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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“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.”

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden dunnit. Bush and Cheney said so.

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

:rolleyes:

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is the point I mentioned. I’d like you to estimate a probability to this in context of the official story, along with a string of other ‘coincidences’ I’ll provide, to determine just how probable or not overall events were.

Ok a report giving an overview of the NRO exercise: -

http://www.boston.co...ne_exercise.htm

A copy of the actual exercise paper: -

http://www.scribd.co...h-Into-Building

At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below: “The aircraft broke out of the clouds ... various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel. The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway ... Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably”.

Given what followed, no wonder the government spokesperson described it as an, “incredible coincidence”.

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

But thanks regardless for a new point to discuss, I've never heard about this. Is there more detail available on what the timeline is and how far they got into this exercise? You say, "At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below", but your link to the article says "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."; the real world events were well under way by 9:30, and the timeline in the document seems to indicate that the exercise was scheduled to get under way right around when the second tower was hit.

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

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

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

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

Here are lots of drawings: -

http://www.docstoc.c...986#viewer-area

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

Neither did the thermite charges have to survive after a direct impact – the column(s) in question would be severed or damaged in any case. Therefore, sometimes they do survive, is quite good enough to explain presence of the WTC2 thermite flow.

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

It already is disproven so far as I’m concerned – it has not been explained how the theory could possibly produce the WTC2 thermite flow – you can’t just throw any old thing down, especially when it doesn’t work in the first place, and demand I reason you out of a position that you did not provide reason for to begin with. You are welcome to this theory, which I don’t think you can explain yourself.

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

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

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

Yes, and promptly supplied physical samples showing no exposure above 600oC from the very same simulated 1,000oC fire areas, tsk. The temperatures in reality were not unusual inspite of NIST’s ‘turned up’ fire simulation. Thomas Eagar of MIT, an official story adherent, explains why: “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.”

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

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

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

It is not expected that random damage should produce a working circuit (usually man-made). I challenge you to take a battery and throw metal at it until you get a short circuit – please let us know how long it takes, be honest now.

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

The sporadic flow would be unusual because the unexpected event is unlikely to occur more than once, i.e. it occurs once and the flow is expelled in one sequence. Not so for a thermite charge which may reasonably be designed to deliver bursts after its initiation. We have already been over why the flow does not match molten aluminium from the plane and why thermite is best match. You are now going in circles.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

But thanks regardless for a new point to discuss, I've never heard about this. Is there more detail available on what the timeline is and how far they got into this exercise? You say, "At 09:32, 30 miles west of the Pentagon, just as the real Flight 77 flew overhead (that is an important part of the ‘coincidence’), the government exercise played out below", but your link to the article says "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."; the real world events were well under way by 9:30, and the timeline in the document seems to indicate that the exercise was scheduled to get under way right around when the second tower was hit.

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? 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. 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.

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

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.

So if I were to guess how this fits in, I'd assume that this is an indication of the plotters specifically setting up an exercise at the exact same time as Flight 77 in order to cause confusion or keep 77 from being monitored or intercepted?

You got it.

I can visualize a lot. I can visualize a plane hitting a building, knocking off the fireproofing from the steel, a large fire burning weakening the steel, the building collapsing at the impact point, and the bottom portion of the building being unable to withstand the weight of the collapsing upper section resulting in the complete collapse of the building. You apparently can't, partly because of your particular, specific interpretation of studies that were done, from which you pick what agrees and then handwave away things that don't as being corrupted or biased or fitting a preconceived conclusion, without a lick of evidence that it actually is biased.

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.

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

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 2,500oC+. I guess that’s something to do with that confirmation bias again?

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

Your response here is quite confused. Yes, ‘what could be’ is the route that you have taken us down here. It is not a part of my argument for the devices. Remember, you are the one trying to dispute validity of these devices with ‘what could be’ mental roadblocks. Your speculation, which is well determined to involve instances of denial and bias by now, is not good enough by far rule out the devices. You are correct – your argument here is pointless.

I cannot confirm that the silver material is a part of the molten metal flow. I did say this already – I’m not interested in the silver material – it could be from the building facade, or even lead from those batteries, or something else; silver is unremarkable – I’m most interested in the near white hot to orange material which does maintain its colour throughout the fall. Anyhow, I have said all that I want on this particular piece of evidence. Your next step would be to reconcile this with other evidence such as melted steel in the debris pile which FEMA admitted could have began before the building collapses.

We have already been over lots of stuff, I guess I must have forgotten your devastating argument why thermite is the best match.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What thermite flow? The molten flow was definitely not steel and it was clear that buckling of the WTC buildings was the result of fires, not thermite. Let's do a review.

.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All it took was one person to do what was done.
what motivation would there be to terrorize journalists with anthrax just after the events of 911?

there is only one correct answer.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what motivation would there be to terrorize journalists with anthrax just after the events of 911?

there is only one correct answer.

