Talking Turkey

August 8, 2012

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

Until you produce evidence to backup what you say, you have no case. :no:

August 8, 2012

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

You are the one who introduced topics from another thread, Mr. Hypocrite.

Cz

August 9, 2012

It's the 'so happened' that I disagree with if you are asserting that this is somehow unusual; I'm utterly unsurprised that you've found some way that perhaps nanothermite may have been placed in the building; Silverstein leases the building, right there alone we have myriad alternatives for introducing these explosives unseen.

At the risk of repeating myself, all I am asserting is that there was potential for access to the building structure, and setup of the demolition charges, under the guise of legitimate works - this in response to your concern that the setup itself might be unachievable due to the risk.

The additional connections of the company to the White House, military unit, nanothermite and previous demolition works are simply to flesh out that potential. I agree that none of these factors, least of all alone, are untoward, but together build a profile of the type of unit we are looking for with potential to carry out a demolition setup undetected.

I am pleased you see there there are also alternatives to introducing the setup unseen. I have also theorised about such possibilities in the past. With all of the avenues available and no competent investigation to date, it would seem hasty to declare the demolition setup too great a risk.

Also, you've been mentioning 'coincidence' a lot, which, speaking of 'void', is essentially how I find such arguments. As usual, someone else says it better than I:

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Where there is one coincidence I agree. Where there is a seemingly endless list of coincidences surrounding a single event, there comes a point where it is better described as a pattern, or at the least... well... here's someone who can say it better than I also: -

"When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them—for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes."

~Carl Jung

Where some are content to believe in a series of coincidences culminating with the improbable, I prefer to consider reason for the occurrence where it is available - especially where a single answer 'false flag' so comprehensively removes any reliance on 'chance' as a solution. As I have already quoted on this thread: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

Personally I cannot accept the improbable, where such a simple and meaningful alternative answer is presented.

Turner Construction held the contract I thought because they were going to be part of the conspiracy; I thought I saw some documents from Dec 2000 talking about the renovation work or whatever, but maybe that wasn't when they got the contract. You're making it sound like our conspirators had no choice but to go through Turner because they already held the contract, is that true? This company was awarded contracts based on nothing having to do with 9/11, and they also had access to nanothermite?

Turner Construction were longterm contractors for the WTC (since the early 90s I recall). You are correct there is a 2000 document, I believe discussing the fireproofing and steelwork renovations. As mentioned above, we know there were various possibilities to implement the demolition setup... though I can't think of many better ways to provide access to the building structure than through this company. That is why I am interested in the 1999 appointment of Tom Leppert and the Turner Construction/Hochtief merger (with inevitable company restructuring). I did not say the company had access to nanothermite - I don't know - I just said the company previously contracted for the military unit reported to provide the only reliable source of nanothermite in the U.S. at that time. Make of the facts what you will. I'm not sold on this, but I see some real possibilities.

What was Silverstein's link to the neocons, I thought it was just because he's a Zionist. I have a bad feeling you're going to connect him to Wolfowitz because they are both Jewish. Regardless, Zim-Israeli with offices in the building would also have access to the structure, and you underestimate the capabilities of our Black Ops military units. In addition, I just found this on wiki: "ZimAmerican Israeli Shipping Company was on the 16th floor and officially moved out of the World Trade Center to Norfolk, Virginia on Sept. 4, 2001. However, some computer systems were still in use in WTC at the time of the attacks." Ah-HA! (No, not 'ah-ha'...)

I don't get it... there is no apparent military link, no clear demolition link, no direct political link, nothing whatsoever comparable to Turner Construction, except perhaps a loose Zionist connection and their mere presence... and how does having an office in the WTC grant legitimate, unrestricted access to the building structure? Okkk... I think we are threadbare on obvious connections and potential here... but I won't rule them out altogether, for you.

Oh I nearly forgot... Silverstein's link. No, it is not that he is a Zionist and so is Wolfowitz... that is the flimsiest of reasoning (I have come across no evidence of the two even having been in the same room together). On the other hand, there is a better connection in that direction if we look who Silverstein rubs shoulders with - none other than Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin '9/11 is good for Israel' Netanyahu (the two are close longterm associates) and the Neocon link is clear to draw from there - the ideologies of Israeli/U.S. hawks go hand in hand. Still, it is more than simply the Zionist and Neocon connections which place Silverstein under scrutiny... of course evidence of the WTC lease transfer and insurance re-policy 6 weeks prior the attack, along with his subsequent comments and fact he was on the phone seeking demolition authorisation the morning of 9/11, is all a part of the consideration which should not be quickly forgotten.

I don't know if we're still just talking about 'possibility' or if you are actually suggesting something about the actual conspirators. Assuming it's the latter, I'm not in the head of these people but you are?! How do you know this? These head conspirators just 'know' who's faithful to the cause, how exactly? None of these conspirators are in it mostly for the money? There are ample precedents for that as I'm sure you know (yeesh, this is America...) as well as for conspirators turning on one another.

I am suggesting something quite possible about the conspirators - I don't think any of these guys are in it for the money - it is a weak motivation next to power, blood and religion. It was not difficult to know who was 'faithful to the cause'. We have two groups - the political planners and those who implemented the operation...

Now politicians are half mental anyway... these are individuals who will commit others to untold death and destruction in wars at their behest, in pursuit of land or energy resources, for the greater good of their nation and detriment of others... there was no shortage here, with most of those behind 9/11 having a decades long association derived from the same ideology. You know, these guys had plenty of time and opportunity to discuss between one another just how far they were willing to go in pursuit of their global visions. It is not a subject that would suddenly crop up in conversation one day, but a gradual build-up over those decades. As they say, "power corrupts", and the more deception and political perversion they got away with, the bolder they grew.

As for the implementors, the intelligence/military pool they would be selected from meant that the vetting process was already carried out. You must understand – internally it can be an uncomfortable level of surveillance that agents come under, there are watchers watching watchers, constant monitoring and testing (that includes psychological), everything is known about them, their family and friends, their acquaintances, beliefs and views are analyzed until they know you better than you know yourself – it’s how they remove risk to the secrecy and deception that can come in such a role. And certain roles require a certain person. The higher up the ranks and more classified the project, the more is known about the agents internally. It is how they ensure confidentiallity that comes with the task. From that pool, we select those agents suitable (the racial and religious extremists which exist in any group, that we touched on earlier). Of course we don’t just assign the task there and then – we might make a tentative unrelated suggestion as a final gauge to how the agent will react. So there it is - all the conspirators had to do was read an agent’s profile.

Yes I have researched enough of wars, politics and Zionist history to be in the head of these people - I understand what drives the extremists. You think the 3,000 on 9/11 grate at their conscience? Those who would see that multiplied by hundreds of thousands for the cause? You must understand - they are not playing the same game as me and you - we cannot view them on our level or by our standards.

I have yet to see the necessary risk in the demolition setup or operation. Can you be specific? What can go wrong with the setup given the guise of legitimate works I have set out? Which individual involved would stab their beliefs in the back, and why? These suggestions seem hopeful rather than realistic.

August 9, 2012

Technically, the failure of the official study to explain the collapse adequately shows that they failed to explain the collapse adequately. At best, it removes one possibility from the zillions of alternatives that could have occurred (not just 'employed').

For the tower collapses, had the cause genuinely been a damage and fire scenario, it was within NIST's grasp to demonstrate that conclusion - the modelling was all adequate and ready to go. The way the results were left, with the only collapse case found reliant on damage demonstratably outside of the photographic/video reality, leads me to believe there was no (zero) damage/fire result within that reality that could support the politically desired conclusion. Otherwise, why leave the grey area of the range as NIST's results did? NIST never proved their case. But they could have done. Why didn't they?

