900 replies to this topic

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 05 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

If we go by the FDR sir, the evidence shows the data was completely manipulated or fabricated.  Good heavens, the unit was unassigned.  That data does not support the OCT, it contradicts it.

As stated in my post from the "other" 9/11 thread.  Warren Stutts analyzed the FDR data on several legitimate flights and also showed zeros for the unit assignment.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 06 December 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

As stated in my post from the "other" 9/11 thread.  Warren Stutts analyzed the FDR data on several legitimate flights and also showed zeros for the unit assignment.

So Raptor, let's use this hypothetical, if you're willing to go along.

2 Airbus 320 aircraft have a midair collision, and both fall to the ground together.

When investigators retrieve the various black boxes, they discover that both are unassigned, as you claim Stutt has discovered in his own investigation.

How do the investigators determine which box belongs to which aircraft?

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 29 November 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

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.”

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.

You specifically called this post out in your latest post to me as something I should respond to, but I'm not sure why.  Do judges in Italy receive engineering training that I don't know about?  Why should anyone care about his non-expert opinion concerning building collapses?  You seem to have no issue referring to people with actual expertise in these matters as fools and/or criminals, and you offer up the opinion of a judge for chrisakes?  Let's put away the pruning shears for a second and correctly and fully represent NIST's position:  NIST mentioned other buildings that did not collapse as the best available precedents and simultaneously said that these precedents are not meaningful 'precedents' at all because of differences in building structures.  If you're just going to provide the laugher, 'sometimes NIST is right and sometimes they're wrong', then I guess we can't trust any of their conclusions, yet every opportunity you get you mention that they found some point 'X' when you construe it as supporting your theory, almost as if their expertise should carry some weight.  This quote from a judge is not making the point you want it to for very valid reasons entirely consistent with how you treat the opposition, and unfortunately is just supporting the suggestion that you will offer up anything at all you can get your hands on no matter how weak or vacuous it is.  And despite saying that you have already thoroughly critiqued all your points before stating them.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 29 November 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

This denial of yours is startling, though very interesting to watch. You first accept that we have an “incredible coincidence” and then immediately set out to convince yourself otherwise – these things, “happen all the time” and perhaps, you say, are even “probable” – it’s a contradiction of the very definition and your initial acceptance. How can we have a fair discussion when you apparently have a preference to say that black is white where it suits? It appears that “incredible coincidence” is just too obvious and/or disconcerting a fact for you. And you talk to me about biases. Ok, let’s try and salvage something...

You are correct that had this ‘plane impacting building’ exercise occurred at any location within timeframe of the attack it would be a ‘hit’ for me. The fact that it was a government building, just 5 minutes flight time from the Pentagon and directly below the flight path/location of the alleged Flight 77 takes the ‘hit’ to epic proportions – it really adds the “incredible” to the “coincidence” and I think you know that if you stopped trying to talk yourself out of it.

I find your response here odd for several reasons. First you are the one who should be trying to talk yourself out of it, if you have indeed critiqued all your points prior to making them as you have claimed. I specifically told you that all I knew about this was the two links you gave, and unfortunately in the 'could be' world that you selectively invoke when convenient, you apparently think this is all that needs to be provided. Do you understand that there are incredible meaningless coincidences?  Let's say that we determine that there is one person in the greater New York City area who happens to be named 'Osama bin Laden', and it is firmly established that he is no relation to the other Osama, he's a native born Irish-American Christian Republican cab driver let's say. Now let's say also that he was killed at the WTC collapse on 9/11. What are the odds that someone named Osama bin Laden would just happen to be a 9/11 casualty given this scenario? It would be an incredible coincidence. It's also utterly meaningless and has no significance at all; we rightfully, logically rack it up to the obvious that with an incredible number of events occurring it is unlikely that incredible coincidences will not occur. And how do we differentiate between potentially meaningful and meaningless coincidences? By asking the further questions I have started to that you have pre-labeled 'denial'.