There could be a number of reasons,which brings to mind, the Unabomber, who mailed or hand-delivered a series of increasingly sophisticated explosive devices that killed three people and injured 23 more. One person used anthrax and the other, explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There could be a number of reasons
can you give your best reason for the anthrax attacks?

the targets for the anthrax attacks were:

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

New York Post

National Enquirer

Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, That would have set up a police state. Senators Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks. At the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11 or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. [The anthrax used was] a trillion spores per gram, [refined with] special electro-static treatment. This is superweapons-grade anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly proclaimed programs, had never developed before. So it was obvious to me that this was from a U.S. government lab. There is nowhere else you could have gotten that."

- Francis A. Boyle

who stands to gain from intimidating congress and high profile journalists just after 911?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you give your best reason for the anthrax attacks?

the targets for the anthrax attacks were:

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

New York Post

National Enquirer

Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, That would have set up a police state. Senators Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks. At the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11 or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. [The anthrax used was] a trillion spores per gram, [refined with] special electro-static treatment. This is superweapons-grade anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly proclaimed programs, had never developed before. So it was obvious to me that this was from a U.S. government lab. There is nowhere else you could have gotten that."

- Francis A. Boyle

who stands to gain from intimidating congress and high profile journalists just after 911?

The U.S. didn't condone the anthrax attacks, if that is what you are implying.

Amerithrax or Anthrax Investigation

Soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, letters laced with anthrax began appearing in the U.S. mail. Five Americans were killed and 17 were sickened in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history.

The ensuing investigation by the FBI and its partners—code-named “Amerithrax”—has been one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement. In August 2008, Department of Justice and FBI officials announced a breakthrough in the case and released documents and information showing that charges were about to be brought against Dr. Bruce Ivins, who took his own life before those charges could be filed. On February 19, 2010, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service formally concluded the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks and issued an Investigative Summary.

The Amerithrax Task Force—which consisted of roughly 25 to 30 full-time investigators from the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and other law enforcement agencies, as well as federal prosecutors from the District of Columbia and the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section—expended hundreds of thousands of investigator work hours on this case.

Their efforts involved more than 10,000 witness interviews on six different continents, the execution of 80 searches, and the recovery of more than 6,000 items of potential evidence during the course of the investigation. The case involved the issuance of more than 5,750 grand jury subpoenas and the collection of 5,730 environmental samples from 60 site locations. In addition, new scientific methods were developed that ultimately led to the break in the case—methods that could have a far-reaching impact on future investigations.

http://www.fbi.gov/a...hrax-amerithrax

All it takes is one misguided individual working in a government lab to cause havoc.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You only accept the word of the people who you think support your ideas, and even then you have to selectively quote a lot of them, eg Quintiere must be right because he thinks the NIST investigation was flawed, but he is wrong when he says no to a controlled demolition. Anyone whose argument you can't find a way around, you accuse of being pressured by the US Government. Classic confirmation bias - you use your intelligence to find ways of convincing yourself that anything you don't like is wrong, but you never apply the same scrutiny to the things you think support you.

AE911T have no credibility because they have still failed to address Urich's paper which undermines their pro-demolition arguments.

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.

In spite of being much lower and with a list of difference in construction. The sort of things which you claim rule out everything that anyone brings forward as a precedent for WTC7.

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.

More insults, you don't see how that underscores how poor your arguments are.

You picked on the word "bounce" because you don't understand structures and thought it was funny, but I was indeed proposing a progressive collapse back in 2007. Start here:

http://www.unexplain...65#entry1763467

and a few posts on I'm describing progressive collapse to you:

Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading. One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

Edited by flyingswan
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only accept the word of the people who you think support your ideas, and even then you have to selectively quote a lot of them, eg Quintiere must be right because he thinks the NIST investigation was flawed, but he is wrong when he says no to a controlled demolition. Anyone whose argument you can't find a way around, you accuse of being pressured by the US Government. Classic confirmation bias - you use your intelligence to find ways of convincing yourself that anything you don't like is wrong, but you never apply the same scrutiny to the things you think support you.

No [sigh], I’m afraid that you have it all back-to-front (which doesn’t make me bat an eyelid anymore coming from you). The fact, which you are so loathe to consider (but then I know my thought process better than you), is that my ideas are based upon necessary awareness and understanding of what those people have said, along with the wider established facts. If I thought the content of AE911T or STJ911 statements were rubbish then I’d say so - exactly as I have done when it comes to P4T and CIT (shouldn’t I be on their side given my ‘confirmation bias’ to oppose the official story?) – but on the contrary, those first two groups make a lot of sense. I still find no problem in accepting only part of Quintiere’s opinions true, when it is based on logic – Quintiere provides many reasons why the NIST study falls short, all of which I can concur through my independent research, yet no reason whatsoever that the demolition cannot be correct. You see, I’m not being selective to support what I want – I’m analysing exactly what he has said, which of his arguments are strong and which are weak, in addition to marrying up his statements with my own research. This is not ‘confirmation bias’; this is logic and reason. I afford just the same level of criticism to NIST or anyone else – it should be noted that I put a lot of stock in large parts of the NIST study (even more so than official adherents when it comes to accuracy of the best estimated simulation inputs – no, not because I want to, but because given the evidence available and detail of the study, I don’t see any reason NIST should be wildly off the mark – see, more explanation). I think that what NIST did on a damage and fire basis is almost reasonable and the results we have discussed speak for themselves. Now if only NIST had considered other collapse methods and incorporated that into their conclusions I probably wouldn’t have a problem at all (and I mean seriously considered other collapse methods – not like that farce of a ‘demolition study’ they did for WTC7). But what you should ultimately realise, given all this, is that there is no preconceived idea with me. Well, except for a once upon a time belief in the official story, which I held due to ignorance for some four years. I’m not ‘digging’ to support my beliefs, I am allowing the whole evidence to shape my view in spite of the preconceived beliefs I once held.

