that on purpose because he's one of the rare non-dolts and didn't want it to be too obvious?

Quote


I think the pre-emptive media reports are further evidence of the rising foreknowledge on scene shortly before the building went down – so confident that it misled reporters to believe the event had already occurred.  

I think the media reports argument is utter crap honestly.  I find it absurd to think with the vast majority of media outlets worldwide covering this that mistakes aren't going to be made; you really don't need precedent provided for the media's misreporting do you?  Even if this is picked up from the fear on the scene, I again find the fear of collapse being communicated by these advisors to be far more likely than the fact that they knew because it was demolished.

Quote

  • “pretty much right on the money”
  • “pretty sure”
  • “on verge of collapse”
  • “imminent”
  • adamant about 7 coming down”
  • “7 was definitely going to collapse”
  • “it’ll be coming down soon"
  • “building is about to blow up”
What other word do I need to find to demonstrate ‘confident foreknowledge’?

Depending on what you mean by 'foreknowledge', I may withdraw part of this, I may have been sloppy.  I think the firefighters were pretty confident that WTC7 was going to collapse, but I guess I don't term that 'foreknowledge' in that it doesn't give the same level of confidence as knowing it's going to collapse because you're going to detonate it.  Regardless, it's the advisors' 'foreknowledge' I object most to, not necessarily the firefighters depending on your translation of 'foreknowledge'.

Quote


The firefighters did not have all of the data – along with the advisor(s) warnings, that is why a concern of collapse existed.  Why do you think firefighters had the data to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's a [insert “adamant”/”imminent”/”definite”] collapse coming?

Again I'm sure you know about how verbal messages are altered with retelling.  They should use those words, they feared it would come down, the data they had that you hardly acknowledge in this decision-making analysis of these people is that buildings had already collapsed.

Quote

No, the urgency increased significantly drawing nearer to the collapse time – the appearance is that some on scene knew the collapse was due.  

Maybe they 'knew' it because they assign more importance to the building condition changing, despite your statements to the contrary, by an afternoon of fires and creaking and leaning.  Remember, creaking doesn't even have to be valid evidence of structural deformation, although it is; it only needs to lead the firefighters to believe that it is. And thus they have data, invalid or not, on which to 'know' (more accurately, 'highly suspect') that the building would collapse.

Quote


You say, of course there’s going to be urgency?  Though many firefighters displayed the opposite upon receipt of the warning:  oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?  And an increasing urgency that reaches its crescendo shortly before the collapse?  This isn’t making sense in context of an unpredictable event, it’s making sense in context of a pre-planned event.
It makes more sense if you took into account the bleeding obvious that two buildings had already come down from apparently fire and damage.  Yes, of course, different people are going to have different opinions at different times on whether they think the building is going to collapse, that's undisputed. Of course the urgency is going to increase the longer it sits there and burns, they just saw the same thing happen with the towers!

Quote


Yes some firefighters clearly knew there was a plan in the works.  This has already been confirmed through the news article which described Silverstein seeking authorisation for demolition of WTC7 on the morning:  "Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."


A plan to demolish the building at some unspecified future data because if it stood, it would be too damaged to repair?  Or a plan to demolish it that day?

Quote


I am suggesting that some firefighters had reason to believe the building was going to be demolished.  It seems that way (we’re gonna have to bring it down”/There's a building, about to blow up”) doesn’t it?


Demolished when?  'We're going to have to bring it down' sounds like the firefighters were either involved in demolishing it or knew that it would have to be demolished at some future time after the fires burned out; "about to blow up" implies that they thought it was going to get demolished soon, like if the terrorists had also planted demolitions there or something.  Are you arguing that they were saying it's about to blow up because they had some indication it was going to be demolished very soon?  When was there time to set up this demolition?  I must be overlooking something in your theory of what exactly is going on here, I don't get it.

Quote


This plan and foreknowledge also frame Silverstein’s “pull it” comment in a whole new light.  I’ve been avoiding that topic – it’s been gone over a thousand times - though to me the language used, logic and surrounding circumstances indicate that “it” refers to the building.