Quote

There is no evidence that this type of exercise took place regularly or is commonplace across the U.S. – the government spokesperson would not describe it as an “incredible coincidence” in the first place if it was. I’m not going to imagine it happens all the time, every day, just because you’d prefer that. If you view my post #734 in response to the list of exercises that skyeagle linked, you will see that nine vaguely similar exercises took place in the preceding years up to 9/11. It amounts to perhaps 2 days solid of such exercise. As I said there - what probability the real world attack, which may have taken place at any time, happens to take place in the very same timeframe and location as one of the exercises?

I accept that we cannot place an exact probability on this occurrence and there is no right or wrong answer, but just a very rough estimate will do. If one hundred planes were hijacked and crashed into government buildings, how many do you suppose would fly over at the same time and location as a ‘plane impacting building’ exercise was scheduled to take place? Shall we be generous and say ten? Go higher if you really want. I want you to pick a number so I’m not accused of biased interpretation. I want you to determine the probability of events so you won’t need to argue it with me.

No, I don't think a very rough estimate will do, especially when provided by two non-statisticians/non-mathematicians as we are unless you are very good at concealing your expertise. I don't think you are properly phrasing the question anyway. It's not, 'what is the probability of the specific occurrence of an exercise mirroring the Pentagon attack being planned whose background fiction nails the actual time that Flight 77 flew overhead'; it's, 'what is the probability that incredible coincidences will occur that can be connected in some way to what occurred on 9/11'.  I don't see the latter as necessarily or obviously that 'incredible'. We just had two people split a half-billion dollar lottery a few weeks ago in the US, where there is a 1 in 175 million chance of any particular set of numbers coming up. What is the probability that these two specific people would win? Mind-boggling astronomically unlikely, yet no one is looking into the obvious plot to make those numbers come up nor are they suggesting something supernatural. Because the correct question to ask is, what is the likelihood of two people winning this lottery, and when you properly factor in the millions of tickets that were sold, this turns out to not be unlikely at all. In the case of 9/11, you have an event immediately involving tens of thousands of civilians and many companies and agencies and government employees and firemen and business owners and airport workers and advisors and neocons and zionists and 'people connected to the CIA' to which to draw connections over hours of 'event's occurring. Have you taken any of this into account? What's your estimate of how many possible connections you can make? Don't bother, it can't be estimated accurately.

Quote

Is the spokesperson referring to “real world events” in New York or Washington? Let’s say the exercise never got underway (though perhaps it continued right up until the Pentagon impact), does this matter?

You have got to be joking, 'perhaps it continued'. So the NRO apparently has no television nor internet access nor a freaking phone in their building? Yes yes, Q, it's entirely reasonable to think that the NRO forged on with their important exercise during the middle of the greatest terrorist attack the world has ever seen, right.  Isn't this whole point predicated on that NRO would actually be able to do something to possibly disrupt part of the 9/11 attacks?  And you want to say that they maybe could have done something but decided to forge on with the exercise while the towers burned?  Join us back in this reality, man.

Quote

1) the exercise scenario is in the system – would news of the real world attack and exercise cancellation travel so fast and to all areas involved to mitigate potential confusion? - we know that the separate NORAD hijacking exercise was still being referenced some half an hour after that simulation was cancelled; the doubt lingers.

Define 'the system'. So you're suggesting that it will occur to no one that the exercise documentation, which has the word 'EXERCISE' emblazoned across everything specifically to eliminate any confusion, has no reference of the WTC being attacked and they think that maybe there's still an exercise going on? If the functions of the NRO are so important in these types of situations that they require some confusion in the first place to facilitate the plot, it's realistic to think that every single person in the building was evacuated, and that the essential functions of the NRO didn't actually continue or weren't covered by someone else?

Quote

2) had the exercise intended to facilitate the real world attack, there is nothing to say that the planner could have known the exercise would be cancelled beforehand – it does not take away from the “incredible coincidence” it was scheduled at all. The fact is that at the time and place the exercise simulated a plane crash, the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead. It's certainly an attempted safeguard I would put in place if planning an operation.