Also, I have never alleged in such over-simplified terms that anyone has been pressured by “the U.S. Government”. When I talk about ‘political pressures’ and ‘politically desired answers’, which I do, it is far more intricate and deep-rooted than due to “the U.S. Government”. Whilst elements within the current establishment of “the U.S. Government”, media and military-industrial complex would undoubtedly oppose any movement that threatens their official story (and inherently, global standing of the U.S., which is some pretty heavy issue), it also runs right down to preconceived worldview of the grassroots public and all levels inbetween. There are many forms of politics throughout – social, economic, geopolitical, and from individuals so much as entire establishments – all of which apply pressure on the truth movement from every angle. So you see, to blame this whole political pressure that I refer to on ‘the U.S. government’ would not be quite fair. Then again, Bush certainly applied pressure in his Hitler-esque, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” statement. And in instances such as his, “is this some sort of insinuation?” retort - the frosty, underlying ire that the journalist received from Bush, in place of answer to a legitimate question, closes down the routes for free speech and open investigation. It is a taste of the same type of response that NIST or any other government sponsored employee would have received, had any of them stepped forward to seriously consider other collapse methods (reference Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan for the brave who dared to express their views and suffered consequences of the aforementioned political wrath).

So does any of this indicate ‘confirmation bias’ on my part? Am I taking anything without thinking and auto-slapping it on the table simply because it sounds good to support a set view, or am I providing explanation, logic, reason and evidence for my beliefs; for why these are good answers? I can go further if need be in any particular area to explain my reasoning; that is the very anti-thesis of ‘confirmation bias’. The last couple of posts on the subject have made me think about it more, and I don’t believe that the likes of you or LG suffer from ‘confirmation bias’ more than most in the main either – at least I couldn’t say that you don’t try to justify your views. I think with you it’s rather more basic ‘denial’, choosing to bury, excuse and/or twist core facts rather than accept them. It’s an interesting area (link below) and I see relevant examples of all these forms of denial used here all the time by official adherents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

In spite of being much lower and with a list of difference in construction. The sort of things which you claim rule out everything that anyone brings forward as a precedent for WTC7.

You are being ridiculous – the study was specifically designed to test the structure and blast effects in comparison to the Murrah building bombing – that was the whole point of it. If you read the study, the test building construction was actually more favourable to collapse than the actual Murrah building. You cannot turn around and say it’s not a good precedent without criticising the whole study and scientists who performed it. Is this what you’d like to do?? And you talk to me about ‘confirmation bias’?? When any of those silly third-world and/or warehouse structures you provide as [cough] ‘precedent’ are actually designed to replicate the WTC7 structure or fire please do let me know. I’ve never heard such weak argument, you’ve not got a leg to stand on here.

AE911T have no credibility because they have still failed to address Urich's paper which undermines their pro-demolition arguments.

For the umpteenth time, there is nothing that needs to be addressed in Urich’s paper – it does not refute the core claims for demolition. Please search the previous discussions, I’m not going over it with you again.

More insults, you don't see how that underscores how poor your arguments are.

You picked on the word "bounce" because you don't understand structures and thought it was funny, but I was indeed proposing a progressive collapse back in 2007. Start here:

http://www.unexplain...65#entry1763467

and a few posts on I'm describing progressive collapse to you:

Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading. One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

It is not an insult to point out how your story has changed to regurgitate the official explanation once an authoritative figure decreed it. The progression of collapse you described back then, with ‘bouncing’ debris and/or thermal weakening that propagated the damage, is nothing like the progression that NIST propose would occur simply due to unsupported columns and which only now you suppose is so commonplace (despite no relevant precedent whatsoever). It’s hard to blame you for coming up with a theory of your own when the official investigation left you hanging for so many years, yet your instant later conversion is ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ come to life: “this version of progressive collapse always was so... ” murmured the populace. Ah you are out of here, the Ministry of Truth NIST could tell you anything – they could have gone with the story of the diesel generators fuelling the fire to induce collapse - and you’d bleat as you followed.

Not to mention, I almost forgot, that your theory long relied additionally on debris impact damage to the WTC7 structure which NIST finally admitted was superficial to the complete collapse – that was a good day for truth – though now of course the debris impact damage was not so important after all, NIST said so, didn’t they. You have no credibility whatsoever, except as cheerleader to the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q24 said:

So does any of this indicate ‘confirmation bias’ on my part? Am I taking anything without thinking and auto-slapping it on the table simply because it sounds good to support a set view, or am I providing explanation, logic, reason and evidence for my beliefs; for why these are good answers? I can go further if need be in any particular area to explain my reasoning; that is the very anti-thesis of ‘confirmation bias’. The last couple of posts on the subject have made me think about it more, and I don’t believe that the likes of you or LG suffer from ‘confirmation bias’ more than most in the main either – at least I couldn’t say that you don’t try to justify your views. I think with you it’s rather more basic ‘denial’, choosing to bury, excuse and/or twist core facts rather than accept them. It’s an interesting area (link below) and I see relevant examples of all these forms of denial used here all the time by official adherents.

