900 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Very true about the collapse progression... though there is no evidence the buildings should initiate collapses due to the impacts and fires or that the upper blocks should generate the momentum required to crush the lower blocks in the first place... therefore demolition still required either way.

We have evidence that fires were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildngs, but no evidence that explosives were responsible, which is why NO explosions are evident in the videos nor captured on seismic monitors. No evidence of explosives was recovered in the rubble of the WTC buildings nor found at the Fresh Kills landfill. I have repeatedly challenged you to produce such evidence and  you have consistently failed to measure up to that challenge.

Apparently, someone made up the false story that explosives were used, which explains that after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence of explosive has surfaced.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

www.doeda.com/y911.html

That's for you Q.  It helps discover why the precision of the attacks was crucial.  Cantor Fitzgerald at WTC, and the Office of Naval Investigations at the Pentagon.  Those were the important targets, but certainly not the only ones.

Question for you!

How certain are you, that website was not placed there as a setup? Do you remember that hoaxed video of WTC7 that was deliberately placed on the Internet?

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

That is a pretty crappy argument: -
.
.
.We could roll through these coincidences and peculiarities all day, which only ever make the complete official story all the wilder, yet fall perfectly into place in context of a false flag operation.

Thank you for that.  It just goes to demonstrate the truth of my earlier statement:

flyingswan, on 14 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

You can argue anything with this sort of post-event logic.

[Babe Ruth]

skyeagle409, on 15 December 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

Question for you!

How certain are you, that website was not placed there as a setup? Do you remember that hoaxed video of WTC7 that was deliberately placed on the Internet?

Good morning Sky!

I don't know that "the website was not placed there as a setup."  No sir, I do not.

But I do know that you yourself placed a video here at UM that was a setup.  Your record of deception is clear and documented.

Flocco, Eastman et al might be as deceptive as you are, but they are probably not, because their work contradicts with the official story, like ALL the other evidence that citizen investigators have found.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Good morning Sky!

I don't know that "the website was not placed there as a setup."  No sir, I do not.

Were you aware of what was printed?

Quote

   THE ORIGINS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE ATTACK

Most historians track the history of September 11th to 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwa or jihad against the U.S., and the terrorist “Hamburg Group” led by Mohammed Atta reportedly “offered” it’s services to Al Qaeda.

It said that Osama bin Laden declared a jihad against the U.S. and that Mohammed Atta offered the services of the his group, which actually supports the official story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 December 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[Q24]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Liquid Gardens, on 14 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Shuffle a deck of cards and then flip them up one at a time; the odds of the deck being in that exact order is 1 in a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe.  The chances of the two specific people who won the Powerball lottery a few weeks ago choosing the winning numbers is 1 in 175 million^2.  Do you think it was fixed then?  'Meaningfulness' is a subjective term.  One of my high school classmates has the exact same birthdate as I do; it's a meaningless coincidence unless we are evaluating the question of whether we are actually twins and then it's meaningful.  Did the assignment of 'meaningfulness' in this case change any of those probabilities?

These are all examples of random chance that have no coherent bearing on anything around them and cannot be intentionally influenced/setup.  They are as you say ‘meaningless’.  You really need to consider the difference between this and the coincidence and peculiarity that surround 9/11 which did have foreseeable, potential and realised, bearing on events, always in the same direction falling into place with a false flag.  Without understanding this basic fact - the differences between the examples I have provided and those that you provide above - I see why you are struggling to appreciate the argument.

I rushed my last response a little and would like to add to this section.  In addition to the above differences I mentioned, there is another significant difference between your examples and those coincidences and peculiarities surrounding 9/11.  Your examples are all singular, rather than a chain around the same event.  Let’s use your example of the question about twins – this would be equivalent to the question of a 9/11 false flag.

Here you give one coincidence; the match of birth dates.  This would be equivalent to one 9/11 coincidence.  Are we going to accept we have a twin based on a match of birth dates?  No, of course not.  Exactly the same as we would not accept a 9/11 false flag on the basis of one coincidence pointing that way.  In such a case we would put it down to just that; a coincidence.

What if we add another fact?  Such as, perhaps a coincidence that we were also born in the same location?  Matching birth dates and birth locations!  No, of course this is still nowhere near enough to conclude that we have a twin.  The same as two coincidences are not enough to claim a 9/11 false flag.