Of course you would, because you are laboring under the fantastical notion that everyone has no spine except truthers. There is something to say that the planner should have known if the exercise would be cancelled beforehand, if this incredible coincidence was actually meaningful and actually caused some type of relevant confusion then it could tip off that the govt was involved and thus there's a risk in setting up the exercise in the first place. I know that you don't think that based either on 'could be' or your peculiar psychological analysis of people you don't know, but hey, if nothing else you've admitted you've been wrong before so maybe it's occurred again.

Quote

Again if you view my post #734 I explained how the exercise was headed by a CIA officer, so we can include that agency as well as the NRO. Also it is possible that Dulles ATC may have been involved in the exercise based on the script. Why not the FAA and NORAD also as we are dealing with an aerial threat. It appears that any number of possible scenarios could have sufficed for NRO purposes alone and had such alternatives been implemented then it would remove the ‘hit’. The fact is, it was a plane crash, close reflection of the real-world event, that was decided upon.

Oh, well, I guess if you just utter 'CIA' then all is answered; everyone knows the dark ritual they all go through where they sell their soul and are possessed by evil entities when they join the Agency. I don't know when or if you'll get that 'could have and 'it is possible' support all sides equally well, and therefore are pretty meaningless. But go ahead, keep adding air traffic controllers and whole agencies to your already enormous pool from which you are drawing your coincidences, and likewise watch the 'incredibleness' of them melt away.

Quote

You got it.

Hmmm, all my questions were snipped out of what you quoted from me for some reason, I'm sure it can't be because you haven't fully vetted this point despite your protestations to the contrary. Simple question again, do you have any evidence that this exercise actually caused any disruption at all to whatever functions, that you didn't state and I am unclear on, that the NRO should be doing or actually did during the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

In reference to the twin tower study, of course the conclusion is biased and preconceived when it does not reflect the results. I have shown that NIST’s simulation results demonstrated a damage and fire collapse initiation unlikely (at best, i.e. if possible at all), yet this was concluded the likely cause. Honestly, what do you want me to do with that? I won’t turn a blind eye and/or make excuses like you prefer.

Their conclusion does reflect the results, it just doesn't reflect the conclusion non-expert you have drawn from the results; gigantic difference. Do you know why I think they concluded it likely? Because the evidence for a controlled demolition is extremely speculative at this point, and that obviously does factor in when determining likelihoods. Scientific analysis usually doesn't include points deriving from a one-sided view of circumstantial evidence as a general rule.

Quote

You really need examples of remote control devices? God help us. You’re being awkward on purpose right? This is silly. No I don’t think I need to provide examples of remote control devices. Please stop being silly. And on what basis do you label these, “piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job”? Interesting you want to believe that randomly dispersed diffuse flame can cause the structure to weaken but not strategically placed thermite charges acting at a much higher temperature of 2,500^oC+. I guess that’s something to do with that confirmation bias again?

I agree, this, including you, are being silly. Do you know why I used the word 'piddly'? Because it's the best counterpart I could think of off the top of my head to your adjectives, 'third-world', 'thin steel', with which you wave away the inconvenient collapse precedents. What is silly is that you essentially say that the examples of collapses are not close enough to the WTC collapses to be relevant, they can be waved away. You then simultanously provide a drawing of a thermite device with no remote control components and no black box shielding and that clearly cannot do the job you are asking, like withstand a plane impact. And most bizarrely, you still don't understand how this is a double standard. As far as this thankfully-only-recent-but-still-annoying tendency of yours to attribute things to me that I did not say, like that thermite charges cannot cause the structure to weaken, I think this image sums up the issue pretty succinctly:

Quote

I have noticed that poor memory is a recurrent feature of official story adherents – it hinders in seeing the big picture, which ok, is quite vast. The best match was spelt out in my post #628. Please review and do come back when you have some photographs of batteries or fires or whatever that match the WTC2 thermite flow better than those pictures I provided.