I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone, but I don't think you have pointed it out very clearly to me. In my case, your charges of bias against me are either at a very high vague level or seem to be predicated on a misunderstanding that I thought I've made clear multiple times, that I haven't been engaging in a 'debate' on this thread as to which theory is most likely or reasonable or evidenced or whatever, we have been analyzing your theory and the evidence for it. What I see as your confirmation bias doesn't manifest itself as you just slapping things on the table without thinking or explanation, it manifests itself IMO as pretty obvious double standards being applied within these explanations and what they supposedly demonstrate. You exhibit all the hallmarks of good, maybe over-the-top, skepticism when dealing with the official story, but I don't see anywhere near the same standard applied to the points of your theory.

You tried to foist on me some computer animation using physics modeling software from an artist showing the tower collapse, and then turn around and start talking about how 'cartoonish' you find the adjustments NIST made to their modeling; this is really consistent? Tell me one topic that we've been discussing where, if I was actually defending the official story, you would let me get away with the statements 'could be' or 'if need be'. You told me that you can just will into existence black box shielding on your demolition devices 'if need be'; then why can't I just will into existence a 1000C fire where the molten flow came out 'if need be'? NIST studies have 'shown' that fires this hot may have occurred. I just asked you and you didn't respond to, "If you require to be hand-held through the possible explanations and demand probabilities in order to find this evidence to have any value, then how is your jeering when I note you don't even have a drawing of your thermite device, let alone evidence, at all consistent with this standard?". How is your response consistent here?

If I have engaged in what you think is confirmation bias then feel free to quote me, I may well have. Tell me what I have accepted as true under a different standard than I apply to your points. I don't think I have accepted too much as true of the official story or at least haven't communicated it, I've asked what your explanations are as to why these points against your position are not true. When you've given them, in addition to disagreeing with some of your interpretations which is to be expected, I have also noted that IMO the standards by which you are accepting your points or different than those contrary, and your points don't require and can't withstand the rigor you apply to counter-points. My arguments in this vein are structured around, "if you don't believe official point A because of B, C, and D, then you shouldn't believe your point W because of X, Y, and Z if you're being consistent."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"points or different than those contrary" should say "points are different than those contrary'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention, I almost forgot, that your theory long relied additionally on debris impact damage to the WTC7 structure which NIST finally admitted was superficial to the complete collapse – that was a good day for truth – though now of course the debris impact damage was not so important after all, NIST said so, didn’t they.

Damage to WTC7

Battalion Chief John Norman

Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone, but I don't think you have pointed it out very clearly to me. In my case, your charges of bias against me are either at a very high vague level or seem to be predicated on a misunderstanding that I thought I've made clear multiple times, that I haven't been engaging in a 'debate' on this thread as to which theory is most likely or reasonable or evidenced or whatever, we have been analyzing your theory and the evidence for it. What I see as your confirmation bias doesn't manifest itself as you just slapping things on the table without thinking or explanation, it manifests itself IMO as pretty obvious double standards being applied within these explanations and what they supposedly demonstrate. You exhibit all the hallmarks of good, maybe over-the-top, skepticism when dealing with the official story, but I don't see anywhere near the same standard applied to the points of your theory.

You tried to foist on me some computer animation using physics modeling software from an artist showing the tower collapse, and then turn around and start talking about how 'cartoonish' you find the adjustments NIST made to their modeling; this is really consistent? Tell me one topic that we've been discussing where, if I was actually defending the official story, you would let me get away with the statements 'could be' or 'if need be'. You told me that you can just will into existence black box shielding on your demolition devices 'if need be'; then why can't I just will into existence a 1000C fire where the molten flow came out 'if need be'? NIST studies have 'shown' that fires this hot may have occurred. I just asked you and you didn't respond to, "If you require to be hand-held through the possible explanations and demand probabilities in order to find this evidence to have any value, then how is your jeering when I note you don't even have a drawing of your thermite device, let alone evidence, at all consistent with this standard?". How is your response consistent here?

If I have engaged in what you think is confirmation bias then feel free to quote me, I may well have. Tell me what I have accepted as true under a different standard than I apply to your points. I don't think I have accepted too much as true of the official story or at least haven't communicated it, I've asked what your explanations are as to why these points against your position are not true. When you've given them, in addition to disagreeing with some of your interpretations which is to be expected, I have also noted that IMO the standards by which you are accepting your points or different than those contrary, and your points don't require and can't withstand the rigor you apply to counter-points. My arguments in this vein are structured around, "if you don't believe official point A because of B, C, and D, then you shouldn't believe your point W because of X, Y, and Z if you're being consistent."