But what if we kept finding and adding more facts?  The facial features, hair and eye colour just so happen to be an uncanny match, the mother’s first name is a match, heck, we both recall from our first memories that we had a dog called Spot and one of us was known to have been adopted at a young age.  Now this could all be coincidence, but are you not starting to waver, at least seriously question, that you may have a twin?  This is of course the point we come to with 9/11 where so many coincidences and peculiarities surrounding a single chain of events add up in the same direction.  Should we not ask for that DNA test, or investigation, that would prevent any of us from believing simply what we prefer?

When does a chain of ‘coincidence’ become more accurately described as a pattern?

Above I referred to half a dozen facts that may lead us to at least question whether we have a twin.  When it comes to 9/11, there are hundreds of facts that may lead us to question a false falg.  Anyone who writes off all such facts... well... perhaps they just like being a single child, yet it does not make them so in reality.

So please do remember that with 9/11 we are dealing with a long chain of coincidences, peculiarities and facts surrounding that one event which all do have potential to provide the same answer... twins!... err, no, I meant, false flag.  They are not randomly picked, one-off occurrences like LG’s examples.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 17 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

When it comes to 9/11, there are hundreds of facts that may lead us to question a false falg.

The is no evidence of a 'false flag' operaton.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

The predetermined scale was that of ‘Pearl Harbor’.  Again, you would do better responding properly to my previous post and questions.  Why suffer their own country more casualties and damage than thought necessary?

This sounds to me like you are trying to specify something to a degree that is not at all supported from the very general 'evidence' from which it is derived, but I think it is a useful example for discussion of an issue I have concerning the assignment of coincidences.  The obvious first issue is that you are making this argument with the presumption that what you have identified as a peculiarity or a meaningful coincidence is actually one.  Let's go through a couple scenarios with the Pentagon.  Let's say that the Pentagon was not reinforced on any particular side, do you agree that this then become something that does not require an explanation and is just random?  Unless you dig further and find some other coincidence that you find compatible with one of an infinite number of ways a false flag operation could manifest itself, and then we must start multiplying our chain of coincidences by 1/5 again?  Why stop there, why not ask why the plane hit the exact place it did on that side, and maybe then we have a 1/25 chance based on the ratio of the width of the plane to a side of the Pentagon, maybe if there was some particular office or 'bunker' that needed to be destroyed which, you may believe, also fits well with some conception of a false flag.  Which was part of the reason I brought up the astronomical odds of getting to work at a specific time and hitting all the red lights at exactly the time I did; it wasn't to make a comment about chains of coincidences, it was to comment that the more granularity you put into your 'coincidence' and the more probabilities you multiply together, then necessarily the odds of that particular thing happening the exact way it did comes out to be very low.  Also in this case where we narrowed it to the exact spot where it hit, we could then lead in to there's no way poor Hani could have been so precise, ergo this becomes an argument 'pointing in the direction' of remote-controlled planes, and on and on we go through all the mazes of different permutations of things that could be, all based on one unproven assumption.

Back to your quote above, the more glaring problem is the point at which and how you determine that something is a meaningful coincidence to which to apply a probability.  You don't seem to really have any good argument or evidence supporting the specific idea that your plotters would want to limit damage at the Pentagon, this seems to be a very precise interpretation of 'Pearl Harbor' that is definitely not supported by the text.  Why don't you apply "Why suffer their own country more casualties and damage than thought necessary?" to WTC?  Pearl Harbor was a military attack, it would be more consistent for our plotters, if they were trying to reproduce it, to favor damaging something like the Pentagon as much as possible.  Doesn't the multiplication of your probability on this point in your chain of coincidence argument rely on you being very correct and having a convincing case that the plotters wanted (not 'may have wanted') to hit the most reinforced side?  I have the same issue with the NRO exercise; I know once and maybe twice now you have snipped out my questions asking for more detail on this, the detail that would help give weight to the meaningfulness of the coincidence itself.  I think I'm justified in concluding, other than your ability to connect it to the CIA which is unremarkable, that you don't really have any additional information on this, information that would help us understand how this fits in to a possible plot.