I'll be the first to admit my memory is crappy, but I seem to remember enough however to continue to be able to highlight your 'switcheroos' even after 5 months.  I am seriously skeptical about your whole 'big picture' approach by which all this speculation becomes more evidenced;  I seriously doubt that either of us would buy that line coming from an astrologer or Sasquatchian, and I'm having trouble of coming up with an example of something commonly accepted as true that is based on that same approach.  And a little note here as you don't seem clear on it: you are not the arbiter of what is a 'best match', especially since you are very selective about the factors you will take into account when assigning the word 'best'. I'm entirely content to take the word from people with actual expertise as far as what the flow could be, all again based on what we know to be there and doesn't involve speculative thermite devices.  As opposed to your non-expert analysis a la youtube.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

I disagree that this is an error or false dilemma – so far as reality goes it was either some form of demolition or some form of impact and fire based collapse.  ‘I don’t know’ is a position, sure, but also a non-answer; not truth or fact of events.  If you are falling into that position in vital areas then the only right thing to do is support an investigation that would bring about answers.

Your statement was not about what the reality is, it was about what I must 'accept', and you gave me two choices.  And then you admit that 'I don't know' is a position.  Thus, your original statement that I must accept either/or is a false dilemma.

Quote

I must have misinterpreted where every time I have given an example of a thermite device, conceptual or working model, then you respond in such terms as, “piddly devices that clearly cannot do the job”.  Or when you act in disbelief of any and every possibility I provide for the devices despite it being based on mundane technology.  So let’s straighten this out, do you actually admit that a thermite device of some design can initiate the collapse?

Of course it can Q, I really think there's some significant confusion in our conversation if you think otherwise.  I bring up your 'piddly' devices as example of double-standards in your argumentation as I mentioned earlier.  The devices may well be based on mundane technology, so mundane it doesn't appear you can provide any examples of similar demolitions using it.  But what you are asking these mundane devices to do is decidedly not mundane, and as I've pointed out, since you can't provide any details about squat since everything is so covert, I don't have the opportunity to apply any likelihoods at all to these details to see if they match what we observe, exactly like you've been attempting to do with the NIST reports and every point that doesn't agree with you.

Quote

Let me try my very simple question again:  do ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, support a war, or an investigation?

Do you agree that the following statements are all different:

1) The WTC was blatantly demolished
2) The demolition theory is a better explanation than the official theory
3) What is required to support a further investigation into the WTC collapses

Clearly so, and I've said over and over that I have been discussing point 1.  Why you think it would be productive to discuss all of these or at least 1 and 3 simultaneously eludes me, it just generates (and explains) a lot of the confusion here.  Again, I see this 'investigation' red herring pop up pretty consistently whenever I am of the opinion a point of yours may not be as well evidenced as originally sold.  As far as the answer to your question, does the 'could be' concerning Sasquatch justify a further thorough investigation?  If that investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't really change the fact that Sasquatch could be, you just haven't found him yet, ad infinitum.

Quote

Wait up... what happened to your last example?  The computer simulations?  You accused me of confirmation bias there, I explained my reasoning, then you drop it and throw a new example at me - one which I could explain easily as well – but let’s settle the last one first.

Swan as usual has already better addressed this, but again as I said:  garbage in, garbage out.  Of course the software accurately incorporates Newton's third law, that's its purpose.  The problem occurs as soon as you try to derive any meaningfulness at all to the results of this 'simulation'.  People use calculators to balance their checkbooks.  If I type 200 times 5000 I get a million, the calculator is properly applying multiplication rules.  This output suggests nothing whatsoever concerning the possibility that I actually have a million dollars in my checking account.  Seriously, if I were you I would never mention the artist's simulation, that I thought he himself disavows the results of since he admits he's not a physicist, it's kinda poor.



