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

#766    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:37 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Regarding precedent, has government set a precedent regarding mendacity and deception, or am I just getting too damn old?

Yes they have.  They've also set a precedent for telling the truth; does that likewise make some particular argument for the official 9/11 story for example more believable or evidenced?  Why does whatever 'value' you are trying to get out of precedent work just one way?

"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

#767    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,294 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Yes they have.  They've also set a precedent for telling the truth; does that likewise make some particular argument for the official 9/11 story for example more believable or evidenced? Why does whatever 'value' you are trying to get out of precedent work just one way?

Because otherwise, he looks like a willfully ignorant, biased, lying fool who believes whatever fits with his predetermined conclusio... oh... uhm.. waitiasec... :unsure2:


Nevermind... :whistle:






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#768    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 28 November 2012 - 01:24 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 November 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

To intimidate Congress (and the public too) into passing the previously denied USA Patriot Act.

The tactic worked, as Congress 'in absentia' as it were, passed the bill at 0300 without having read it.
that does sound plausible,
but how can one explain the anthrax attacks taking into account the fact that mainstream journalists from the large media outlets were the target of the attacks? is there any plausible explanation which fits into the official narrative?


#769    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,612 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:54 PM

It seems a good way to get it into the media's view would be to also knock off a few of them, no?  It is the PUBLIC perception that is manipulated, and in this case the intransigence of Congress also had to be modified.


#770    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,288 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:57 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 November 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

It seems a good way to get it into the media's view would be to also knock off a few of them, no?  It is the PUBLIC perception that is manipulated, and in this case the intransigence of Congress also had to be modified.

Where's your evidence?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#771    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,612 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:03 PM

You are unable to see it Sky.  If you had been paying attention to details 10 years ago, you might have perceived it, but you were not.


#772    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,288 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 November 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

You are unable to see it Sky.  If you had been paying attention to details 10 years ago, you might have perceived it, but you were not.

Post the evidence for all to see.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#773    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 28 November 2012 - 11:08 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Where's your evidence?
do you need evidence for something that is self evident? do you need evidence that 1+1=2 ?

can you explain the anthrax attacks?

the targets were mainstream journalists.

what motivation would there be to attack, threaten and terrorize journalists just after the events of 911?

no offense, but I'm curious if you can offer more than just repeating chunks from wiki and 911 "debunking" sites.


#774    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:15 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 27 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

In your own mind, perhaps.  

I've been really enjoying LG's series of posts showing how you rely far more on confirmation bias than anything else.

Resort to insult indicates lack of confidence in your argument.

1.    My argument is based upon existing facts/knowledge/precedent provided by others, most often experts in the field, firsthand witnesses, real-world occurrence, etc.  I only bring the most relevant evidence to the surface and piece together in a coherent way.  I have never ‘discovered’ or ‘created’ anything myself.  That I do not have detailed ‘engineering knowledge’ does not matter because those with the expertise (not only engineers, but all manner of scientists and professionalisms) have already provided all necessary.


2.    Careful reading of our posts shows that you and LG do not understand ‘confirmation bias’ and apply it incorrectly.  The term describes a predisposed/illogical leaning to a particular answer.  In contrast, I am able to explain the evidence and logic of why I propose a particular answer above others.  That is not ‘confirmation bias’ but accurately described as ‘reason’.  As demonstrated in my last post to LG which he has not yet responded to, it is rather that some people suffer from ‘denial’ of basic facts.


3.    I thought we knew each others’ views well enough by now that you wouldn’t take me referring to some engineers, including yourself, as “fools”, to be an insult.  You focus on that and miss the point: it doesn’t matter whether anyone has ‘engineering knowledge’ (people on both sides of the argument do and don’t), it doesn’t make a difference to our opinions.  It’s actually amusing that whilst you deride me for perceived ‘confirmation bias’ and a lack of ‘engineering knowledge’, you take no heed of AE911T.  I’m sure you miss the all round double-standard in that.