You seem a little selective about when 'the language used' is critical or not.  I'm kinda glad we've been avoiding this topic, I don't find the 'pull it' argument much better than the 'media foreknowledge' argument.  So Silverstein screwed up and mentioned that it had already been wired for detonation?  You aren't suggesting that they set up the demolition after it had already been damaged are you?

Quote


You see I don’t think the powers that be were intent on selling the official WTC7 story as we now know it, not from the beginning.  As discussed, the demolition, the way it went, was ‘Plan B’ – it would seem better for them had WTC7 come down at the same time as the north tower.  I think the plan was to remain tight-lipped and see how the situation panned out with the media, emergency departments on scene and public – this is why there was no ‘official story’ for so long.  When it became clear the demolition could be hidden under guise of a fire based collapse, that is what the powers that be went with – there were less questions to answer that way, not to mention limiting further suspicion of the tower demolitions.  But then Silverstein became too publicly candid of his experience.  That does make me wonder how close Silverstein was to the operation planners – though I’ve said before he was more a pawn to smooth the aftermath.


I think the whole plot is a little bizarre.  

1)  Destroying WTC7 increases the risk for very little benefit.  Unless you have evidence of the control center being located there.
2)  The intent was to demolish WTC7 at the same time as the tower collapse so it can be concealed in the dust, otherwise they take the risk of WTC7 not sustaining damage and thereby have either no explanation of why it does fall down later when they demolish it or run the risk of the demolition setup is discovered if they don't demolish it.  WTC7 is damaged but it screws up the demolition placement and the demolition does not happen; they apparently hadn't thought of this possibility or thought it would be worth the risk of demolitions being exposed to building occupants/firefighters.  Oh yea, I can't use this though because thermite technology has progressed in unknown ways since the 1930s so that no one would notice the demolitions even if spotted and that they wouldn't ignite from fire and damage.
3) Someone goes into the building in the afternoon and fixes whatever the demolition problem was and exits.  Apparently our advisors also knew pretty much exactly how long this would take to do so that he can make a miraculous 5 hour pretty much on the money prediction.
4) Silverstein discusses with his insurance company the need for demolition.  CTs think this means imminent demolition I think, instead of at a future date because the building is a total loss as-is.  This is just a normal, understandable conversation if it's in the future, or we have yet another dolt the dossier check failed to detect if it's tipping off that there are demolitions already in the buildling.
5) Silverstein discusses pulling it with the FDNY.  This could mean to pull the firefighters.  Apparently they literally pulled WTC6 down with cables to demolish it, so it could mean that also.  Or yes, it could mean that the firefighters were in on the plot and knew demolitions were planted?  

Again not sure your full theory here, but it seems based on all 'could be's.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#173    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:51 AM

Quote

Here’s another piece of information I’ve not mentioned on this thread yet: -
"I do know that that [WTC7] wall I remember was in danger, and I think that they made that decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."

~John Kerry, 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate

Wherever did Kerry get that idea?
Huh? I'm really confused, maybe it's just getting late, define straight-out please what you think the significance of this is. Democrat John Kerry is not in on the neocon plot nor has any knowledge that there was a plot. If he's just saying that he thinks that they actually installed demolitions in WTC7 before 5 o'clock but after the attacks (is that possible?), how did this not get picked up in any interviews, and more importantly, why conceal it? The only thing that needs concealing is if there were demolitions in the building already before the attack; no one would be surprised, except possibly CTs, if the story was that they purposely put demolitions into the building to control the demolition so they could access the tower's debris more readily and safely. Why hide this? I must be missing something obvious.