You begin by seeking to absolve yourself of any demonstrated ‘confirmation bias’ because, you say, you have chosen not to argue in the way of ‘theory vs. theory’ (whether you actually are in practice is another matter – it’s sometimes unavoidable that if you don’t accept demolition then you inherently must accept the official story, and there are clear instances where you have done this). Anyhow, this would be effective in discarding certain demonstrated instances of your ‘confirmation bias’ – such as your apparent selective belief that randomly dispersed 1,000oC diffuse flame can initiate a collapse, but strategically placed 2,500oC+ thermite cannot (that’s just one example for you). Then, you explain how you perceive my ‘confirmation bias’ to be a result of the ‘theory vs. theory’ method. So it seems that when I select an option, no matter how much reason I can provide for it, that must be ‘confirmation bias’. When you select an option, no matter the reason for it, it doesn’t count, because you weren’t, you say (very debatably), making a comparative argument anyway? Isn’t that a slight double-standard from you to begin with; different rules between us?

Let’s look at that one example you provided above regarding the computer modelling – I will explain to you how it is quite consistent, or at least does not amount to any sort of ‘confirmation bias’. First the video(s) I provided. Whether it was presented by a builder, a baker, or candlestick maker... or an artist... is irrelevant – it is based entirely within bounds of a computer physics engine; an animated model based on the immutable laws of physics. Follow the process: 1) the model is created, 2) the ‘start’ button is hit, 3) the results are observed. An additional note: It was not intended as a direct precedent to any of the WTC buildings, but rather a demonstration of Newton’s third law; equal and opposite forces producing approximately equal and opposite damage between equivalent colliding bodies. This law is undeniable, applying to equivalent bodies, of any shape or size - and it does not matter which direction either is moving! And the video(s) proved that fact sufficiently. Now to my complaint of the NIST modelling where you think I am applying a different standard. Here, compare and contrast the process with that above: 1) the model is created, 2) the ‘start’ button is hit, 2.5) manual/human inputs are added to induce collapse based on observation, i.e. not predicted by physics of the model, 3) the results are observed. I tried to make the additional step stand out. I will leave you to figure out why that part of the NIST modelling really is ‘just an animation’ and ‘cartoonish’; manipulated to show what the editor wants, compared to the video(s) that I provided. Where is the different standard or bias in any of that? I have a specific and logical reason for accepting validity of one model but not the other.

Coming on to ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ (which yes, we both must use in places), you are correct that the official story can rarely ‘get away with it’. You don’t seem to understand that the official story justifies the ‘War on Terror’, even if it was poor logic to proceed with, it justifies need for the decision. An alternative version of events justifies only a thorough and impartial investigation. The result of the official story is war. The result of an alternative story is investigation. Do ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, support a war, or an investigation? You understand why if any of those answers come about then I win? Probably not given that I’ve tried to explain this before, but those ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ answers mean that further investigation is required. I can use them all day and it should lead to the investigation I support. You have no right to use them whilst not supporting an investigation. And you are entitled, just about, to believe in a 1,000oC fire, that’s not impossible (though against expectation and unsupported by the observable and physical evidence). There is still not going to be a heat transfer of such efficiency from a waxing and waning diffuse flame to bring that metal to the temperature you need to produce the WTC2 molten metal flow. Honestly, this is even worse than the impossible ‘chain-reaction battery-bomb’ theory.

You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue, because as I said above, I can provide specific and logical reason for my views every time. I didn’t jump into my current view without heavily critiquing it first. Even then I wouldn’t accept it and retained belief in the official story for a time, now that was ‘confirmation bias’ which I’m glad to be rid of.

Anyhow, come on, I would like some probabilities (previous posts) from you, please. :)

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage to WTC7

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

The point is that the WTC7 impact damage was superficial. I think most rationale people know that a bit of facade and external column damage is not particularly threatening to an entire large structure which is supported on many times more columns, both internal and external. Even NIST concluded that the damage had no fundamental bearing on the global collapse. Rather, realising that the damage could not act as a collapse mechanism, NIST concluded that the loss of the single Eastern column 79 alone, for any reason, would result in the whole structure coming down like a house of cards (which of course is a nonsense, but what NIST had to resort to).

So you see, all those official story adherents who pointed a finger at the damage for so many years and argued tooth and nail over it... they were wrong, completely wrong, and I think owe an apology and concessions to parts of the truth movement who always said that the damage was limited/irrelevant to the collapse.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No [sigh], I’m afraid that you have it all back-to-front (which doesn’t make me bat an eyelid anymore coming from you). The fact, which you are so loathe to consider (but then I know my thought process better than you), is that my ideas are based upon necessary awareness and understanding of what those people have said, along with the wider established facts. If I thought the content of AE911T or STJ911 statements were rubbish then I’d say so - exactly as I have done when it comes to P4T and CIT (shouldn’t I be on their side given my ‘confirmation bias’ to oppose the official story?) – but on the contrary, those first two groups make a lot of sense. I still find no problem in accepting only part of Quintiere’s opinions true, when it is based on logic – Quintiere provides many reasons why the NIST study falls short, all of which I can concur through my independent research, yet no reason whatsoever that the demolition cannot be correct.