Which leads to my other issue which is how you are looking at the probability of unlikely events.  I don't see what your point about things like the lottery that are usually random events has to do with it, your task is to differentiate your coincidences from the random (or non-CT connections); there's nothing at all saying that the lottery is random, there could be cheating involved.  The point concerning the lottery was this, that the mere fact that something has a small chance of occurring specifically how it did doesn't necessarily mean it is overall unlikely.  I came up with my way overestimated one in a million chance of randomly coming up with the NRO exercise.  You showed no signs of having vetted this topic at all beyond this probability and moved on to the Pentagon impact, a move I was concerned about as I was hoping you would at least go down the road of explaining how you see these unlikely events, such as the lottery, differently.  You hinted at it earlier when you said that you would count similar exercises at several other buildings as 'hits' also, that right there just lowered the odds of finding a coincidence like this by that number of buildings.  And you could keep going, not drawing specific lines around the particulars of this coincidence, but asking how many other coincidences should you expect, the pool is enormous with 9/11.  Here's originally how I thought you left it:  'the chance of the NRO exercise being planned the way it was let's hypothesize is one in a million, thus this is strong indication of something not random and a plot.  Period.'.  I think the response to this is along the lines of why you wouldn't accept the following: 'the chance of Suzy winning the lottery is over one in a million, thus it's a fix/cheat'.  The point being overlooked in that conclusion is the fact that you have so many lottery tickets sold that the odds of someone winning are actually pretty good.  I don't see why the NRO exercise example is much different, especially the way it is left right now without some evidence as to what the plotters were potentially trying to accomplish, and why they thought it would be effective at all, without involving 'maybes' of course.  I think that last part, how it 'fits in', is how you are trying to differentiate it but is seems largely based on speculation and conjecture to me, and it still doesn't change my point that there are lots of things of low probability that are logically occurring with 9/11.  The number of people and companies and agencies, again, from which you are making your points is huge, I don't think we can just turn around and not count them as then a potential point of coincidence.  

I've asked a couple times I think now for your calculation of how many events are happening from which you can identify your coincidences, and I'd guess that any such calculation would be as bs-ish as my NRO probability calculation.  No, this is not at all just one event like a twins birth, this is multiple events spanning potentially large amounts of time, as well as the actual events of 9/11 which played out in 2 major metro areas over hours affecting tens of thousands of people.  I'd argue that the permutations are incalculable.  Since we would expect 1000 one in a million events with just a billion permutations, the lone fact that you've identified something that has a one in a million chance isn't unexpected at all, and you are not providing a lot to differentiate it from randomness.  And with the large number of just truthers that are looking over every facet of 9/11 specifically searching for any coincidences, it's really that odd that so many are discovered?  How do you know?

Quote

And I am applying the same standard to each case – first I am considering from the position of our cave dwelling terrorists, and then from the position of those within the U.S. system – to determine which is most probable cause of results.  And the answer to that is quite clear.

Well that might be a problem, how can you consider the positions of terrorists and the plotters?  I wouldn't claim I know their psychology and thoughts to that specificity, especially when you don't even know who specifically the plotters are.  In your earlier example pretend-we're-terrorists-in-a-cave, why are you presuming that the terrorists even cared about maximizing damage and casualties at the Pentagon to the level of instructing to hit a particular side, given all the guff about Hani's piloting skills, why do you think the instruction to just hit the building however you can is unreasonable?

Quote

When does a chain of ‘coincidence’ become more accurately described as a pattern?

A fine philosophical, subjective question, I don't know outside of extreme examples.  Be fully aware that there are a host of fallacies and cognitive errors (pareidolia, apophenia, post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc) that arise specifically because our brains are amazing pattern recognizers, even when the patterns are meaningless.

I am not an expert on these topics (probabilities and coincidence philosophy) nor do I think you particularly are, so I'm trying to explain how I'm looking at this.

[Babe Ruth]

LG

I'm curious if you are aware of the audit being conducted by ONI and congressional auditors in that part of the Pentagon?

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 19 December 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

LG

I'm curious if you are aware of the audit being conducted by ONI and congressional auditors in that part of the Pentagon?

No I'm not, I don't know what 'ONI' even is.