Quote

I really think there are more people who know about the WTC7 demolition than any other covered-up area on 9/11 but, either through subversion of the official story or political pressures, are not letting on. It’s a strange one, WTC7, whereby there is potential for a demolition which is not necessarily nefarious but fits with the rest of the official 9/11 story (much like a Flight 93 shootdown). And I have heard from official story adherents who do accept both the WTC7 demolition and Flight 93 shootdown. Though official acceptance of these alternatives would now open a can of worms and stoke conspiracy fires ever higher…

If the public can be so readily deceived in those areas, what else of the official story might not be the whole truth?
Okay, maybe that clears it up a bit, a non-nefarious demolition possibility. I see no reason to hide this demolition then, and can think of convincing justification for the demolition itself, although am not sure if that quick of a demo setup is feasible. I believe all the firefighters made it out, but one person may have been killed in WTC7? Not wanting to announce that you had to kill Flight 93's passengers is a lot more understandable from a concealment standpoint than the fact that you had to demolish a building, especially since they demolished other buildings after the attacks from damage anyway like WTC6.

I'm really confused on the overall theory on this point, but maybe you're throwing multiple at me simultaneously. Demolitions must have been placed in the towers prior to the attack. It sure seems like you've been arguing that this was also done in WTC7, thus the discussion of the demolitions maybe being dislodged which is why they didn't demolish it during the collapse; I don't know why you didn't just say that they may have put the demolitions in after the attack, as any demolitions in the building prior to the attack are necessarily nefarious. If you're just offering other possibilities, that's great, it's one I haven't thought of, although again I'm not sure on the feasibility of it.
Newton's third law still awaits me, I'll get back to you after I've looked through that thread, thanks to you and boony and swan for the links and the prelude.


Does anyone know what I'm screwing up with my formatting where I get those extra lines when I quote others? Maybe it's because I put the quote and /quote tags on separate lines around the text I'm quoting?

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#174    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:16 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 27 August 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

The most patient man in the world.  My hat is off to you LG.  Truly.  :tu:
Thanks boony, I think 'overly verbose' might be more accurate; just had my first 'cannot post reply because you have exceeded the max number of quote tags' error when I tried to post.  Q and I are pretty close to the 'agree to disagree' point on some of these points I think, so hopefully I can get my replies down to an acceptable length soon.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#175    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:24 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Thanks boony, I think 'overly verbose' might be more accurate; just had my first 'cannot post reply because you have exceeded the max number of quote tags' error when I tried to post.  Q and I are pretty close to the 'agree to disagree' point on some of these points I think, so hopefully I can get my replies down to an acceptable length soon.
Get ready for the side stepping, avoidance, and twisting that is sure to come.  Q24 knows there was a conspiracy and nothing will ever change that.  Anything you cite will be twisted into that conspiracy because, quite honestly, he's ****g brilliant at that.  Seriously, he's one of the smartest people on this forum, without question, and he can spin just about anything into the appearance of supporting his point of view.

I can't wait to see what he comes up with in response to this latest couple of posts from you.

pssst...  make note of anything he avoids...  It took me a while to pick up on that aspect because he does it so incredibly well...

And by the way, 'overly verbose' may be accurate, but it is also understandable.  Fight fire with fire as they say...

Don't stop.  My pom-poms are just getting warmed up.  :)


#176    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:25 PM

Pompoms is about all you have Boo :innocent:


#177    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:25 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 August 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in mind that this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue. If somebody says we don't want the Israelis implicated in this - we know that they've been spying the hell out of us, we know that they possibly had information in advance of the attacks, but this would be a political nightmare to deal with."

This suggests: -
  • the investigation was never completed.
  • there was no lack of law enforcement options or intelligence leads.
  • the Israel’s possibly did have connection to the attack.
I suppose that is true for some values of the word 'suggests'.  I see one phrase that you are getting these suggestions from, 'cover-up'.  'Cover-up' of what though:  cover-up of evidence that they were involved in a demolition of WTC or cover-up of evidence that they had specific knowledge of the attacks?  Let's ask Vince:

"The fear of some of the FBI investigators in this particular case was that this group had some advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11. And once they understood that there was an Israeli connection--an Is-raeli intelligence connection--they became very disturbed, because the implica-tion was that the Israelis may have had some advanced knowledge of the events of 9/11 and hadn't told us."