View Postflyingswan, on 27 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

That's really typical of your technique.  Criticise me for not providing a high-rise precedent while you compare the Murrah building to a three-storey structure at Eglin.

What has any of this to do with ‘my technique’?  I’m stating facts, as noted above, from the experts.  USAF explosives experts found their model to be a good comparison to the Murrah building.  The ASCE endorsed a book authored by a professional engineer who noted the Murrah building and WTC7 to be the largest/most catastrophic examples of progressive collapse.  NIST note the best precedent to the WTC7 situation in other steel-framed, high-rise building structures did not induce any collapse, nevermind of the ‘progressive’ variety.  I’m sorry that you are in denial of all this.


View Postflyingswan, on 27 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Progressive collapse occurs in many different types of structures, high and low, steel, concrete and masonry, so only an engineering ignoramus would think that steel-framed high-rises were somehow immune to the phenomenon.

You are just making a statement and not providing any logic, reason or example to back it up, not that I’m surprised when clearly we are dealing with your preferred belief and not fact.  It’s funny how you talk about ‘progressive collapse’ of steel-framed, high rise buildings now; like it’s par for the course (nevermind the lack of any fitting precedent).  Because if you remember, before the final NIST report on WTC7 (that is, before officialdom told you what to think/parrot), you never mentioned ‘progressive collapse’ in the way it is now proposed.  No, back then your theory was about debris which had to 'bounce' to reach and damage surrounding columns.  Now listen to you.  *Sqwuakkk*... Progressive collapse occurs... Polly want a cracker?  I think that explains everything about from where your unsupported statement comes.  Even were your opinion founded, which it is not, an East to West progression of failures cannot produce a symmetrical, freefall collapse of entire structures... there is plenty of precedent that demolition can.

Edited by Q24, 29 November 2012 - 12:37 AM.

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.

#775    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:20 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Yes they have.  They've also set a precedent for telling the truth; does that likewise make some particular argument for the official 9/11 story for example more believable or evidenced?  Why does whatever 'value' you are trying to get out of precedent work just one way?

When has any group told the truth about false flag/covert operations?  That would defeat the point.  Plus that we do have on record lies and cover-ups surrounding 9/11.  I guess Obama did come clean on U.S. involvement in the Iranian coup d’etat... 56 years after it’s happening... maybe that’s the precedent of truthfulness we should rely upon for this issue.

Anyhow, whilst I wait for you to accept a couple of obvious facts, put some probability on events I’ve set out and look into CIA assistance to Al Qaeda terrorists, to further what I have been saying about precedent to WTC7, today I came across a recent letter from Ferdinando Imposimato, President of the Supreme Court of Italy, which states: -  

“World Trade Center 7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against the twin towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.  All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.”


http://www.journalof...mato-letter.pdf


So not only do NIST support that the best available precedent to WTC7 are non-collapse examples, but also head of the Italian judiciary.  Now, why are you trying to say this is not the case again??  Why are you denying facts??  Accept that the best available precedent supports a method separate to fire-induced collapse and then we can talk about differences in the examples.

Edited by Q24, 29 November 2012 - 12:21 AM.

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.

#776    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,288 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:30 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 28 November 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

do you need evidence for something that is self evident? do you need evidence that 1+1=2 ?

If there is evidence, then you shouldn't have a problem posting that evidence for all to see.

Quote

can you explain the anthrax attacks? the targets were mainstream journalists.

what motivation would there be to attack, threaten and terrorize journalists just after the events of 911?

no offense, but I'm curious if you can offer more than just repeating chunks from wiki and 911 "debunking" sites.

A person with intent to commit harm on innocent people is all it takes, whether with a gun, knife or even chemicals. Do you remember the sarin gas attack in Tokyo, Japan?

As I have said before, knowledge allows a person to know with to "hold 'em, and when to throw 'em." Knowing when to use references makes it very convenient for me and I can relate to those references from many years experience.