Without understanding the simulated cases that NIST set out, you aren't going to know what I'm talking about. I can go into explanation of this if you think it worthwhile. For now I just wanted to contest that only "one possibility" was removed - it is my opinion that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results. NIST proved that the towers could remain standing after the witnessed impacts and fires. NIST did not prove that the towers could collapse after the witnessed impacts and fires. You cannot get a bigger failure than that for the official theory. I believe at this point a real investigation would have looked at alternatives, though politically the conclusion was already set.

I've found references to witnessed structural deformation, that it was leaning (I'll discuss your 'foreknowledge' below), and I thought the video shows that the south side collapsed first (virtual symmetry?). What should be speaking volumes to us is the fact that there are, what, thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, material scientists, physicists, who are staying silent about this 'blatant' demolition.

Ok, back to WTC7...

The deformation you reference is not the type of a widespread or increasing severity witnessed in fire damaged buildings. The bulge at the south-west corner of WTC7 existed early in the day, from the time a corner was taken out of the building by the falling tower debris. There was then no further change in the building condition over the following hours right up until approximately 10 seconds prior global collapse initiation; a sudden event by all accounts which the prior deformation you reference (on the complete opposite side of the building) had nothing to do with.

Next, sorry I should have said "virtually symmetrical" not "virtual symmetry"! I have seen no indication that the south side of WTC7 collapsed first. Most footage shows the building from the north where it can be seen that upon global collapse initiation the east and west facades drop in unision... despite the official claim that damage propagated from one side to the other.

There are thousands comprising architects, engineers and scientists who have spoken out. Experts can be as complacent and conformist as the next person, and silence does not constitute agreement. I'll set a challenge...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Find 1,700+ construction professionals who have critiqued NIST's results and found agreement with the official theory.

The lack of any good need to demolish 7, we are way far-removed from any Pearl Harbor tie-in here with piddly irrelevant WTC7.

A valid reason for the demolition of WTC7 is that it was the operations centre for the 9/11 false flag. The collapse was not only the quickest way to dispose of evidence but also of dispersing/relocating the unit responsible.

The possibility of debris from the twin tower not damaging WTC7 and thus ruining that plot (conspirator risk #4,764,393).

I have already addressed this assumption that the debris damage aided the demoliton at the end of my last post.

Not sure why 'precedent' is even being brought up, unless you have several examples of buildings suffering unknown damage and extensive fires burning for several hours matching the approximate parameters of the WTC7 construction. By definition, precedent has limited applicability to the unprecedented.

Firstly, once we realise that the WTC7 debris damage was irrelevant to the collapse (remember all of those quotes I linked from NIST), then we see the situation was not unprecedented - it was for all intents and purposes a standard office fire. Here is one of those quotes from NIST to reaffirm: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."

And more from NIST, confirming the above and providing a selection of precedent: -

"There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1991), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).

...

The differences in the fires were not meaningful... "

The only area NIST do draw a distinction is in the building designs, where simply because WTC7 had a long span floor system to one side of the building, by their 7 year estimation, deduced this meant the whole internal structure would fall in like a pack of cards in approximately 10 seconds start to finish, leaving the exterior shell to come down virtually symmetrical and freefall for a period, all due to the removal of some floor trusses. It is completely bizarre to think that any skyscraper would be reliant on a section of floor trusses; that those trusses essentially supported the load of the entire structure through its connections. It's ridiculous, the whole great building didn't come down due to some failed floor trusses, that is not how these buildings are designed - however, there are many cases of demolition which are proven to have had the witnessed effect.

I am of a group that claims that what you are seeing is possibly thermite, and possibly several other things. I'm sure you've read up enough on this to know what these several other things can be.

Great, keep in mind that we possibly have thermite in the towers, because the circumstantial evidence for that will build. Also, yes I have discussed the WTC2 molten flow numerous times - due to the characteristics I don't see what the substance can reasonably be other than a thermite reaction - I see only people grasping at straws which are irrational and/or do not match the observation.

I can find references to this but nothing indicating they are 'intelligence agents'. Are these the same 'agents' who then later filed suit because of their mistreatment during their detainment? How covert.....

Three points to confirm the intelligence connection...

1. A number of the men's names were found in an FBI intelligence database.

2 The men's lawyer admitted the men had worked for Israeli intelligence... but in another country. (yeah, sure).

3. Urban Moving for which the men worked, was a blatant front company.

We could heap the pressure on further with evidence such as their series of failed lie detector tests, instant protests of innocence (before they were even arrested/questioned) and way the investigation was shutdown not for law enforcement reason but under political pressure and the indication the men had carried explosives in their van.

It was a little too late to remain covert by time of the lawsuit.

This was not the only Israeli agent group detained after the attack. There was a further number arrested in the U.S. and which specialised in explosive ordnance and communications intercept, of which an investigator stated there were "tie-ins" between the Israelis and 9/11 but it was reported, "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information."

Why excuse all these guys without investigation?

Now that was one helluva long thread I didn't read through all of it, so my criticisms here you may have already dealt with. I'm having trouble picking up from the thread posts the relevance that 'certainty' has to do with anything, but you do seem to trying to make some point concerning the fact that it wasn't purely the firefighters assessment that the building was going to collapse because of the unknown person. You have not shown that the source for every quote concerning indications of collapse comes from this one unknown person. Most importantly, the existence of this anonymous source does not explain the eyewitness accounts of the structural deformation they saw, that you just above said the lack of which was evidence of the demolition. You're not suggesting that this source also planted the idea about the bulge, that it was leaning, the whole corner of the building is missing, didn't look straight, and was creaking? That sounds like structural deformation to me.

You said this in reply to Boony and laid out your timeline concerning how FDNY was 'unconcerned' prior to talking to conspirator #19 (12 for the setup, Silverstein and his two Zionist buds, I'm going very light and only counting Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy in the govt; ah I guess our mystery source could be only #18, maybe one of the 12 is doing double duty):

"The FDNY were not concerned of collapse before the warnings from ‘unnamed’, i.e. they were influenced"

Right, I'm sure that unnamed source was a much larger influence than the fact that they were standing in the rubble and debris from two other buildings-turned-graveyards they also didn't think were going to collapse. In spite of that, I'm supposed to believe that they were still feeling confident about their collapse risk assessments?

It may be worth reading through the thread until your questions are answered.

The relevance of the 'certainty' is that one cannot be certain of a supposed never before witnessed event. After the tower collapses, the concern on scene for WTC7 does not surprise me at all, but then words like, "adamant", "definitely" and "imminent" appear, along with foreknowledge of the severity and timing, with a full collapse perimeter setup, and then media reports that the building is already down... before it is. Yet remember, the official theory is that the collapse only became inevitable due to a quirk of the building design which manifested suddenly 10 seconds prior the collapse. That this level of certainty was somehow apparent beforehand, indicates foreknowledge of a planned event.

In addition to that, every single firefighter concern of the collapse can be pre-empted by warning received from the unnamed individual(s) - I'm not sure if there were one or two, it's difficult to determine when the official investigation deemed not to give them names. Even the famous Hayden quote containing reference to the 'bulge', prior to that he had been provided "on the money" information by the annonymous individual that the building would come down... initially Hayden only admits to a 'concern', then after that information was passed on he was 'sure' - this is indication Hayden was influenced to expect collapse due to this advice, not the 'bulge'.

There was simply no engineering rationale to predict with certainty that whole building would come down, and absolutely not to place an accurate 5 hour countdown on it.

