Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

It is as "deep" a response as your posts inspire LG. You concentrate and fixate on trivia, while completely ignoring, by way of dismissal, any and all evidence that contradicts the official story.

Do you mean contradictions on the level of a P700 anti-ship cruise missile striking the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is as "deep" a response as your posts inspire LG. You concentrate and fixate on trivia, while completely ignoring, by way of dismissal, any and all evidence that contradicts the official story. For you there is nothing unusual about molten steel or hot spots lasting weeks, the testimony of Rodriguez and others is dismissed as lies, dancing Israelis have no significance to you, and neither do impossible aviation events and obviously planted evidence.

Well I'm in good company then as it's not just my posts that don't inspire deep responses from you, it's apparently no one.

So your claim that it was a chaotic event as an explanation for any and all anomalies is consistent. My response was a bit of a compliment for your consistency LG :tu:

Ha, yes, that was exactly my claim, you nailed it. Unfortunately your compliments don't mean any more to me than your criticisms and for the same reason: I've seen how you reach your conclusions.

Happy Thanksgiving!

You also!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read my post at the top of the page again - it already addresses what you say here.

When you post such a weak argument, I can only echo Boony.

In your own mind Q24. In your own mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find absurd is that you want us to simultaneously be impressed and convinced in some way by the precedents NIST identified, because they're the NIST after all, but then they're biased and irrational and not to be trusted when they say that different structures (duh) led to different results. Which is it going to be, does NIST know what they're talking about or not, pick one. As it is now, the only pattern is, speaking of remarkable coincidences, whether a particular point agrees with you or not.

Your question is simply addressed – sometimes NIST are correct and sometimes NIST are incorrect. Even individuals can show this trait and for NIST, which comprises a collection of opinions, i.e. not some mega-brain entity, it is even more so. Also I’m not asking you to be convinced at this stage. What would be nice right now, is just some honesty. I’m asking you to accept an obvious fact: that the best examples we have of precedent to the WTC7 situation (those listed by NIST, amongst others) did not result in collapse. If you only deny and prance around such obvious facts, in the unfortunate way of booNy and flyingswan, then certainly you will never hold all of the pieces which may culminate to impress. If you can first reach the stage of laying all such obvious facts on the table, then it would be sensible to talk about differences in the precedent. Such alleged uniqueness of WTC7 I did note, though inherently no precedent you will find, let alone reason or evidence of this conclusion.

Do you really think it reasonable this whole structure collapsed in a matter of seconds due to a sequence of failures initiated by a collapsed floor truss?

Bing. O.

I am trying to establish and lay obvious facts on the table, to eventually be evaluated as a whole. I am entertaining of and willing to discuss how different or similar the best precedent is to WTC7, and that will also be taken into consideration. Is that confirmation bias so much as the denial of obvious facts to begin? I hope you heard the echo of that “Bing. O.” reflected back at you.

It doesn't really matter what 'the public' thinks, they don't have the knowledge to evaluate the question. Do you know how many of the public don't believe in evolution? Does it have any validity on determining whether it is true or not?

I agree with your point, and yet, perception shapes our reality. I could hardly say, “It doesn’t really matter”.

What I can't believe is the hay you are trying to make out of this Silverstein demolition phone call stupidity. It doesn't matter at all merely that Silverstein is getting authorization, that is an entirely understandable conversation between a property owner and his insurance company after a building is damaged to that extent.

What “extent”? Nevermind, again this is avoidance of the obvious fact that is attempted. Honesty, please. On the day, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7, wasn’t there? Can you accept this first? Do you dare to be honest about such obvious facts that build the case? Then, with all of the facts present, we can discuss what is reasonable.

Here are the two facts: -

1.
The best precedent available to WTC7 shows no collapse.

2.
On 9/11, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7.

True or not? Will you agree this? At the most basic level let’s see who suffers from confirmation bias and denial of the most obvious facts.

Didn't they pull down one of the other damaged WTC buildings, WTC6 I think, for safety reasons? So then why is likewise looking into demolishing 7 so indicative of something nefarious?