I have over 40 years living in the world of aviation as a pilot and airframe technician and additionally, I have many years experience in positions as airframe supervisor and inspector for the Air Force and major defense contractors and I have designed and developed components used in Air Force aircraft. I have designed equipment and special tools in use by aviation mechanics and Raytheon Aerospace and the U.S. Air Force relied on me to develop an inlet technical manual for the TF-39C jet engine, which is used to power the Air Force's C-5 Transport and is now in use by the U.S. Air Force.

I have seen 9/11 conspiracy websites push through disinformation, misinformation and outright lies and know from experience they do not reflect reality in the real world of aviation. Amazingly, there are those who have allowed themselves to be duped because they do not know better.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#777    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:32 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 28 November 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

can you explain the anthrax attacks?

Bin Laden dunnit.  Bush and Cheney said so.

http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.312733

:rolleyes:

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.

#778    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,288 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:33 AM

View PostQ24, on 29 November 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:


“World Trade Center 7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against the twin towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.  All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.”


http://www.journalof...mato-letter.pdf



In regards to WTC7, it suffered from massive impact damage as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#779    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,288 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:36 AM

View PostQ24, on 29 November 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Bin Laden dunnit.  Bush and Cheney said so.

http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.312733

:rolleyes:

All it took was one person to do what was done.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 November 2012 - 01:26 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#780    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:38 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”.

It is an incredible coincidence.  And as you well know, or at least should, incredible coincidences happen all the time.  I can't estimate the probability of this occurring, neither can you.  I know that if this was occurring at any number of buildings, it would count as a 'hit' to you.  Estimate for me the number of events that are occurring within the time frame from which you are drawing all your coincidences so we can actually see how 'incredible' the existence of all these coincidences are; if you have enough events occurring, seemingly incredible coincidences move from 'incredible' to 'probable'.

But thanks regardless for a new point to discuss, I've never heard about this.  Is there more detail available on what the timeline is and how far they got into this exercise?  You say, "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", but your link to the article says "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."; the real world events were well under way by 9:30, and the timeline in the document seems to indicate that the exercise was scheduled to get under way right around when the second tower was hit.  

I have multiple questions, both on the details of the exercise and others that to some extent need to be answered prior to saying this coincidence potentially has some significance.  I don't know who all the acronyms referenced in the exercise detail document are referring to, but am I correct that this exercise only involved the people at NRO and it's purpose is to evaluate response at that building to an emergency?  Any number of possible scenarios could have sufficed for this purpose correct, perhaps just a bomb or something?  I understand that NRO is responsible for aerial surveillance and spy satellites, but neither of those functions were really involved in the exercise at all, the plane crash was a surprise in this exercise.  I'm asking mainly for background but also to understand the significance of the line above you singled out, where the time they had in their fictional exercise matches the time Flight 77 was overhead.

So if I were to guess how this fits in, I'd assume that this is an indication of the plotters specifically setting up an exercise at the exact same time as Flight 77 in order to cause confusion or keep 77 from being monitored or intercepted?  Even if I'm on the right path there and especially if I'm not, can you provide a little more detail on what this actually is indicative of and what it's specific intent was, and why the plotters thought it would accomplish anything in the first place?  I really don't know much about NRO's role on 9/11, and have only read the wiki article on them.  Did this exercise interrupt or delay them in being able to do something on 9/11?  Do we know how far in advance this exercise was scheduled?  If they are able to call the time 77 was flying overhead so accurately, why were they then so obviously off on the WTC impacts?  They must have known that any exercise would be stopped as soon as that occurred.  I'm not trying to come across as saying answer all these questions or this point is empty, I honestly only know what is in those two links you provided and I don't think that your point is based solely on what is contained in those documents?

Quote

– though apparently now only a picture is good enough for you, like it’s so unbelievable you cannot visualise such a device, ha.