With that Q, I'm going to have to bow out of at least the formal part of this discussion where I have some obligation to the continuation of the thread.  I'm just going to get busier through the end of the year, and frankly I'm getting pretty burned out on the topic of 9/11, and because of that these replies are unfortunately on my 'chores' list that is already overflowing.  I think I've been fairly clear on what objections I have to the case as presented so far, and have likely been over-harsh in some of my criticisms, but stepping back and looking at the discussion as a whole, I have to give you a serious thumbs-up even though we don't agree.  No one can seriously say that you haven't put a lot of thought and study into this topic, and the last thing I could say is that your argument is shallow.  I know your argument rests on the ability to digest all the evidence and see the big picture, so even though I have objections to that particular strategy that I've already noted, I can't say that it's outright invalid and the possibility exists that if I did take into account everything maybe I would be more convinced.  This is not to say that we won't talk again, I'm sure we will, hell I'll probably end up responding to whatever your responses are here if no one else does, but I just have to free myself from feeling any obligation here for now.  Ha, what do they say, "It's not 'goodbye', it's 'til next time'".  Thanks again for all the information and helping me out with getting the necessary background on some of these points to discuss them with you.  If nothing else, you've provided me a scaffold in which to plug in potential more convincing, to me obviously, evidence of a govt conspiracy that may still turn up.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

You specifically called this post out in your latest post to me as something I should respond to, but I'm not sure why.

I cited those posts because they discuss various evidences and precedents rather than the more personal ‘attack on the messenger’ route we were headed from your post #789 and before (which I don’t mind giving/receiving, but it can turn sour, and which, whilst it can sure win or lose an argument, doesn’t really further the discussion on topic).

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Do judges in Italy receive engineering training that I don't know about?  Why should anyone care about his non-expert opinion concerning building collapses?  You seem to have no issue referring to people with actual expertise in these matters as fools and/or criminals, and you offer up the opinion of a judge for chrisakes?

Judges are generally experts in the presentation and consideration of evidence in the quite strict legal setting, you agree?  Imposimato is a high-ranking judge and defers (that’s an important distinction to note; “defers” – the reason his own engineering training does not come into it) to the “experience of engineers”.  Upon that available testimony, Imposimato concludes that WTC7 was “inconsistent”, “violated common experience” and was “unprecedented”.  You see why this statement might be of interest to support my position – my conclusions are the same as a judge; an expert in the consideration of evidence.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Let's put away the pruning shears for a second and correctly and fully represent NIST's position:  NIST mentioned other buildings that did not collapse as the best available precedents and simultaneously said that these precedents are not meaningful 'precedents' at all because of differences in building structures.  If you're just going to provide the laugher, 'sometimes NIST is right and sometimes they're wrong', then I guess we can't trust any of their conclusions, yet every opportunity you get you mention that they found some point 'X' when you construe it as supporting your theory, almost as if their expertise should carry some weight.  This quote from a judge is not making the point you want it to for very valid reasons entirely consistent with how you treat the opposition, and unfortunately is just supporting the suggestion that you will offer up anything at all you can get your hands on no matter how weak or vacuous it is.  And despite saying that you have already thoroughly critiqued all your points before stating them.

It is nothing to do with this ‘trust’ you talk about, but what is sensible and can be reasonably confirmed – the difference between belief and knowledge.

It is quite possible for anyone to determine through research how and why the examples provided by NIST are best precedent, i.e. similar buildings, materials and fires.  We can both concur with NIST that their precedent is ‘right’ through our own simple observation.

You say that as NIST are ‘right’ on that fact regarding precedent, NIST therefore must be granted ‘trust’ on the next fact that there are significant differences in the building designs.  The problem, as mentioned, I’m not about ‘trust’ as you seem to be, rather about researching the facts.

So, now that you have finally accepted above that the best precedent found by NIST is in non-collapse cases, let’s compare and contrast WTC7, taking the One Meridian Plaza, as FEMA said at the time, “the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American History” as example.

This was a nice side-by-side table but didn't convert well into the forum(!): -

One Meridian Plaza
Year built:  1973
Construction:  Steel framed
Floors:  38
Building dimension:  243ft x 92ft
No. core columns:  17
Fireproof rating:  2 hrs beams/3 hrs columns
Fire duration:  approx. 19 hours
Fire spread:  8 floors  completely consumed

WTC7
Year built:  1987
Construction:  Steel framed
Floors:  47
Building dimension:  330ft x 140ft
No. core columns:  24
Fireproof rating:  2 hrs beams/3 hrs columns
Fire duration:  approx. 7 hours
Fire spread:  10 floors partially consumed


Well, I don’t see much ‘difference’ there.  If anything, the slightly older and smaller structure has suffered a more severe fire, based on duration and percentage of coverage.