So two challenges for the official narrative, 1) to demonstrate that a single firefighter expected the complete building collapse of their own independent judgement (don't bother, it is impossible - it is already confirmed that the initial collapse warning was received from an external advisor), 2) to provide any engineering rationale for a 5 hour countdown (again, don't waste your time - there is no engineering rationale for this).

What we have are individuals on scene with certain and precise foreknowledge of what was to happen. That cannot be so, due to a chance, first time ever occurrence, but can be aptly explained in the case a planned event; like a demolition.

Really, you wonder about the demolition setup? Why aren't you wondering what effect that large, unpredictable chuck of WTC1 debris had on the structure of the building? Wouldn't that be the first assessment to thoroughly complete, since we're sure that actually happened? As long as we're bantering about Occam's cutlery and all that. It's an assessment that's going to be tough to complete given the questionable veracity of the NIST study and the few pictures/videos we have though. And our conspirators were feeling pretty confident they could reconfigure the setup in the middle of a large buildlng fire, unseen? Come on, man, at least give me a tiny back-off from 'non-existent' risk.

You asked, "Why wouldn't they just demolish WTC7 after one of the towers fell?" I provided a possible reason and then you went on the above tangent. Of course I'm wondering about the demolition setup, you specifically asked me about reason for delay in the demolition. :lol:

I'll still briefly address your question about the debris damage to WTC7. Before release of the NIST report, and their admittance that office fires were solely responsible for the collapse initiation, debate used to rage as to the extent of the debris damage. What we find is, that even in the worst case scenario, where over a third of the south face exterior columns and a number of the central columns are removed, this does not compromise the entire building structure leading to the sudden, freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse witnessed.

Regarding the building fire, I don't see it was particularly widespread or severe. The NIST fire simulations confirm this, not to mention there were personnel walking around inside the building carrying out an inspection in the afternoon, who heard some creaking but did not stumble across any fire. The few floors and isolated areas affected by the fire were unimpressive compared to scale of the building. Heck the firefighters could have put out the fire early in the day, as they attempted to do so, had they not been perturbed by those anonymous collapse warnings.

August 9, 2012

There must be a compelling reason, what with Silverstein's comical statements.

I consider comical statements as those claiming that thermite and explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings despite the lack of evidence.

Monitors in the area did not record bomb explosions, which explains why no bomb explosions were seen on video, and that explains why no bomb explosions were heard on audio, which also explains why no one found evidence of explosive devices or detonation cords within the rubble of the WTC buildings, and that all explains why after more than 10 years, not one American government worker or citizen has ever been arrested for blowing up WTC buildings especially since no such evidence of planted explosive devices within the WTC buildings existed in the first place.

Report: Fire, not bombs, leveled WTC 7 building

http://www.usatoday....-wtc-nist_N.htm

----------------------------------------------------

Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

August 21, 2008

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Edited August 9, 2012 by skyeagle409

August 9, 2012

August 9, 2012

For the tower collapses, had the cause genuinely been a damage and fire scenario, it was within NIST's grasp to demonstrate that conclusion - the modelling was all adequate and ready to go. The way the results were left, with the only collapse case found reliant on damage demonstratably outside of the photographic/video reality, leads me to believe there was no (zero) damage/fire result within that reality that could support the politically desired conclusion. Otherwise, why leave the grey area of the range as NIST's results did? NIST never proved their case. But they could have done. Why didn't they?

My oh my, I go away for months and nothing has changed. You still have this complete inability to grasp the concept of measurement error margins. NIST showed that a collapse would occur within the error margins, they showed a collapse process that matched the evidence. That is sufficient.

I note your typical shuffle above, claiming that the damage to WTC7, which you've always claimed before was negligible, is now so much that it prevents your controlled demolition from taking place. This contrasts with your position on the towers, where you've always claimed that a demolition set-up would still work after being hit by an airliner.

I also note that your "If it looks like a demolition, then that is what it is, but if it doesn't look like a demolition, then it must be a covert demolition" argument is still alive and well:

the building went down like this... a demolition immitating collapse.

For sure there are some narrow minded demolition experts out there who cannot comprehend a necessarily non-conventional demolition. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc. comes to mind. He believes the WTC buildings were not demolished due to lack of a loud chain of explosions immediately prior collapse and/or lack of miles of detcord found in the debris. Yes, because that would make for a superb covert demolition, fantastic reasoning - what a moron.

As you say, fantastic reasoning.

I'll set a challenge...
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Find 1,700+ construction professionals who have critiqued NIST's results and found agreement with the official theory.

You don't find the truth by a popularity contest. AE911T have zero credibility because in three years they haven't managed a counter to this demolition of their claims:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

Anyway, I'll leave you to it again and go back to the real world.

Edited August 9, 2012 by flyingswan

August 9, 2012

You still have this complete inability to grasp the concept of measurement error margins. NIST showed that a collapse would occur within the error margins, they showed a collapse process that matched the evidence. That is sufficient.

I understand measurement error, and how within such generated margins there will be some computed hypothetical range of probability whereby Usain Bolt did not win gold in the Olympic 100m. Yet when we compare that to the reality of visual evidence, such inputs must be discarded and the measurement errors refined until a realistic result is achieved. Except to you, there would already be sufficient evidence that Bolt perhaps won silver. Likewise the towers on 9/11, where you have always turned a blind eye to the culmination of factors toward the severe case demonstratably placing the simulation outside of any reality that occurred.

The tower collapse simulation did not best match the evidence, either in comparison to the visible impact damage nor the bowing external columns prior to collapse (which were necessary to manually input as the simulation would not match the observation). It was the tower non-collapse simulation which provided best match to the visible impact damage. Despite best match of the tower non-collapse simulation, it was this case that was discarded, simply because it did not meet the pre-determined political conclusion.

None of this is sufficient to proving an impact and fire based collapse occurred in any way, shape or form. It does however prove an impact and fire based non-collapse to be very possible, even likely; it is the only existing simulation which does not exceed the reality of damage seen on 9/11.

I note your typical shuffle above, claiming that the damage to WTC7, which you've always claimed before was negligible, is now so much that it prevents your controlled demolition from taking place. This contrasts with your position on the towers, where you've always claimed that a demolition set-up would still work after being hit by an airliner.

I was expecting someone to bring that up - obviously the tower demolitions would be set with the impacts in mind, whilst the WTC7 demolition was not.

As you say, fantastic reasoning.

Yes, for anyone who cannot comprehend anything outside of a textbook demolition.

Der wuz no detcord, hur-hur-hur.

You don't find the truth by a popularity contest. AE911T have zero credibility because in three years they haven't managed a counter to this demolition of their claims:

http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf

Yes, tell LG it is not a popularity contest - I was responding to the one he started.

The paper is not worth an extended mention - issues such as quibbling over the definition of "extremely rapid", the mention of no explosions during collapse as in conventional demolition, a request for further research on the 'squibs' - there is really nothing worthwhile to respond to.

August 9, 2012

Q

Great analysis! :yes:

Your mention of the word "improbable" reminds me of Menken's observation about "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."

I wonder if you have any thoughts regarding Mayor Giuliani's years-long fight with the City Commission to have the EOC placed in WTC 7? As you probably already know, he fought them tooth and nail to have it placed there. The Commission wanted to locate it elsewhere, I think on the East River. Finally they gave in to the mayor. I think there is some sort of significance to that.

August 9, 2012

Yes, tell LG it is not a popularity contest - I was responding to the one he started.