There was time to evaluate WTC6 which was damaged beyond repair, not so WTC7.

Why is Silverstein trying to get authorization when 'they' are going to such extreme efforts to hide that it was demolished in the first place? Are you suggesting that Silverstein was trying to get authorization so that they could demolish it with the demolitions they already have planted, in other words the insurance company is in on the plot? Under your theory, why is Silverstein calling at all? Why isn't he concealing this conversation?

We have already spoken about this on the thread. It appears that the WTC7 demolition was hindered by the WTC1 collapse and thus came down later than intended. The phone call from Silverstein was his effort to provide cover to the demolition as necessary for safety concerns - a cover that was not eventually required in the public domain. Without knowing response of the insurance company, I can’t say that they are necessarily aware of the true nature of the downfall of WTC7; there is no reason at all the insurance company has to be aware.

Tell me what is necessarily abnormal about this conversation between Silverstein and the insurance company, and I do mean 'necessarily', I'm going to hold you to the very basic standards of coincidental evidence here which, if you had as strong a case as you are crowing about, should be effortless for you to meet.

I’m not trying to make a case at this moment that it was abnormal. I could easily do so – e.g. how had the building been evaluated for demolition? What input does the building owner have when it comes to FDNY safety actions? When has this ever happened before? - but given that it’s somewhat subjective, I’m sure I’d be wasting my time. The actual fact I would like to establish right now is that on the day, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question is simply addressed – sometimes NIST are correct and sometimes NIST are incorrect.

And how does someone without any engineering knowledge determine which applies? Simple - if they support Q24's ideas, then they are correct, but if they don't, they are incorrect.

Do you really think it reasonable this whole structure collapsed in a matter of seconds due to a sequence of failures initiated by a collapsed floor truss?

Yes. Progressive collapse is a well-known structural phenomenon, with plenty of the precedents you so like.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressive collapse, generating temperatures sufficient to keep iron in a molten state for weeks. Yeah, sure.

I forgot, the proper tactic is to deny that molten iron existed, and to pretend that jetfuel and gravity could do what was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how does someone without any engineering knowledge determine which applies? Simple - if they support Q24's ideas, then they are correct, but if they don't, they are incorrect.

Where did you get the idea that anyone must have “engineering knowledge” to apply my arguments which are based on common sense and logic? I’m sure we agree that some engineers are fools - as an example, you would point to AE911T, and I would point to you - so what has “engineering knowledge” got to do with it? If I were actually challenging engineering concepts then I’d understand, but that is never necessary to the argument - the existing engineering facts and precedent, not set out by me incidentally, speak for themselves.

Yes. Progressive collapse is a well-known structural phenomenon, with plenty of the precedents you so like.

For the second time, please read my post at the top of the last page. There is not one example of precedent for this phenomenon in steel framed high-rise structures despite the many instances of severe fire and, oh my gosh truss failures. It is “well-known” only in your dreams, not in reality… oh wait, ignore the best precedent and show me those third-world warehouse structures again, tsk, or not. What do you think of the precedent for progressive collapse of such a large structure by the way – the Murrah building? I guess those guys at Eglin AFB who did the real-world experiments just didn’t have the “engineering knowledge” to your liking, ha.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressive collapse, generating temperatures sufficient to keep iron in a molten state for weeks. Yeah, sure.

The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire. The 3 steel frame buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire, so it shouldn't be of no surprise that the WTC buildings collapsed due to fires. Unlike the WTC buildings, the Windsor building and the 3 buildings in Thailand were not struck by B-767s nor suffered impact damage on the level of WTC7.

I forgot, the proper tactic is to deny that molten iron existed,...

Since thermite does not leave behind molten metal for days, you might want to educate yourself on exothermic reactions of iron.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think it reasonable this whole structure collapsed in a matter of seconds due to a sequence of failures initiated by a collapsed floor truss?

Yes!