[Babe Ruth]

Office of Naval Intelligence.

www.doeda.com/y911.html

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco and others explain part of it, and your post above to Q rather touches upon one of those points.

ONI and some congressional auditors were housed and working in that part of the Pentagon that was struck.  Out of all the casualties there that day, the largest portion were ONI auditors.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 19 December 2012 - 04:23 PM.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

The obvious first issue is that you are making this argument with the presumption that what you have identified as a peculiarity or a meaningful coincidence is actually one.  Let's go through a couple scenarios with the Pentagon.  Let's say that the Pentagon was not reinforced on any particular side, do you agree that this then become something that does not require an explanation and is just random?  Unless you dig further and find some other coincidence that you find compatible with one of an infinite number of ways a false flag operation could manifest itself, and then we must start multiplying our chain of coincidences by 1/5 again?  Why stop there, why not ask why the plane hit the exact place it did on that side, and maybe then we have a 1/25 chance based on the ratio of the width of the plane to a side of the Pentagon, maybe if there was some particular office or 'bunker' that needed to be destroyed which, you may believe, also fits well with some conception of a false flag.  Which was part of the reason I brought up the astronomical odds of getting to work at a specific time and hitting all the red lights at exactly the time I did; it wasn't to make a comment about chains of coincidences, it was to comment that the more granularity you put into your 'coincidence' and the more probabilities you multiply together, then necessarily the odds of that particular thing happening the exact way it did comes out to be very low.  Also in this case where we narrowed it to the exact spot where it hit, we could then lead in to there's no way poor Hani could have been so precise, ergo this becomes an argument 'pointing in the direction' of remote-controlled planes, and on and on we go through all the mazes of different permutations of things that could be, all based on one unproven assumption.

To your first question above, this is already answered at the end of my post #853 - it becomes a non-event.

Separate from that, I will use the examples you mention above to explain how one occurrence is meaningful and the other not necessarily so: -

The ‘coincidence’ of the impact at the Pentagon occurring to the one segment of five where the renovation had recently been completed, meant that 800 workers were in the area opposed to the usual 4,500.  In addition, the impact to that particular area significantly reduced damage to the building and gave the best test-run of the newly reinforced construction possible.  Of course then there is a meaningful and very visible difference, dependent whether the impact occurred to that one segment or the other four non-renovated segments.  It is the type of difference that, as it happened, did not suit terrorist aims but that of false flag planning (more on that later).  Either way, there is a meaningful difference in the casualty/damage outcome.

There is also this argument we hear, stating the impact occurred at that specific location due to targeting of an audit office.  This, in contrast to the above, I do not find a particular coincidence or peculiarity.  I happen to know that there are more offices in the Pentagon dealing with finance matters than just the ‘ONI’.  Therefore, any of these numerous offices around the building could be impacted and a speculative argument made that the purpose was to cover-up financial irregularities, i.e. it is not of a low probability that such an office should be hit.  Plus the fact, I know that complete financial audit trails cannot be removed by whacking a plane into one branch of the records.  In all, that the plane impacted an office dealing with financial audits is not ‘against the odds’ to begin and any plan to do so would not make sense in any case.  I do not see how impacting the ‘ONI’ is necessarily meaningful, or even a notable coincidence at all.

What it comes down to when identifying our meaningful ‘coincidences’ are perhaps the following questions: -

1.    Is it unusual or of low probability?

2.    Does it make a clear, potential or realised, difference?

3.    Does it favour terrorist or false flag planning?

When the occurrence is of low probability, at least potentially makes an obvious difference to result of the attack and in a way that appears to favour false flag planning, then we can put it down as one of our 9/11 coincidences.  

The ‘coincidence’ of the impact at the Pentagon occurring to the one segment of five where the renovation had recently been completed, is affirmed by these questions.  The ‘coincidence’ that the impact occurred at that specific location due to targeting of an audit office is discarded through those questions.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Back to your quote above, the more glaring problem is the point at which and how you determine that something is a meaningful coincidence to which to apply a probability.  You don't seem to really have any good argument or evidence supporting the specific idea that your plotters would want to limit damage at the Pentagon, this seems to be a very precise interpretation of 'Pearl Harbor' that is definitely not supported by the text.  Why don't you apply "Why suffer their own country more casualties and damage than thought necessary?" to WTC?  Pearl Harbor was a military attack, it would be more consistent for our plotters, if they were trying to reproduce it, to favor damaging something like the Pentagon as much as possible.  Doesn't the multiplication of your probability on this point in your chain of coincidence argument rely on you being very correct and having a convincing case that the plotters wanted (not 'may have wanted') to hit the most reinforced side?