Your powers of self-delusion are really impressive. You are no more qualified to to assess whether Quintiere is correct if he gives reasons than if he doesn't. As comparison of your recent posts with those I linked to of five years ago shows, you didn't have a clue about structures then and you have made no effort to educate yourself in the intervening time. Your ability to find the flaws in P4T and CIT does you credit, but you manifestly haven't applied the same scrutiny to AE911T and J911S, as your ludicrous statement about Urich shows. Just to remind you, Urich is a conspiricist, he wants to believe, but he looked at every single claim of evidence for demolition that AE911T made and his conclusion was: "...there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis."

You are being ridiculous – the study was specifically designed to test the structure and blast effects in comparison to the Murrah building bombing – that was the whole point of it. If you read the study, the test building construction was actually more favourable to collapse than the actual Murrah building. You cannot turn around and say it’s not a good precedent without criticising the whole study and scientists who performed it. Is this what you’d like to do?? And you talk to me about ‘confirmation bias’?? When any of those silly third-world and/or warehouse structures you provide as [cough] ‘precedent’ are actually designed to replicate the WTC7 structure or fire please do let me know. I’ve never heard such weak argument, you’ve not got a leg to stand on here.

The whole point about progressive collapse is that the effect is much greater than the cause would lead you to expect. Hence their conclusion that "It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself" is correct. While I haven't studied the Murrah collapse, a brief Google suggests that the "other factors" included a transfer beam supporting the building facade than was pushed out of line by the explosion. Note pushed, not broken, so the factors they mention more favourable to collapse are not relevant. I cannot find the full text of the Eglin study, so I've no idea if it included the same key weakness. However, the fact that it isn't mentioned in the on-line extracts is suggestive.

It is not an insult to point out how your story has changed to regurgitate the official explanation once an authoritative figure decreed it.

My story hasn't changed in that respect. It is a sign of your ignorance of structures that you did not recognise that I was describing a progressive collapse back then.

Not to mention, I almost forgot, that your theory long relied additionally on debris impact damage to the WTC7 structure which NIST finally admitted was superficial to the complete collapse – that was a good day for truth – though now of course the debris impact damage was not so important after all, NIST said so, didn’t they. You have no credibility whatsoever, except as cheerleader to the official story.

The WTC7 collapse was obviously progressive, so I was looking for a starting point to explain it, something about the building that was out of the usual. The damage from the WTC1 collapse was the candidate that caught my eye, though NIST's analysis later showed that it was actually the very long span beams at the Eastern end of the building. You cannot claim that the damage had no effect, as you picked the NIST collapse simulation without damage and crowed over how little it resembled the actual collapse. This was typical confirmation bias on your part, you'd found what you wanted and so you stopped looking instead of noticing that there was a second simulation, including the damage, that matched the actuality.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the process: 1) the model is created, 2) the ‘start’ button is hit, 3) the results are observed.

The artist departs from the engineering process at step 1. There is no indication whatever that he used a realistic model of the building. Furthermore, there is no indication that the program he used included the full physics. It may have gravity and kinematics, but seems to lack the all-important behaviour of the structural elements.

Edited by flyingswan
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point about progressive collapse is that the effect is much greater than the cause would lead you to expect. Hence their conclusion that "It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself" is correct. While I haven't studied the Murrah collapse, a brief Google suggests that the "other factors" included a transfer beam supporting the building facade than was pushed out of line by the explosion. Note pushed, not broken, so the factors they mention more favourable to collapse are not relevant. I cannot find the full text of the Eglin study, so I've no idea if it included the same key weakness. However, the fact that it isn't mentioned in the on-line extracts is suggestive.

I don't need to discuss with a cheerleader, I'll just critique the official reports. Except the above is worth a quick response. To do you a favour, not that it will help your mental preferences, the most complete online version of the study can be found at 911blogger here. You need to read it because you obviously don't know what you are talking about - a 60,000 lbs internal transfer beam pushed out of line by a pressure wave indeed. Apparently the experts at Eglin who did the physical tests did not buy your theory either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You begin by seeking to absolve yourself of any demonstrated ‘confirmation bias’

Oh of course, by saying "I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone", that's clearly the best way for me to try and absolve myself. I'm being honest there, because I sure I am biased, and because I'm biased, I recognize that I might not be able to spot my bias unless it's pointed out. Let's compare and contrast that to your apparently desperate need to never admit there is a single thing wrong with anything you argue: "You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue". Your humility is touching...

because, you say, you have chosen not to argue in the way of ‘theory vs. theory’ (whether you actually are in practice is another matter – it’s sometimes unavoidable that if you don’t accept demolition then you inherently must accept the official story, and there are clear instances where you have done this). (emphasis by LG)

False, wrong, I hate to break it to you but you have made an error here. The bolded part above is called a false dilemma, the choices are not just accept demolition and accept the official story. In addition to having specifically said ad nauseum that when you don't have enough data it moves you to the 'I don't know' position, a third position that you inexplicably exclude from your binary choices above, I can argue positions that I don't 'accept'; I can make arguments for the pro-life abortion position or for the existence of God even though I'm a pro-choice (essentially) atheist.