I can visualize a lot.  I can visualize a plane hitting a building, knocking off the fireproofing from the steel, a large fire burning weakening the steel, the building collapsing at the impact point, and the bottom portion of the building being unable to withstand the weight of the collapsing upper section resulting in the complete collapse of the building.  You apparently can't, partly because of your particular, specific interpretation of studies that were done, from which you pick what agrees and then handwave away things that don't as being corrupted or biased or fitting a preconceived conclusion, without a lick of evidence that it actually is biased.  So I ask that you give me something, anything, by which to do my own Q24-type analysis and you scoff.  I guess I'm not even sure at this point if you for sure think that these double standards are a problem given how many times the utterly irrelevant, 'the official story supported a war', line comes up and given the rather unique way you are trying to support a 'certain' conclusion from a whole bunch of disparate speculative points, none of which are what you would call 'killer evidence'.

Quote

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

Pretty.  I must have missed the remote control electronics and black box shielding, so I guess the precedent is worthless (for reference, see:  your demanding standards for what you will count as building fire collapse precedents, spare me your drawings of piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job).

Quote

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.

Huh?  Where did you show that 'sometimes they do survive' after being knocked off the column, where is 'therefore' coming from?  What's the matter, you can't visualize the thermite charge being knocked off without the column being damaged or severed?  I can. Do you know why I can?  Because you have no evidence with which to dispute it.  Because we are discussing a device whose only bounds are what 'could be'.  Which kinda makes the particular conversation pointless, like the argument derived from it.  I just saw also in your link to your 'drawings' that thermite typically burns at 4000C and sometimes hotter.  The molten metal, which I thought you said was largely aluminum, is seen to not be glowing at the bottom of the flow out the window, it's silver.  Is it reasonable to think that it is cooling that rapidly?  That's a question for anyone who knows, not just you Q, just curious, I have no idea.

Quote

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.

'Disproven', 'doesn't work in the first place', on what expertise of yours is this based again?  You've been arguing via quotation for months now, so hear you go since that is so convincing:

"Why is all this important? Because if there was an uninterruptible power supply on the 80th or 81st floor, in the northeast corner, the impact of the aircraft and the collapse of the floors above, with their conducting metal parts, would have caused countless short-circuits of the batteries, providing currents of tens of thousands of amps (as calculated in this article), which can produce unimaginable thermal effects."

By an Italian, who if anything we would expect to come to the opposite conclusion if he was biased in some way, given how supportive Italy was of the War on Terror.  If you require to be hand-held through the possible explanations and demand probabilities in order to find this evidence to have any value, then how is your jeering when I note you don't even have a drawing of your thermite device, let alone evidence, at all consistent with this standard?

Quote

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.”

So 'yes' it is, the NIST showed that the building fires can reach 1000C, I guess our flow being a result of the aluminum from the airplane mixed with other floor stuff is looking more probable all the time.  What, you're not going to protest that I'm snipping out the rest that might qualify how far it is reasonable to take that fact, are you, when you don't seem to have a problem with it?  (for reference, see for example:  noting that NIST named the closest precedents to WTC7 which didn't happen to collapse from fire but omit that they at the same time explained that the precedent is pretty much worthless anyway due to the differing construction of the buildings)

Quote

The unlikelihood of point 1 is common sense/life experience.  

Ha!  Maybe you missed that conversation, but let's just say that the precedent for either of those being valid evidence points on UM is not in your favor.

Quote

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.  
Yes, a perfect analog for the conditions of the building near the flow, throwing metal at batteries, you got me, man.

Quote

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.

Only because of the amount of spin you put into your posts.  The flow is possibly sporadic because, amazing coincidence, this is all happening shortly before collapse, exactly the time we would expect components of the building structure to possibly shift and fall and such.  We have already been over lots of stuff, I guess I must have forgotten your devastating argument why thermite is the best match.  I doubt it was ever made, since the alternatives have the distinct advantage of working with components that were actually known to be there, you have a very selective way of determining 'best'.

"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