Perhaps it is in these long (53ft) floor spans NIST mention?  Yet the One Meridian Plaza floor constuction (concrete on metal trusses) and spans appear approximately similar – the building length is 243ft, the core length is 124ft, therefore (243-124)/2 = in excess of 50ft.  Not that it matters because floors of both buildings are said to have failed leaving the columns unsupported – again, no difference.  FEMA described damage to the One Meridian Plaza: -

"After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

As there is no considerable difference between the floor constructions and situation, likewise, there appears no considerable difference between the columns or their spacings in each building.  In fact, we know that the WTC7 columns were designed with such redundancy to allow for the complete removal of entire floor structures.  As the New York Times quoted Larry Silverstein:  “enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity”.

We see from this comparison that there really are no significant differences - I don’t need ‘trust’ to say that NIST are sometimes wrong.  You appear to ‘trust’ otherwise, so tell me, what are the ‘differences’ which you 'trust' NIST have found that lead to one of these huge buildings standing absolutely fine for years after and another completely throwing itself to the ground mere hours later?

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

I find your response here odd for several reasons. First you are the one who should be trying to talk yourself out of it, if you have indeed critiqued all your points prior to making them as you have claimed. I specifically told you that all I knew about this was the two links you gave, and unfortunately in the 'could be' world that you selectively invoke when convenient, you apparently think this is all that needs to be provided. Do you understand that there are incredible meaningless coincidences?  Let's say that we determine that there is one person in the greater New York City area who happens to be named 'Osama bin Laden', and it is firmly established that he is no relation to the other Osama, he's a native born Irish-American Christian Republican cab driver let's say. Now let's say also that he was killed at the WTC collapse on 9/11. What are the odds that someone named Osama bin Laden would just happen to be a 9/11 casualty given this scenario? It would be an incredible coincidence. It's also utterly meaningless and has no significance at all; we rightfully, logically rack it up to the obvious that with an incredible number of events occurring it is unlikely that incredible coincidences will not occur. And how do we differentiate between potentially meaningful and meaningless coincidences? By asking the further questions I have started to that you have pre-labeled 'denial'.

[snipped for brevity]

Well well... 7 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact, precisely when and where the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead, there is planned a CIA exercie which depicts a civilian airliner, also from Dulles, crashing into a government building.  Is the potential (it doesn’t matter whether this potential was realised or not) to clash with and disrupt real world events not obvious?  As I said, even the NORAD hijacking exercise was being referenced by controllers near 30 minutes after its cancellation – of course there are potential and meaningful consequences to it; the doubt and delay in thought-processes alone are a factor.

I ask you a simple question - to put an estimated probability on the occurrence of that planned CIA exercise coinciding as it did with real world events, even said I would not argue with the figure you produced.  And that is your answer... random namings, lottery millionaires, anything but a straightforward answer to the question.  Take a guess – it doesn’t have to be precise, it doesn’t have to be factual, I’m only trying to determine what you think is reasonable.  100 plane crashes, how many do you guess would correspond to the time and place of a comparable exercie?  Use the list of exercises we have on record to help.  Perhaps you think 50%, 75% or 100%; such “incredible coincidences” occur in every instant?  Then say so.  I’m not even saying this is important on its own - this was intended to be only the first part of what I was building to – and it would eventually demonstrate 1) the unlikelihood of the Pentagon event in context of the official story and 2) the certainty of the Pentagon event in context of a false flag operation.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Their conclusion does reflect the results, it just doesn't reflect the conclusion non-expert you have drawn from the results; gigantic difference. Do you know why I think they concluded it likely? Because the evidence for a controlled demolition is extremely speculative at this point, and that obviously does factor in when determining likelihoods. Scientific analysis usually doesn't include points deriving from a one-sided view of circumstantial evidence as a general rule.