Sorry, but why make such a dogs dinner of a simple issue?  The required pretext was an event, “like a new Pearl Harbor”.  Not “a reproduction of”, but “like”.  I’ll ask again more directly in the hope of a straight answer:  why kill tenfold the victims necessary to achieve likeness of that pre-designated event?

And I do apply this to the WTC also – haven’t we just discussed in my post #843 and #851 how the most minor and obvious of alterations to the WTC attack could have resulted in tenfold casualties?  Noted you decline to discuss this properly (using flyingswan's failed response as an excuse) or attempt my thought exercise to determine whether the actual results were more likely of terrorist or false flag planning.

If you are asking, “why impact the WTC at all rather than blow the smithereens out of the Pentagon and achieve an overall similar number of casualties?”, there are viable reasons for this.  The main reason would be relevant value of the WTC vs. Pentagon, the former a financial timebomb that was set to cost the government in the double-digit billion dollars to remedy (i.e. more than the buildings were worth; essentially a colossal write-off)... until our Zionist friends recommended privatisation, fixed the bid, and purchased the site, ramping up the insurance coverage in the process.  Ha, from the early 90s there was suggestion that the buildings could be demolished to avoid the cost of the necessary asbestos renovation and a dispute between the government and insurance companies over who was liable for the cost.  As they say... there’s more than one way to skin a cat... they got rid of the problem buildings and the insurance companies ended up paying out.  That was not main aim of the false flag, though it did make the WTC a prime target and killed two birds with one stone.  In addition, there are further reasons I can think of from a false flag perspective for attacking the WTC including greater spread, visibility and psychological impact of the attack.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

I have the same issue with the NRO exercise; I know once and maybe twice now you have snipped out my questions asking for more detail on this, the detail that would help give weight to the meaningfulness of the coincidence itself.  I think I'm justified in concluding, other than your ability to connect it to the CIA which is unremarkable, that you don't really have any additional information on this, information that would help us understand how this fits in to a possible plot.

I don’t believe I have any information on the NRO exercise in addition to those remarkable details which have already been provided.  That is sufficient information to address the three questions above in determining if this should be counted as a 9/11 ‘coincidence’ – which clearly it meets the criteria.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

The point concerning the lottery was this, that the mere fact that something has a small chance of occurring specifically how it did doesn't necessarily mean it is overall unlikely.  I came up with my way overestimated one in a million chance of randomly coming up with the NRO exercise.  You showed no signs of having vetted this topic at all beyond this probability and moved on to the Pentagon impact, a move I was concerned about as I was hoping you would at least go down the road of explaining how you see these unlikely events, such as the lottery, differently.  You hinted at it earlier when you said that you would count similar exercises at several other buildings as 'hits' also, that right there just lowered the odds of finding a coincidence like this by that number of buildings.  And you could keep going, not drawing specific lines around the particulars of this coincidence, but asking how many other coincidences should you expect, the pool is enormous with 9/11.  Here's originally how I thought you left it:  'the chance of the NRO exercise being planned the way it was let's hypothesize is one in a million, thus this is strong indication of something not random and a plot.  Period.'.  I think the response to this is along the lines of why you wouldn't accept the following: 'the chance of Suzy winning the lottery is over one in a million, thus it's a fix/cheat'.  The point being overlooked in that conclusion is the fact that you have so many lottery tickets sold that the odds of someone winning are actually pretty good.  I don't see why the NRO exercise example is much different, especially the way it is left right now without some evidence as to what the plotters were potentially trying to accomplish, and why they thought it would be effective at all, without involving 'maybes' of course.