Buckling of the WTC buildings

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Add to the fact there were no explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. To sum it up, we have evidence of impact damages suffered by WTC1, WTC2, an WTC7, and fires raging within each of those buildings, but what we don't have evidence for, is evidence that explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have already spoken about this on the thread. It appears that the WTC7 demolition was hindered by the WTC1 collapse and thus came down later than intended. The phone call from Silverstein was his effort to provide cover to the demolition as necessary for safety concerns - a cover that was not eventually required in the public domain. Without knowing response of the insurance company, I can’t say that they are necessarily aware of the true nature of the downfall of WTC7; there is no reason at all the insurance company has to be aware.

I’m not trying to make a case at this moment that it was abnormal. I could easily do so – e.g. how had the building been evaluated for demolition? What input does the building owner have when it comes to FDNY safety actions? When has this ever happened before? - but given that it’s somewhat subjective, I’m sure I’d be wasting my time. The actual fact I would like to establish right now is that on the day, there was a level of intent to demolish WTC7.

A review of what occurred in court on November 21, 2012.

Judge removes United from World Trade Center case

2:52PM EST November 21. 2012 - United Airlines cannot be held responsible for the terrorist hijacking Sept. 11, 2001, that destroyed a building in the World Trade Center complex, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The owner of 7 World Trade Center, a building that stood next to the Twin Towers, sued United and American Airlines by arguing that the building was destroyed because of the airlines' negligence. But U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that United bears "no responsibility for Tower 7's destruction" because it wasn't responsible for the hijacking of American Flight 11 or its hitting the Trade Center.

United had no comment on the ruling Wednesday.

The hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz, passed through security in Portland, Maine, which was the responsibility of Delta Air Lines, before they transferred to the American flight in Boston, according to Hellerstein. American was responsible for the Boston checkpoint, Hellerstein wrote. Flight 11 crashed into 1 World Trade Center, which spewed flaming debris that pierced Tower 7, where fires burned until the building collapsed, Hellerstein wrote.

The hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz, passed through security in Portland, Maine, which was the responsibility of Delta Air Lines, before they transferred to the American flight in Boston, according to Hellerstein. American was responsible for the Boston checkpoint, Hellerstein wrote.

"It was not within United's range of apprehension that terrorists would slip through the (Portland) security screening checkpoint, fly to Logan, proceed through another air carrier's security screening and board that carrier's flight, hijack the flight and crash it into 1 World Trade Center, let alone that 1 World Trade Center would therefore collapse and cause Tower 7 to collapse," Hellerstein wrote in his 11-page ruling.

Larry Silverstein, the World Trade Center leaseholder, was seeking $8.4 billion for the loss of business. But Hellerstein has limited the amount to the $2.8 billion that Silverstein paid for the leases.

Bud Perrone, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, expressed disappointment with Wednesday's ruling but said he looked forward to their prospects in a different lawsuit against United that alleges security lapses that led the terrorists to hijack United Flight 175.

"We are determined and look forward to presenting the facts before a jury, which will decide whether the defendants' insurance companies should finally be forced to pay up in order to finish the rebuilding of the World Trade Center," Perrone said.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/

And, still nothing there that implicates the United States government in the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone want to offer a plausible explanation for the anthrax attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone want to offer a plausible explanation for the anthrax attacks?

anyone want to offer a plausible explanation for the anthrax attacks?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you get the idea that anyone must have "engineering knowledge" to apply my arguments which are based on common sense and logic?

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.

I'm sure we agree that some engineers are fools - as an example, you would point to AE911T, and I would point to you

Resort to insult indicates lack of confidence in your argument.

For the second time, please read my post at the top of the last page. There is not one example of precedent for this phenomenon in steel framed high-rise structures despite the many instances of severe fire and, oh my gosh truss failures. It is "well-known" only in your dreams, not in reality… oh wait, ignore the best precedent and show me those third-world warehouse structures again, tsk, or not. What do you think of the precedent for progressive collapse of such a large structure by the way – the Murrah building? I guess those guys at Eglin AFB who did the real-world experiments just didn't have the "engineering knowledge" to your liking, ha.

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.

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Regarding mendacity and deception, those 9/11 conspiracy websites have left the government in the dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.