The paper is not worth an extended mention - issues such as quibbling over the definition of "extremely rapid", the mention of no explosions during collapse as in conventional demolition, a request for further research on the 'squibs' - there is really nothing worthwhile to respond to.

Quick reply, Q. It was not my intention to start a 'popularity contest' if that's what I've done. Your points concerning the demolition do not rely on the credentials and expertise of the experts you choose to believe?

I have a point and a question in regard to this. First, do you personally have expertise in physics, material engineering, architecture, etc, where you can personally evaluate the back-and-forth points between these experts? If not, which I've been assuming is the case and definitely is the case for myself, at a meta-level how do you propose that you and I resolve the discrepancies between these experts? I don't mind us interjecting our own analysis of their analysis, maybe that's the only way to plow through it and it is interesting. But 'the paper is not worth an extended mention' is a pretty accurate paraphrase of what other experts think about Gage's analysis. Even if I assume worst case that you and I have no ability to assess the correctness of these experts, we are then left with the neutral, 'there is debate amongst the experts so we do not have enough information to determine accurately how and why WTC7 collapsed'.

But you assert the demolition of WTC7 is blatant, not that the reasons for it's collapse are unknown. This means that there are an unknown number of experts out there who recognize this also who are staying silent for some unknown reason, despite the fame and fortune available to the first person/group to actually provide some good evidence of a demolition. What is your reasonable explanation for this silence? The closest I see is 'experts can be as complacent and conformist as the next person, and silence does not constitute agreement'. First off, no, experts at some point are no longer 'experts' if they are complacent and conformist about their areas of expertise. Scientists especially are more equipped than laymen to avoid bias; it's built into their training and the scientific method by design. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen of course, but that makes your experts just as susceptible to these biases. Can I just assert then that experts can also be as susceptible to the bias of their own political leanings and what they want to be true, as well as attracted to the attention they can get by taking a non-conformist position, and thereby attack the reliability of their analysis? I'm ready to move beyond 'possibility', and I think that some of my responses to you are not on point because, understandably, we are moving between discussing 'possibility' and 'what probably actually happened' freely. I'll try to reply to your specific points when I can.

August 9, 2012

Quick reply, Q. It was not my intention to start a 'popularity contest' if that's what I've done. Your points concerning the demolition do not rely on the credentials and expertise of the experts you choose to believe?

I was only playing - though when we bring in the quantity of expert opinion on either side of the argument, then it does become a 'popularity contest' of the competing theories - a contest the official theory loses once we understand that silence does not constitute agreement (more on that below).

I have a point and a question in regard to this. First, do you personally have expertise in physics, material engineering, architecture, etc, where you can personally evaluate the back-and-forth points between these experts? If not, which I've been assuming is the case and definitely is the case for myself, at a meta-level how do you propose that you and I resolve the discrepancies between these experts? I don't mind us interjecting our own analysis of their analysis, maybe that's the only way to plow through it and it is interesting. But 'the paper is not worth an extended mention' is a pretty accurate paraphrase of what other experts think about Gage's analysis. Even if I assume worst case that you and I have no ability to assess the correctness of these experts, we are then left with the neutral, 'there is debate amongst the experts so we do not have enough information to determine accurately how and why WTC7 collapsed'.

I have sufficient grounding in the wider subject, both from of my previous career and education, to understand the top level arguments made - as I should think do many people - the arguments here are not rocket science. It is not necessary to understand all of the details regarding physics, chemistry, material science, etc, to follow. In these areas I accept that set out by experts... it is only necessary to understand what is set out. For example, when it comes to NIST's computer simulations, I'm not ever going to challenge the physics of the models or the energy/material inputs of my own accord (I'm not in a position to confirm this for myself - I must accept the expert word). What I will seek to understand is the premises those models are based upon, the probabilities involved and how the results relate to reality (the experts kindly set all of this out for us, the inputs and results, which can then be checked with our own eyes and rationale). Basically I am not challenging the experts on technical detail, only using the information they have provided. In the case of the tower simulations, NIST spell out that the non-collapse case is not only based on the 'best estimate' inputs but provides best match to actual observation... why shouldn't I be irked and see the study as politically deviated when they do not follow through these results in their narrative conclusion.

With the Urich paper linked above, most of it isn't even right or wrong, just irrelevant. For instance, no one is saying there had to be audible explosions during the collapse, so the mention there were no explosions at time of the collapse is pointless. As with Loizeaux, a controlled demolition expert who concluded the lack of detcord at the WTC meant no demolition - where no one ever suggested the use of detcord in the first place. There is an awful lot of useless expert opinion around.

Then there are all of the basic physics arguments that can be demonstrated very easily without an expert at hand. For example, that we cannot have a period of pure freefall in WTC7 (that is, vertical and symmetrical) unless an entire level of columns is simmultaneously removed - buckling at different moments, or any level of resistance, leads to a tilt/non-freefall collapse. Another example is Newton's third law which dictates that a smaller twenty storey block cannot remain intact whilst crushing perpetually through a larger eighty storey block. It is junk science (or perhaps Lysenkoism - see further below) that states otherwise.

So I think there is an awful lot we can discuss and understand around the work of experts.

This means that there are an unknown number of experts out there who recognize this also who are staying silent for some unknown reason, despite the fame and fortune available to the first person/group to actually provide some good evidence of a demolition. What is your reasonable explanation for this silence? The closest I see is 'experts can be as complacent and conformist as the next person, and silence does not constitute agreement'. First off, no, experts at some point are no longer 'experts' if they are complacent and conformist about their areas of expertise.

We had an interesting discussion about this some time ago after deciding that the 1,700+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth comprised around 2% of the engineering population. Please see my post #422 here explaining why the remaining 98% of the community are not support to the official theory.

And you must realise the demolition is not an easy case to prove in the mainstream under the current political establishment. Have you heard of Lysenkoism? Scientific progress is not immune to politics, and there we have a real example of false/predetermined, government controlled, apparently scientific conclusions which existed for some 40 years.

For sure - I'd say there are not so many real experts out there as we think. It seems that anyone put through a degree course is suddenly an expert, which from my experience is not true.

Can I just assert then that experts can also be as susceptible to the bias of their own political leanings and what they want to be true, as well as attracted to the attention they can get by taking a non-conformist position, and thereby attack the reliability of their analysis?

Yes, though I should not think that any employed individual is going to have an easy time being non-conformist when it comes to 9/11. There are so many people who are not content with the current state of affairs but will not speak out - it's career suicide. Look what happened to Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Sibel Edmonds. No wonder it is most usually the former/retied government and military workers that speak out.

August 9, 2012

Great analysis!

Actually, not! First of all, the collapse of WTC 7 was not indicative of a typical implosion. Let's make comparisons.

1. No explosions evident as WTC 7 collapses. The sound of demolition implosions make a lot of noise such as,, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!!! In the case of WTC 7, there is no sound of explosions as the collapses, which alone, dismissed the use of explosives. In addition, monitors did not detect explosions.

2. No evidence of explosives was found in the rubble of WTC 7. No blasting caps, thousands of feet of detonation cords, no evidence of pre-weakening of its steel structure, which is a normal process in demolition implosions.

3. No evidence of thermite cutting evident on steel of WTC 7, which is understandable since thermite is not used for the demolition of buildings anyway.

We have these comments as well.

The Firefighters

Battalion Chief John Norman

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro

Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.goog...com/danielnigro

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.

Captain Chris Boyle

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html

Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

No sound of BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM = no explosives. In other words, the collapse of WTC 7 was the result of impact damage and fires and nothing to do with explosives, which would have been heard all over Manhattan, yet not one peep of a bomb explosion heard anywhere.