Nothing in there about a demolition or that they covered up evidence of the Israelis' participation.  We could definitely investigate this further from the angle that these Israelis knew specifically when and where the attack would happen but didn't tell us; that would outrage Americans I'd think and I can see why they'd want to hide it, but it again doesn't have anything to do with the participation of these agents in a demolition.

Quote

The official story does not decide what is or is not evidence – the reality determines that.  Why should it be that when Moussaoui is detained… that is oh so relevant?  But when Israeli and Saudi agents are detained in relation to the same event… that is near auto-irrelevant?  That is the foundation of propaganda, not truth.


I'm not arguing that the 'official story' decides what is or isn't evidence, I'm arguing about the implications of 'maybe' to our respective positions.  You have confusing reports about the possibility of explosives with our agents.  You have nothing to connect these supposed explosives to as far as determining that this was the type of demolition material used at WTC because you don't have any evidence of demolition there, whether that's a result of the debris being quickly removed to China or wherever or alternatively that it's a result of WTC not being demolished at all.  That's why I say 'maybe' they were involved in the demolition of WTC, and maybe not.  It is an issue for your argument that there was a demolition; you are trying to use these Israelis as evidence that there was a demolition.  The official story has the advantage here, since 'maybe' essentially means we don't know, and the neutral position that 'we don't know if these agents had anything to do with a demolition of WTC because there is not enough evidence' fits fine with the official story as it doesn't make an argument depending on these agents, but 'maybe' does remove it as evidence of a demolition because of the standard you have set, which is close to blatancy.  Saying something is 'blatant' based on things that 'maybe' happened doesn't really work.

Quote

What would you do if an investigation were done, and evidence placing these men in the towers or connecting them to Turner Construction were found?  Perhaps even revealing the fact the front company were used to deliver thermite and explosive materials?  Wouldn’t you feel awkward in defending them now?

You see who of us is taking the risky position?

Turner Construction was brought up so that you could show how the demolition could be done covertly.  I don't know if anything I've said has altered your position at all, but I can say that since I started here I've changed my estimate of how many people may be required to set this up and the access they may have been able to obtain, this whole thing maybe could have been pulled off with less than hundreds of people.  But again, we are done with 'could' and 'may', we could shoot the breeze forever going over 'maybe' arguments and evidence.

There are any number of 'could's and 'what if's that would make either of us feel awkward on any number of things.  Again, it seems more apparent that you are approaching this from a more political or propagandish angle than I am.  I'm trying to go over the evidence for the demolition and analyze it with you skeptically and purely rationally to see where we agree as to what that evidence leads to as far as conclusions.  We are talking here in a tiny corner of the internet where nothing of any risk is in play.  Given that, no, I don't think you should take positions based on what is less risky; I think you should take positions based on what the evidence and reasoning alone suggests is true.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#178    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:36 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 August 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Pompoms is about all you have Boo :innocent:
Yeah, I've never brought any significant discussion to the table.

Never supported my position with evidence, analyses, or anything of the kind.  If only I could be more like you BR.  :rolleyes:


#179    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Fudge

  • Member
  • 6,682 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 August 2012 - 08:47 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 August 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Pompoms is about all you have Boo :innocent:

Says the guy who has brought NOTHING to any discussion he has taken part in EVER. I'd almost pity you if i didn't think you were here just to troll and make yourself look like a joke.

It still seems you have failed to answer anybodies questions yet, still running and dodging i see, yeesh you should of been training for the olympics you could of been actually good at something. That's ok though you have provided us daily with comical posts keep it up! I always look forward to the BS that comes out of BR's mouth :) why i even think I'll change my signature :D

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people and so long as men die liberty will never perish... Soldiers don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder... Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts.  You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts.

#180    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:27 PM

Sometimes that's because the questions asked are silly.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users