The lottery is similar to the audit office example discussed above.  It is as you say, and not overlooked at all - sell enough tickets, or have enough offices in a limited area, and it’s probable there will be a winner.  To put the NRO exercise in the same bracket, it would need to be shown such quantity of exercises that one is likely to mimic time, location and general nature of a real-world attack.  Given the sporadicity of such exercises on record (see here), it does not appear a likely occurrence.  Much like selling only 100 lottery tickets instead of however many million and then expecting a jackpot winner.  Especially if our winner, Suzy, happens to be on the lottery draw staff – yeah I’m going to question if it’s a fix.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Well that might be a problem, how can you consider the positions of terrorists and the plotters?  I wouldn't claim I know their psychology and thoughts to that specificity, especially when you don't even know who specifically the plotters are.  In your earlier example pretend-we're-terrorists-in-a-cave, why are you presuming that the terrorists even cared about maximizing damage and casualties at the Pentagon to the level of instructing to hit a particular side, given all the guff about Hani's piloting skills, why do you think the instruction to just hit the building however you can is unreasonable?

Whilst you may not be able to put yourself in these others’ shoes, I certainly can.  Sure, given the right level of motivation I’d do what either terrorists or those within the U.S. system did.  Though it must be said that I find it rather difficult to get in the mindset of a suicide terrorist like Jarrah with a close family and girlfriend to consider – ha, does such a mindset really exist?  Neither could the 9/11 Commission fathom why Jarrah did it.  The comments of the Commission vice-chairman are worth repeating here: -

"I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did.  We looked into their backgrounds.  In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend.  We just couldn’t figure out why he did it.  I still don’t know.  And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did?  We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren’t able to answer the questions about the 19."

To my mind, it’s significantly easier taking the role of an agent involved in the false flag, preserving the future global pre-eminence of my country and people, especially where I’m of a Zionist origin and the target is a foreign nation, or even where I’m a Neocon and my political philosophy is geared toward war that America’s number one position has been built upon.

So of course I can visualise how I’d go about the attack from either a terrorist or false flag perspective.  We are even assisted by their guidelines; “like a new Pearl Harbor”, so it is not entirely independent in some areas.

And I do hope you are reading my posts properly before responding.  I did say in my post #851 that in context of a terrorist plan the Pentagon impact location, “must be random”.  I have no issue with this, other than that the actual location impacted had a discernable effect on the outcome – one favourable to false flag planning – of course I don’t want to cause excessive casualties and damage.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

A fine philosophical, subjective question, I don't know outside of extreme examples.  Be fully aware that there are a host of fallacies and cognitive errors (pareidolia, apophenia, post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc) that arise specifically because our brains are amazing pattern recognizers, even when the patterns are meaningless.

I know, I’m aware of the pitfalls, but when it comes to 9/11 the frequency and corroboration of ‘coincidences’ and peculiarities affirmed by the three questions mentioned previously are entirely overwhelming.  I can answer the question.  A chain of ‘coincidence’ becomes more accurately described as a pattern when it is affirmed by the three questions, when it has meaningful consequences, when it more logically fits a plan than belief in astronomical chance occurrence.  Again I think it is a case of lack of knowledge, or at least ability to piece together the bigger picture, that lets down those who don’t see it – for sure I am accounting altogether for a great many occurrences in all aspects of 9/11 that we have not been over.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 December 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Office of Naval Intelligence.

www.doeda.com/y911.html

Were you aware that website deals in speculation, not real facts?

Quote

ONI and some congressional auditors were housed and working in that part of the Pentagon that was struck.

Now wait a minute, you told posters the other day there was no wreckage seen on the grounds of the Pentagon and now you confirm the Pentagon was struck.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 December 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

LG

I'm curious if you are aware of the audit being conducted by ONI and congressional auditors in that part of the Pentagon?

What difference does that make? Apparenly, you have never used government comptuters.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

The ‘coincidence’ of the impact at the Pentagon occurring to the one segment of five where the renovation had recently been completed, meant that 800 workers were in the area opposed to the usual 4,500.

What difference does that make?

Quote

...In addition, the impact to that particular area significantly reduced damage to the building and gave the best test-run of the newly reinforced construction possible.

I am very sure it made no difference to the terrorist pilot, Hani.

Quote

1.    Is it unusual or of low probability?

2.    Does it make a clear, potential or realised, difference?

3.    Does it favour terrorist or false flag planning?

There was never evidence of a false flag operation. If you are going to make claims, you have to backup what you say because pure speculation is not considered hard evdence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 01:50 AM.