Edited August 9, 2012 by skyeagle409

August 9, 2012

I was expecting someone to bring that up - obviously the tower demolitions would be set with the impacts in mind, whilst the WTC7 demolition was not.

That doesn't work. The collapse of the WTC Towers initiated ONLY were the aircraft struck and any planted explosives would have been detonated upon impact. Another question, who in their right mind would transport thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives, detonation cords, and other equiment over the course of many months to those heights? Another problem, how would they spend many weeks pre-weakening the structure of the WTC buildings and not draw attention?

Thermite is not in widespread use by demolition companies and even if thermite was used, you still have to use high explosives to set things into motion, and that will generate a lot of noise of BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, which was not heard on audio, nor seen in videos nor detected by seismic monitors, which brings up another question:

Where is the explosive evidence that explosives were used?

The way a building collapsed is not evidence that explosives were used. The 9/11 CT folks claim that squibs seen emanating from the WTC buildings was evidence of explosives, but that is not correct at all. Check out where explosives are not used and note the plumes of dust emanating as the buildings collapse as was the case during the collapse of the WTC buildings, and remember, no explosives are used in the collapse of the buildings in this video.

Edited August 9, 2012 by skyeagle409

August 10, 2012

Q, this time I'm really going to try and focus, there's a lot of crap to read on a lot of these topics and again I've inadvertantly started too many threads simultaneously for me to keep up. I don't want you to feel like I'm dodging or avoiding anything though, so if I skip something you'd like me to respond to, just let me know. I continue to mainly disagree with you about the risk to the perpetrators and your, to me, far too strong and specific claims about other people's psychological makeup and how various simultaneous motivations resolve themselves in these individuals. But I think we're temporarily at an impasse on those topics, so I'm going to skip those with the exception of the following.

I have yet to see the necessary risk in the demolition setup or operation. Can you be specific? What can go wrong with the setup given the guise of legitimate works I have set out? Which individual involved would stab their beliefs in the back, and why? These suggestions seem hopeful rather than realistic

How hard can this be; the risk that the demolition is discovered. I haven't really objected to your suggestion of only 20 conspirators, I'll go with it although it's a minimum that is right at the threshold of being at all realistic, so I think you can think of scenarios, even if they are also at the threshold of realistic, where the demolition set up is discovered. And risk doesn't involve just the chance of getting caught, it involves the consequences of getting caught where are almost the worst. Doesn't the Port Authority, I think that's who the contract was through, supervise their contractors? No one in the Port Authority or the building management have access to the areas where the demolitions were supposedly planted? No chance of an unplanned fire or bomb scare resulting in their discovery?

With regards to the actual demolition, If there really is 'no risk', then why set up the demolition event (not just the setup of it) to be so invisible in the first place? I know you say it's blatant, when it is of course anything but, but it seems clear that 'they' did not want the demolition to be apparent; why if it's risk-free? The risk, of course, is that the discovery of the use of demolitions, especially nanothermite, puts what actually happened in an entirely, and far more suspicious, light, and suggests more than Al Q was involved. How did Al Q get nanothermite? They have access to that many specialists in the use of nanothermite in demolitions? No one will connect the dots you have and note that Turner has the contract, so how did Turner overlook Al Q planting explosives where they were renovating? As we agreed, it's what the perpetrators thought that matters. Why on earth would our perpetrators think they had such perfect clairvoyance and had controlled for all the possible ways this could be pinned on them? Are you arguing they just didn't care even if they got caught? If Cheney got caught he'd be dragged raving to the jail ranting, "...and I'd murder them all again if I had the chance! U.S.A! U.S.A!", he doesn't care about his legacy, his family, his execution? Again, no Democrats or 'liberal media' would be interested in the biggest crime in history? Let me know if I ever stray near 'realistic' here.

Again, I'm going to try with the drilldown to WTC7 only and I've got to do more research when I have time on all your statements concerning it. I do have some brief questions. Actually, first, a clarification that may not be needed, we refer to the 'official story' in our conversation and I just want to make clear that that means to me in general 'not a demolition', and is not necessarily tied to specifics of the NIST report or anything else when I'm using the term.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have a ton of confidence in the procedures used by and the expertise of the NIST, to the point that you base your opinion "that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results", but then want to simultaneously assert that their subsequent conclusions are obviously in error. I'm not saying that's entirely invalid, the two can be independent of each other, but it does appear highly selective. The 'removed by NIST's results' is another pretty strong statement, in the face of what looks to me like a lot of controversy and different opinions; the wiki page lists several people, who I don't think are necessarily truthers, that dispute specifics of the NIST report. This is of course entirely understandable, there's only so much evidence to work with and is a chaotic event, and I don't know how you've come to your strong conclusions given this chaos.

And wow, nanothermite, that's a serious list of google results. There seems to be a necessity for some type of explosive to be mixed in to start the reaction? Can you give me some more detail on what these nanothermite charges entailed, and mainly, why were they silent and didn't seem to have any obvious explosive blast that can be differentiated from the results of the collapse? Is there any precedent of a nanothermite demolition being used that is comparable to what you are proposing? Actually, I shouldn't assume this and maybe this conversation is premature, am I correct that you are asserting that WTC7 was brought down by nanothermite?

Concerning the 'experts', I don't know how relevant this is at this point given your last reply clarifying we'll try to proceed based on a familiarity with the science behind what we're discussing balanced by our ultimate non-expertise in the relevant specific scientific/engineering disciplines. I followed the link to the discussion about the 98% of experts not saying anything and give you an A for effort but don't find your argument compelling. Since we have no way to know the distribution of your proposed three groups and if I just split them by a third, which I believe actually underestimates the number of those experts who have reviewed the evidence enough to believe no demolitions were involved but don't feel the need to sign a petition stating it, the truther architects/engineers are still outnumbered by 15-1. And that's with me being generous on your 2% number; I just did a quick count of the licensed architects on the petition you linked to and got less than 400; even if I'm way generous and assume there's some reason some of the petition signers want to be anonymous and say 1000, that is still a wee bit short of 1% the licensed architects in just the US which is over 100,000.

Let me just stop there, I want to continue about the 'foreknowledge' and the Israeli agents, but want to see if we can take one of these topics first to it's completion, wherever that may be.

August 10, 2012

Q, this time I'm really going to try and focus, there's a lot of crap to read on a lot of these topics and again I've inadvertantly started too many threads simultaneously for me to keep up. I don't want you to feel like I'm dodging or avoiding anything though, so if I skip something you'd like me to respond to, just let me know. I continue to mainly disagree with you about the risk to the perpetrators and your, to me, far too strong and specific claims about other people's psychological makeup and how various simultaneous motivations resolve themselves in these individuals. But I think we're temporarily at an impasse on those topics, so I'm going to skip those with the exception of the following.

How hard can this be; the risk that the demolition is discovered. I haven't really objected to your suggestion of only 20 conspirators, I'll go with it although it's a minimum that is right at the threshold of being at all realistic, so I think you can think of scenarios, even if they are also at the threshold of realistic, where the demolition set up is discovered. And risk doesn't involve just the chance of getting caught, it involves the consequences of getting caught where are almost the worst. Doesn't the Port Authority, I think that's who the contract was through, supervise their contractors? No one in the Port Authority or the building management have access to the areas where the demolitions were supposedly planted? No chance of an unplanned fire or bomb scare resulting in their discovery?