Anyhow, this would be effective in discarding certain demonstrated instances of your ‘confirmation bias’ – such as your apparent selective belief that randomly dispersed 1,000oC diffuse flame can initiate a collapse, but strategically placed 2,500oC+ thermite cannot (that’s just one example for you).

An example you provide without quoting me, and which I dispute actually exists. Provide a quote from me which you apparently have misinterpreted as my saying 'a thermite device cannot' anything. I won't get 'whingy' and ask for a retraction when you can't find it.

I think I've been fairly clear that the argument is that you have no evidence of any thermite device being in the building at all. You have arrived at your opinion that there was by 'concluding' that a demolition was blatant based on a one-sided view of a bunch of circumstantial evidence, without disproving the other alternatives the circumstantial evidence also suggest which is required for this looser standard, and thereby inferring into existence your demolition charges. I've argued that I don't find this method very convincing, and yes, biased; there is no reason to remove the requirement that you disprove the alternatives, this circumstantial evidence standard is already loose enough.

Then, you explain how you perceive my ‘confirmation bias’ to be a result of the ‘theory vs. theory’ method. So it seems that when I select an option, no matter how much reason I can provide for it, that must be ‘confirmation bias’. When you select an option, no matter the reason for it, it doesn’t count, because you weren’t, you say (very debatably), making a comparative argument anyway? Isn’t that a slight double-standard from you to begin with; different rules between us?

First off, no matter how much reason you provide for it, it never reaches the level of 'killer evidence' and there is no best evidence, so your reasoning no matter how valid and sound is only taking you so far. I don't perceive your confirmation bias as a result of theory vs theory, I perceive your perception of my confirmation bias as possibly being a result of thinking I'm arguing theory vs theory. In other words like I said, you can't say I 'accept' specific official theory points just because I ask you why you believe these official points are invalid.

Coming on to ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ (which yes, we both must use in places), you are correct that the official story can rarely ‘get away with it’. You don’t seem to understand that the official story justifies the ‘War on Terror’, even if it was poor logic to proceed with, it justifies need for the decision. An alternative version of events justifies only a thorough and impartial investigation. The result of the official story is war. The result of an alternative story is investigation. Do ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, support a war, or an investigation? You understand why if any of those answers come about then I win?

I'm getting frustrated having to type this to you over and over again. What the consequences of either of these theories is has no bearing at all on the truth of it. If you don't believe me then tell me how the theory of relativity is less or more valid because the consequences of it has enabled human beings to destroy all of human civilization. And no, the result of the alternative version of events isn't just an investigation; when we were discussing why all of these cowardly non-CT experts aren't coming forward despite having to know about the demolition since it was blatant part of the reason is that it would result in a civil war that would tear the nation apart. Sounds like you should be quiet then as the official story only supports our wars that mostly only kill other nations' people; this is inconsequential to the damage a civil war would cause, right, and is why our cowed experts are staying silent, a civil war is worse than our current ones. You seem to me to be trying to use this whole 'justified a war' red herring as an excuse why your double-standards are okay, they are not.

Probably not given that I’ve tried to explain this before, but those ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’ answers mean that further investigation is required. I can use them all day and it should lead to the investigation I support. You have no right to use them whilst not supporting an investigation.

Ha, well perhaps we should have reviewed the rules for this game you're insisting we play prior to setting up the game board then. Why you think your 'you have no right' rules apply outside of your own head is beyond me. You need good compelling evidenced justification to warrant your investigation, and at this point I think what you'd really like to happen is better called a 'fishing expedition'.

You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue, because as I said above, I can provide specific and logical reason for my views every time. I didn’t jump into my current view without heavily critiquing it first. Even then I wouldn’t accept it and retained belief in the official story for a time, now that was ‘confirmation bias’ which I’m glad to be rid of.

Let's not confuse 'confirmation bias' with 'unsupported arguments'. The criteria for avoiding bias is not can you provide specific and logical reasons for your views, these specific and logical reasons only take us so far, to only the circumstantial evidence/non-killer-evidence standard, they prove zilch even using your definition of 'prove'. The criteria is then can the specific and logical reasons for alternative views take us as far as the ones for your views, and the only reason I'm seeing that you believe they don't for some points is because you change your standards on the level of certainty and evidence you require for counter-points. Here's yet another example. When steel structures are shown to collapse, you argumentum-ad-labelum them and deem them 'third world' or whatever arglebargle, they're not close enough. But alternatively, it's just totally okay for you to provide me drawings of a thermite device that has no remote control detonation electronics nor aircraft-collision-withstanding shielding and say 'good enough', even though it suffers from the exact same problems as the 'third-world' examples; these drawings are clearly not of the demolition device that you need to do the job you are asking it to do.