It’s true, I have no preconceived conclusion that impact and fire were cause of the collapse like NIST.  There was never any open investigation to determine the cause of collapse so of course some evidences were left open to interpretation, though Newton’s third law is not and NIST never chose to continue their study past collapse initiation.  It is also true that “Scientific analysis usually doesn't include points deriving from a one-sided view of circumstantial evidence as a general rule”, it is most unfortunate that NIST’s preconceived conclusion fell foul of this.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

I agree, this, including you, are being silly. Do you know why I used the word 'piddly'? Because it's the best counterpart I could think of off the top of my head to your adjectives, 'third-world', 'thin steel', with which you wave away the inconvenient collapse precedents.

Then perhaps you didn’t understand that the words I used were for a reason and quite accurate – the Kadar warehouse collapse example in Thailand really is a “third-world” structure and the partial collapse of the Madrid building really was a consequence of “thin steel” – I could also have used words like “shoddy” and “unfireproofed” - I can pull out the references if you need them.  It’s not waving anything away, it’s a certain and logical distinction between the structures.  It’s not like your out-of-place word, “piddly” which means small or of no importance and I think you used primarily for effect – I asked on what basis you use the word, and I received no answer.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

I am seriously skeptical about your whole 'big picture' approach by which all this speculation becomes more evidenced;  I seriously doubt that either of us would buy that line coming from an astrologer or Sasquatchian, and I'm having trouble of coming up with an example of something commonly accepted as true that is based on that same approach.

Have you not heard that one about how bin Laden was responsible for 9/11?

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

And a little note here as you don't seem clear on it: you are not the arbiter of what is a 'best match', especially since you are very selective about the factors you will take into account when assigning the word 'best'.

You are right, the pictures and observations  (which are not of my doing) are the arbiter of best match: -

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4524660

The official story - where seeing is not believing.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Your statement was not about what the reality is, it was about what I must 'accept', and you gave me two choices.  And then you admit that 'I don't know' is a position.  Thus, your original statement that I must accept either/or is a false dilemma.

Fair enough, I got the impression you knew that the WTC buildings were not demolished and that was your argument, thus I deduced you must believe in a form of more ‘natural’ collapse.  If your position is “I don’t know” then sure it’s a third option... one that demands an investigation to resolve... unless you like not knowing?... ignorance being bliss and all that?

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

So let’s straighten this out, do you actually admit that a thermite device of some design can initiate the collapse?

Of course it can Q, I really think there's some significant confusion in our conversation if you think otherwise.

So why are you arguing over viability of the devices and requesting pictures, etc?  And then continue requesting evidence to the viability of what you already admit is possible...

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

The devices may well be based on mundane technology, so mundane it doesn't appear you can provide any examples of similar demolitions using it.

You know “mundane” does not equate to “efficient” or most “effective”?  I think a steam-powered bicycle would be do-able based upon mundane technology... but it’s never going to hit the commercial shelves.  I think that cutting my garden lawn with quite mundane kitchen scissors is achievable... but I’m not going to try it, or find an example of anyone who has.  Why you suppose we should find examples of a similar thermite based demolition is beyond me.   Though, don’t get me wrong, there are examples of thermite demolitions in the 1935 Skyride Tower and this one I came across recently: -



But suggest that some devices could be manufactured in robust boxes and include a remote initiator, specifically for a one-off job at the WTC, and suddenly you need pictures before you’ll accept it as possible?  Whilst simultaneously accepting that some design of thermite charges could achieve the collapses?  I really don’t understand it.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Do you agree that the following statements are all different:

1) The WTC was blatantly demolished
2) The demolition theory is a better explanation than the official theory
3) What is required to support a further investigation into the WTC collapses

Clearly so, and I've said over and over that I have been discussing point 1.  Why you think it would be productive to discuss all of these or at least 1 and 3 simultaneously eludes me, it just generates (and explains) a lot of the confusion here.