With regards to the actual demolition, If there really is 'no risk', then why set up the demolition event (not just the setup of it) to be so invisible in the first place? I know you say it's blatant, when it is of course anything but, but it seems clear that 'they' did not want the demolition to be apparent; why if it's risk-free? The risk, of course, is that the discovery of the use of demolitions, especially nanothermite, puts what actually happened in an entirely, and far more suspicious, light, and suggests more than Al Q was involved. How did Al Q get nanothermite? They have access to that many specialists in the use of nanothermite in demolitions? No one will connect the dots you have and note that Turner has the contract, so how did Turner overlook Al Q planting explosives where they were renovating? As we agreed, it's what the perpetrators thought that matters. Why on earth would our perpetrators think they had such perfect clairvoyance and had controlled for all the possible ways this could be pinned on them? Are you arguing they just didn't care even if they got caught? If Cheney got caught he'd be dragged raving to the jail ranting, "...and I'd murder them all again if I had the chance! U.S.A! U.S.A!", he doesn't care about his legacy, his family, his execution? Again, no Democrats or 'liberal media' would be interested in the biggest crime in history? Let me know if I ever stray near 'realistic' here.

Again, I'm going to try with the drilldown to WTC7 only and I've got to do more research when I have time on all your statements concerning it. I do have some brief questions. Actually, first, a clarification that may not be needed, we refer to the 'official story' in our conversation and I just want to make clear that that means to me in general 'not a demolition', and is not necessarily tied to specifics of the NIST report or anything else when I'm using the term.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have a ton of confidence in the procedures used by and the expertise of the NIST, to the point that you base your opinion "that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results", but then want to simultaneously assert that their subsequent conclusions are obviously in error. I'm not saying that's entirely invalid, the two can be independent of each other, but it does appear highly selective. The 'removed by NIST's results' is another pretty strong statement, in the face of what looks to me like a lot of controversy and different opinions; the wiki page lists several people, who I don't think are necessarily truthers, that dispute specifics of the NIST report. This is of course entirely understandable, there's only so much evidence to work with and is a chaotic event, and I don't know how you've come to your strong conclusions given this chaos.

And wow, nanothermite, that's a serious list of google results. There seems to be a necessity for some type of explosive to be mixed in to start the reaction? Can you give me some more detail on what these nanothermite charges entailed, and mainly, why were they silent and didn't seem to have any obvious explosive blast that can be differentiated from the results of the collapse? Is there any precedent of a nanothermite demolition being used that is comparable to what you are proposing? Actually, I shouldn't assume this and maybe this conversation is premature, am I correct that you are asserting that WTC7 was brought down by nanothermite?

Concerning the 'experts', I don't know how relevant this is at this point given your last reply clarifying we'll try to proceed based on a familiarity with the science behind what we're discussing balanced by our ultimate non-expertise in the relevant specific scientific/engineering disciplines. I followed the link to the discussion about the 98% of experts not saying anything and give you an A for effort but don't find your argument compelling. (Edit: misread your 3 groups on your link Since we have no way to know the distribution of your proposed three groups and if I just split them by a third, which I believe actually underestimates the number of those experts who have reviewed the evidence enough to believe no demolitions were involved but don't feel the need to sign a petition stating it, the truther architects/engineers are still outnumbered by 15-1. ) I think your argument is fine against the idea that 99.5 or whatever do not agree with your theory, but I have more reasons to think that these experts who have studied it and come to your demolition conclusions but are being silent would not remain silent and would present their strong case; this is exactly what scientists are incentivized to do. Seriously, if you had near unanimity of the physics and structural engineering departments at MIT that the demolition was blatant, you think they'd stay quiet about? A decade later after the proposed perpetrators aren't even in power? Not just these lone dudes who can't even convince the other members of the faculty in his own university department. Also I just did a quick count of the licensed architects on the petition you linked to and got less than 400; even if I'm way generous and assume there's some reason some of the petition signers want to be anonymous and say 1000, that is still a wee bit short of 1% the licensed architects in just the US which is over 100,000.

Let me just stop there, I want to continue about the 'foreknowledge' and the Israeli agents, but want to see if we can take one of these topics first to it's completion, wherever that may be.

August 10, 2012

sorry about the double post, and I'm not seeing an edit button anymore. Q, the only difference between the first and the second post is the edit I did because I misread one of your earlier post; it's the section where I have the strikethrough in the second post.

August 10, 2012

I continue to mainly disagree with you about the risk to the perpetrators and your, to me, far too strong and specific claims about other people's psychological makeup and how various simultaneous motivations resolve themselves in these individuals. But I think we're temporarily at an impasse on those topics, so I'm going to skip those with the exception of the following.

What is far too strong and specific about claiming there are exremists in any group? Or that there are individuals with far greater motivating factors than 3,000 lives as we have seen throughout history. Do you think the Islamic radicals alleged to have carried out the attack are any more extreme than certain Neocon and Zionist factions? I don't think so - they are all as bad as each other. Why not express the same disbelief that none of bin Laden's associates spoke out to warn the world of the attack beforehand, or thereafter volunteered evidence of his responsibility? Why do you believe Muslims have this psychological makeup to remain silent about the plot in such a way, yet within the Neocon and Zionist ranks there must be a hero to speak out and save us? It seems you are still projecting your own/common values, which are not applicable, onto those responsible.

Doesn't the Port Authority, I think that's who the contract was through, supervise their contractors? No one in the Port Authority or the building management have access to the areas where the demolitions were supposedly planted? No chance of an unplanned fire or bomb scare resulting in their discovery?

I have seen no evidence the Port Authority supervise/accompany contractors. Why would the Port Authority enter the elevator shafts and/or service areas, remove freshly installed drywall and/or sprayed on fireproofing, then carry out a search of the steelwork? And if so, be at all concerned by a relatively small, non-descript box they might see against a column?

I don't see how a bomb scare causes a problem (even in a sweep of the building responders will not go so far as to check behind all of the fire wall) though a severe fire might be a risk if refurbishment work were required. It's hardly a great risk... what are the chances of there being a largescale fire in the collapse zones within a few weeks prior 9/11?

With regards to the actual demolition, If there really is 'no risk', then why set up the demolition event (not just the setup of it) to be so invisible in the first place?

The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.

Are you arguing they just didn't care even if they got caught? If Cheney got caught he'd be dragged raving to the jail ranting, "...and I'd murder them all again if I had the chance! U.S.A! U.S.A!"

No, he would be ranting, "the orders still stand! I don't care what the American public think!" :lol:

But seriously, Cheney can never be directly tied to the demolition - those responsible for the setup would not report to him - there is no reason they ever even met - and neither would they be American. Remember - Israeli agents detained on the scene with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives had been carried in their van.

In the worst case, if the demolition setup were somehow exposed, then it becomes the work of Israeli/Palestinian terrorists... intelligence services are a dab hand at fabricating identities... and the whole issue dealt with as a foreign affair.

Again, I'm going to try with the drilldown to WTC7 only and I've got to do more research when I have time on all your statements concerning it. I do have some brief questions. Actually, first, a clarification that may not be needed, we refer to the 'official story' in our conversation and I just want to make clear that that means to me in general 'not a demolition', and is not necessarily tied to specifics of the NIST report or anything else when I'm using the term.

The NIST report (the officical collapse theory of the official study) is the detail of the official story. It seems you want to discount the NIST report and all of its scientific analysis to instead follow your own beliefs. That is fine, though makes some points more difficult to demonstrate. Ok, there's still plenty we can work with.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have a ton of confidence in the procedures used by and the expertise of the NIST, to the point that you base your opinion "that the whole damage/fire possibility was removed by NIST's results", but then want to simultaneously assert that their subsequent conclusions are obviously in error. I'm not saying that's entirely invalid, the two can be independent of each other, but it does appear highly selective. The 'removed by NIST's results' is another pretty strong statement, in the face of what looks to me like a lot of controversy and different opinions; the wiki page lists several people, who I don't think are necessarily truthers, that dispute specifics of the NIST report. This is of course entirely understandable, there's only so much evidence to work with and is a chaotic event, and I don't know how you've come to your strong conclusions given this chaos.