Anyhow, come on, I would like some probabilities (previous posts) from you, please. :)

I'll try to respond to you on this before too long, I'm crazy busy and shouldn't have even taken time to type this. But what was your calculation again of how many events are occurring from which to draw coincidences to the NRO exercise? You do know that is required in order to come up with probabilities, right? No intuition please. Your point, your burden.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to discuss with a cheerleader, I'll just critique the official reports. Except the above is worth a quick response. To do you a favour, not that it will help your mental preferences, the most complete online version of the study can be found at 911blogger here. You need to read it because you obviously don't know what you are talking about - a 60,000 lbs internal transfer beam pushed out of line by a pressure wave indeed. Apparently the experts at Eglin who did the physical tests did not buy your theory either.

Thanks for the link, it shows that the Eglin test was even less like the actual Murrah Building than I thought. The Eglin structure had concrete walls, while the Murrah Building had an open colonnade at ground level and a glass front above. That means that instead of a flat blast-resistant facade at Eglin, the Murrah Building had a series of open box structures facing the bomb. These would have the effect of focussing the blast waves and greatly increasing the effective overpressures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh of course, by saying "I'm sure I do suffer from confirmation bias as does everyone", that's clearly the best way for me to try and absolve myself. I'm being honest there, because I sure I am biased, and because I'm biased, I recognize that I might not be able to spot my bias unless it's pointed out. Let's compare and contrast that to your apparently desperate need to never admit there is a single thing wrong with anything you argue: "You can fire away with these accusations of ‘confirmation bias’ all day but always they are untrue". Your humility is touching...

No, the line you quote above had nothing to do with absolving yourself – that was where you admit to suffering from confirmation bias. Where you seek to absolve yourself, is where you start talking about how you think your confirmation bias doesn’t really matter because, you say, you are not arguing ‘theory vs. theory’. It’s very clearly here: “In my case, your charges of bias against me are either at a very high vague level or seem to be predicated on a misunderstanding that I thought I've made clear multiple times, that I haven't been engaging in a 'debate' on this thread as to which theory is most likely or reasonable or evidenced or whatever, we have been analyzing your theory and the evidence for it.” Which in itself is a false statement, seen when you come out with a preference for the official story every time without exception (despite lack of reason and ‘it just did’ type answers, which you will see in the link I provided are indications of denial) and statements such as, for example: “I can visualize a plane hitting a building, knocking off the fireproofing from the steel, a large fire burning weakening the steel, the building collapsing at the impact point, and the bottom portion of the building being unable to withstand the weight of the collapsing upper section resulting in the complete collapse of the building.” Is this the theory/debate which you “haven’t been engaging in”?? And I don’t need to be humble here -I know and can demonstrate that my arguments are based in reason and not confirmation bias.

False, wrong, I hate to break it to you but you have made an error here. The bolded part above is called a false dilemma, the choices are not just accept demolition and accept the official story. In addition to having specifically said ad nauseum that when you don't have enough data it moves you to the 'I don't know' position, a third position that you inexplicably exclude from your binary choices above, I can argue positions that I don't 'accept'; I can make arguments for the pro-life abortion position or for the existence of God even though I'm a pro-choice (essentially) atheist.

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.

An example you provide without quoting me, and which I dispute actually exists. Provide a quote from me which you apparently have misinterpreted as my saying 'a thermite device cannot' anything. I won't get 'whingy' and ask for a retraction when you can't find it.

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?

I'm getting frustrated having to type this to you over and over again. What the consequences of either of these theories is has no bearing at all on the truth of it. If you don't believe me then tell me how the theory of relativity is less or more valid because the consequences of it has enabled human beings to destroy all of human civilization. And no, the result of the alternative version of events isn't just an investigation; when we were discussing why all of these cowardly non-CT experts aren't coming forward despite having to know about the demolition since it was blatant part of the reason is that it would result in a civil war that would tear the nation apart. Sounds like you should be quiet then as the official story only supports our wars that mostly only kill other nations' people; this is inconsequential to the damage a civil war would cause, right, and is why our cowed experts are staying silent, a civil war is worse than our current ones. You seem to me to be trying to use this whole 'justified a war' red herring as an excuse why your double-standards are okay, they are not.

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

Here's yet another example. When steel structures are shown to collapse, you argumentum-ad-labelum them and deem them 'third world' or whatever arglebargle, they're not close enough. But alternatively, it's just totally okay for you to provide me drawings of a thermite device that has no remote control detonation electronics nor aircraft-collision-withstanding shielding and say 'good enough', even though it suffers from the exact same problems as the 'third-world' examples; these drawings are clearly not of the demolition device that you need to do the job you are asking it to do.

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.

I'll try to respond to you on this before too long, I'm crazy busy and shouldn't have even taken time to type this. But what was your calculation again of how many events are occurring from which to draw coincidences to the NRO exercise? You do know that is required in order to come up with probabilities, right? No intuition please. Your point, your burden.

If it’s any consolation, I much agree that you should take time responding to either of my previous two posts addressed to you, #775 and #781, rather than jumping into a Q24/flyingswan spat (never a good idea) with your post #789. And I have kept my response here short because I’m too busy to get involved in it also.

So far as my estimation, I think I counted nine vaguely similar exercises on record in the preceding years based on the list that skyeagle linked. It doesn’t need to be a precise probability to prove my point here; just an estimation will do. You seem very hesitant to suggest an answer, I think, because you know where it leads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

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?

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.