2) and 3) culminate to support 1)

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

As far as the answer to your question, does the 'could be' concerning Sasquatch justify a further thorough investigation?  If that investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't really change the fact that Sasquatch could be, you just haven't found him yet, ad infinitum.

Does justification for war and the death of hundreds of thousands hinge on the existence/non-existence of Sasquatch?  If so, then yes, I think we should get on the investigation trail.  Your second question is a complete nonesense in regard to 9/11 – first, you presuppose the investigation results and second, if the right questions were asked, evidence sought and answers provided in the relevant areas it could indeed end the debate in the most part.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Swan as usual has already better addressed this, but again as I said:  garbage in, garbage out.  Of course the software accurately incorporates Newton's third law, that's its purpose.  The problem occurs as soon as you try to derive any meaningfulness at all to the results of this 'simulation'.

It is meaningful in that it shows an upper block does not crush a lower block of equivalent construction without sustaining damage to itself.  It is meaninful because it corroborates the other 1-2 additional simulations I provided showing the same.  It is meaningul because the results were not manipulated mid-simulation to produce a desired effect in the manner of NIST’s simulation.  And you have diverted from that initial point.  You raised this as an example of my different treatments of this simulation compared to those of NIST, which you deemed unfair.  I have explained where and why the simulations should not be judged on the same basis - one provides natural results, the other provides manipulated results (you have any hints as to why that was necessary?).

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Have you any information or opinions regarding PTech and MITRE?

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 07 December 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

It is meaningful in that it shows an upper block does not crush a lower block of equivalent construction without sustaining damage to itself.

It is only meaningful to you because it supports your beliefs.  It isn't meaningful to me for several reasons, including the fact that the originator says so.  

Just try a simple validation of the method.  Ask yourself if it actually looks like the real collapse.  Why does it show the building collapsing in on itself rather than spreading debris outwards?  Why does the mast fall into the building?  Why don't the walls peel outwards?

If you think it supports your position, why doesn't the collapse slow down even though the upper block breaks up?  Could it be that the collapse has enough energy to continue whether the upper block breaks up or not?

Edited by flyingswan, 08 December 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 07 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Well well... 7 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact, precisely when and where the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead, there is planned a CIA exercie which depicts a civilian airliner, also from Dulles, crashing into a government building.

Mind telling us how many anti-terrorist exercises were conducted by the Pentagon prior to the 9/11 attacks. Nothing to do with a 'false flag' operation because that 'false flag' story was made up.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Since we're 'talking turkey', and since you agree that the events of the day were a false flag operation, I would like to present a hypothetical to you.

If it was a false flag, then it must have been planned.  I would like to place you and me in the roles of the planners of the events of the day.

If you and I were planning the events, shall we use hand-flown airplanes, or shall we use drones?

I have been challenging 9/11 conpiracist to post evidence of a false flag operation and they have failed to do so.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 05 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

If we go by the FDR sir, the evidence shows the data was completely manipulated or fabricated.  Good heavens, the unit was unassigned.  That data does not support the OCT, it contradicts it.

The Boeing Company says you are wrong!

Apparently, you were unaware that Boeing supplied very important information regarding the FDR data, but it seems you were unaware that Boeing had an important role in the FDR data because you said the data was manipulated and fabricated.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 07 December 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

You know “mundane” does not equate to “efficient” or most “effective”?  I think a steam-powered bicycle would be do-able based upon mundane technology... but it’s never going to hit the commercial shelves.  I think that cutting my garden lawn with quite mundane kitchen scissors is achievable... but I’m not going to try it, or find an example of anyone who has.  Why you suppose we should find examples of a similar thermite based demolition is beyond me.   Though, don’t get me wrong, there are examples of thermite demolitions in the 1935 Skyride Tower and this one I came across recently: -

A real demolition expert would see a problem comparing that building with the collapse of the WTC buildings. Look over that article very closely and tell us why there is a problem comparing that building with the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 30 November 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yes, thank you, we know roughly what the WTC7 impact damage was.

Apparently, it was extensive. How did firefighters of NYFD describe the damage? Remember, we are not talking about a small hole in the wall.