Don't you have confidence in the expertise at NIST when it comes to physics, material sciences and computer simulations? If we understand that NIST input x and got result y, then where is the room to argue, so long as we know the premise the results are based on? Yes I do have a ton of confidence that NIST got the modelling and range of simulations right - it is their area of technical expertise. It is only important to understand what they are simulating and how it compares to reality - I think I already said that.

And wow, nanothermite, that's a serious list of google results. There seems to be a necessity for some type of explosive to be mixed in to start the reaction? Can you give me some more detail on what these nanothermite charges entailed, and mainly, why were they silent and didn't seem to have any obvious explosive blast that can be differentiated from the results of the collapse? Is there any precedent of a nanothermite demolition being used that is comparable to what you are proposing? Actually, I shouldn't assume this and maybe this conversation is premature, am I correct that you are asserting that WTC7 was brought down by nanothermite?

I'm not sure we should try to second guess composition of the material used in the demolitions - thermite can be adapted to many forms providing different properties. No I am not asserting that the collapses were initiated specifically by nanothermite or superthermite or even standard aluminium/iron thermite - only some form of thermite, that rather than exploding, reacts at high temperature. I further believe that more conventional demolition charges were used at various other stages of the demolitions (the many explosions reported by eyewitnesses preceding the collapses).

Regarding the thermite initiation method, this could be either chemical or electrical - it does not have to be explosive. I believe the thermite units themselves could be constructed from a heat resistant material which deteriorates either during or after the collapses.

Examples of thermite used, or which could be used, in demolition works: -

*

Skyride Tower Felled by Melting Steel Legs

Intense heat was employed by wrecking engineers in toppling the 3,000,000-pound east tower of the "Skyride," a major attraction of Chicago's Century of Progress. Huge "overshoes" in the form of cupolas made of steel and lined with firebrick were constructed around two legs of the tower and filled with 1,500 pounds of thermite, a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide. When fired by electricity the thermite generated a temperature of more than 5,000 degrees about the two legs, melting the ten-foot sections almost instantly, causing the tower to tip and then to crash.

http://books.google....hermite&f=false

[That was back in 1935 - I'm sure there have been developments in efficiency since]

*

US Patent Application 20060266204 - Thermite charge

The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

http://www.patentsto...4/fulltext.html

* Linear Thermite Cutting Charge: -

* And an engineer who actually went out and put together a thermite cutting device in his back garden: -

To me it is common sense that a 2,500^oC+ reaction against a steel column is capable of bringing the structures down - it's not something that needs to be proven. With the minds of Israeli intelligence working on this, I'm sure a suitable adaptation to their needs would not be beyond their abilities. We need to stop thinking within the boundaries of commercial textbooks and realize this was a unique method for a one-off operation. I'm not sure why so many are incredulous at this - it's a long established chemical reaction that causes extreme temperatures - what's the shocker? What amazes me, is that even in their incredulity these same people are quite content to believe that the waxing and waning diffuse flame of an office fire could weaken the steel.

I think your argument is fine against the idea that 99.5 or whatever do not agree with your theory, but I have more reasons to think that these experts who have studied it and come to your demolition conclusions but are being silent would not remain silent and would present their strong case; this is exactly what scientists are incentivized to do. Seriously, if you had near unanimity of the physics and structural engineering departments at MIT that the demolition was blatant, you think they'd stay quiet about? A decade later after the proposed perpetrators aren't even in power?

That's the problem - the groups I mentioned means there is no unanimity. Let's take your proposed split and say that 3 of every 10 MIT professionals mentioned do not find the official theory convincing. What incentive is there for them to kick up a fuss? To go it alone against the current establishment (that is, the government with their own Lysenko-like backing, political groups, business and media, not to mention the public loyal to those bodies - do you realise what an enormous task this is?) and the American moral basis for two wars? They would face attacks all round for even suggesting the WTC buildings were demolished - because if those scientists won, America on the world stage is screwed. The perception shift required cannot come from scientists at a high level - there is no safe outlet - but must come from education of the grass roots public over a period of a generation or more - only they have the power to make a difference.

Let me just stop there, I want to continue about the 'foreknowledge' and the Israeli agents, but want to see if we can take one of these topics first to it's completion, wherever that may be.

I'm not sure we will ever take any topic to completion - rather agreeing to disagree - so I will ask now, as the official narrative is complete and accurate, how do you explain the actions and circumstances of those Israeli agents? Is this an area which should have been investigated more thoroughly in the public eye?

Edited August 10, 2012 by Q24

August 10, 2012

But seriously, Cheney can never be directly tied to the demolition - ....

Please present evidence that explosives were used because no >>>>BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM<<<<, means no explosives were used. Here is what a real demolition process sounds like.

Now, let's take a look at the collapse of WTC 7 and you will notice NO sounds of >>>>BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM<<<<, as WTC 7 collapses

We can sum it up this way;

A. The sound of traditional implosion demolitions using explosives; >>>>BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM<<<<.

B. The sound of WTC 7 as it collapses; ______________________________________________________________

Whereas, "A" indicates the use of explosives, and "B" indicates the lack of explosives.

Edited August 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

August 10, 2012

How Building Implosions Work

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion1.htm

http://www.implosionworld.com/

Edited August 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

August 10, 2012

About those Israelis dancing and filming the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. ABC news cited this report on June 21, 2002, adding that the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCVzISqF80t

The Israelis were released due to lack of evidence and no explosives were found in their white van. It was not a crime to film the 9/11 attacks and in fact, there are many 9/11 videos available for viewing on the Intennet that had nothing to do with the Israelis. Upon returning to Israel, one of the men, denied they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11.

In addition, Israel sent out warnings of an impeding terrorist attack upon the United States before the 9/11 attacks, so it was not likely the 5 Israelis had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Officials Told of 'Major Assault' Plans

WASHINGTON — FBI and CIA officials were advised in August that as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into this country and planning "a major assault on the United States," a high-ranking law enforcement official said Wednesday.

The advisory was passed on by the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency. It cautioned that it had picked up indications of a "large-scale target" in the United States and that Americans would be "very vulnerable," the official said.

http://articles.lati...0/news/mn-47840

August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories

As far as Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, many countries, other than Israel were aware of an impeding attack upon the United States before 9/11.

Before 9/11, Warnings on bin Laden

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - More than three years before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, American diplomats warned Saudi officials that Osama bin Laden might target civilian aircraft, according to a newly declassified State Department cable.

The cable was one of two documents released Thursday by the National Security Archive, a research organization at George Washington University that obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act. The other was a memorandum written five days after the 2001 attacks by George J. Tenet, then director of central intelligence, to his top deputies, titled "We're at War."

The June 1998 cable reported to Washington that three American officials, the State Department's regional security officer, an economics officer and an aviation specialist had met Saudi officials at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh to pass along a warning based on an interview Mr. bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda, had just given to ABC News.

http://www.nytimes.c...9documents.html

Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11

Associated Press

Friday, February 11, 2005; Page A02

The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda hoped to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks.

The report detailed 52 such warnings to FAA leaders between April 1 and Sept. 10, 2001, about the terrorist organization and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports. But "we had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures," she said.The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. None of the warnings specified what would happen on Sept. 11.

http://www.washingto...-2005Feb10.html

9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

http://www.nytimes.c...s/10terror.html

Report cites warnings before 9/11

U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.

In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said.

http://articles.cnn....=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Intelligence warnings

The 9/11 Commission Report states that "the 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamic extremists had given plenty of warnings that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers."^]The Report continued:

"During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it "something very, very, very big." Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us "the system was blinking red.""

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia. The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored. Some of these warnings include the following:

March 2001 - Italian intelligence warns of an al Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al Qaeda cell in Milan.

July 2001 - Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al Qaeda Jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.

August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

August 2001 - The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.

September 2001 - Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.

In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice stated that "the threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time nor place nor manner of attack. Almost all the reports focused on al Qaeda activities outside the United States." However, on August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:

FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.

http://en.wikipedia....igence_warnings

Edited August 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

August 11, 2012

What is far too strong and specific about claiming there are exremists in any group?

You're only claiming that there are extremists in any group? Oh, well, then I agree with this obvious fact. I thought you were making different arguments. Like that there is no risk to 'them' because of your assessment of the psychology of scientists, politicians, the media, a few hundred million other American citizens, which somehow allows you to conclude how they will react if they were shown some actual good evidence for your conspiracy. Like that we can be sure that 'they' knew the above, felt 100% confident in it, knew that there's no possible way any of it could be traced back to them despite precedent (hmmm, now who was president again when Cheney started working for the government...). You are trying to argue that you know what people think and how they will behave under various conditions based on what you have researched and because you're 'in their head'; that is not nearly enough data for you or anyone to make these specific determinations, it isn't really possible short of telepathy or time travel. And your statements seem to indicate that you are not at all skeptical of your abilities in this regard; the risk is 'non-existent', the idea that the conspirators were worried about being caught is 'without merit'. Needless to say, I'm seriously skeptical that your research or anything can enable you to determine behavior to this this level of specificity, and I'm not certain why you would think anyone including yourself can. You may have some idea what 'drives extremists', but how extremists will behave is not as predictable, and the other extremists know that about their fellow conspirators.

Or that there are individuals with far greater motivating factors than 3,000 lives as we have seen throughout history. Do you think the Islamic radicals alleged to have carried out the attack are any more extreme than certain Neocon and Zionist factions? I don't think so - they are all as bad as each other. Why not express the same disbelief that none of bin Laden's associates spoke out to warn the world of the attack beforehand, or thereafter volunteered evidence of his responsibility? Why do you believe Muslims have this psychological makeup to remain silent about the plot in such a way, yet within the Neocon and Zionist ranks there must be a hero to speak out and save us? It seems you are still projecting your own/common values, which are not applicable, onto those responsible.

We've talked about a lot, but have I ever argued that people in the Neocon or Zionist factions are not willing morally or something to kill 3000 people or more? I may have, but I thought I was accepting that they would be willing but were smart enough to know that they shouldn't take on significant more risk, especially with something as subtle as a demolition. What I have argued is that you can't just attach the word 'Zionist' or 'Neocon' to specific people who you propose are in on the plot and act like you've established something; there are extremists in every group, but not everyone in every group is an extremist.

I have seen no evidence the Port Authority supervise/accompany contractors. Why would the Port Authority enter the elevator shafts and/or service areas, remove freshly installed drywall and/or sprayed on fireproofing, then carry out a search of the steelwork? And if so, be at all concerned by a relatively small, non-descript box they might see against a column?

I don't see how a bomb scare causes a problem (even in a sweep of the building responders will not go so far as to check behind all of the fire wall) though a severe fire might be a risk if refurbishment work were required. It's hardly a great risk... what are the chances of there being a largescale fire in the collapse zones within a few weeks prior 9/11?

Remember, this is where we are discussing possible 'risk', something that is truly 'blatant'. I've had contractors come to my home to do work, and yea, I supervised what they did, wouldn't you? They don't have to 'accompany' them, there only need be the risk that someone who knows something about the construction of the building and works for the PA comes up to look at their progress, and yes, does notice your 'small non-descript box' (!). Wouldn't the bomb scare potentially cause a problem if they happen to bring in the drug-sniffing dogs that are later destined to nab our Israeli intelligence agents and they caught a whiff behind the wall?

The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.

I'm not sure but I think this may be you backing off of 'non-existent risk', if so, I thank you for the reality check.

But seriously, Cheney can never be directly tied to the demolition - those responsible for the setup would not report to him - there is no reason they ever even met - and neither would they be American. Remember - Israeli agents detained on the scene with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives had been carried in their van.

In the worst case, if the demolition setup were somehow exposed, then it becomes the work of Israeli/Palestinian terrorists... intelligence services are a dab hand at fabricating identities... and the whole issue dealt with as a foreign affair.

Maybe. You nor they obviously can't be sure of that, they can't predict the future. And this seems to be inconsistent on your part: Turner Construction gives us unfettered access to the necessary WTC structure and their boss is connected to Cheney, but Cheney can't be tied to the demolition. Is the connection there or not?

The NIST report (the officical collapse theory of the official study) is the detail of the official story. It seems you want to discount the NIST report and all of its scientific analysis to instead follow your own beliefs. That is fine, though makes some points more difficult to demonstrate. Ok, there's still plenty we can work with.

No, it has nothing to do with my beliefs, I'm just clarifying what I've been meaning in the past conversation. I was mainly saying this in case you were going to attack the NIST report because it got some particular detail wrong because of later evidence. You seem to believe in the analysis the NIST has done, so this is a non-issue.

Don't you have confidence in the expertise at NIST when it comes to physics, material sciences and computer simulations? If we understand that NIST input x and got result y, then where is the room to argue, so long as we know the premise the results are based on? Yes I do have a ton of confidence that NIST got the modelling and range of simulations right - it is their area of technical expertise. It is only important to understand what they are simulating and how it compares to reality - I think I already said that.

But am I correct that despite all this expertise you just praised and talked up, the conclusions they reached as to why WTC7 fell are clearly incorrect? I'm not sure that I'm getting your overall point here if it is consistent.

I'm not sure we should try to second guess composition of the material used in the demolitions - thermite can be adapted to many forms providing different properties. No I am not asserting that the collapses were initiated specifically by nanothermite or superthermite or even standard aluminium/iron thermite - only some form of thermite, that rather than exploding, reacts at high temperature. I further believe that more conventional demolition charges were used at various other stages of the demolitions (the many explosions reported by eyewitnesses preceding the collapses).

Regarding the thermite initiation method, this could be either chemical or electrical - it does not have to be explosive. I believe the thermite units themselves could be constructed from a heat resistant material which deteriorates either during or after the collapses.

Intense heat was employed by wrecking engineers in toppling the 3,000,000-pound east tower of the "Skyride," a major attraction of Chicago's Century of Progress. Huge "overshoes" in the form of cupolas made of steel and lined with firebrick were constructed around two legs of the tower and filled with 1,500 pounds of thermite, a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide. When fired by electricity the thermite generated a temperature of more than 5,000 degrees about the two legs, melting the ten-foot sections almost instantly, causing the tower to tip and then to crash.

[That was back in 1935 - I'm sure there have been developments in efficiency since]

*

US Patent Application 20060266204 - Thermite charge

The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

* Linear Thermite Cutting Charge: -

To me it is common sense that a 2,500^oC+ reaction against a steel column is capable of bringing the structures down - it's not something that needs to be proven. With the minds of Israeli intelligence working on this, I'm sure a suitable adaptation to their needs would not be beyond their abilities. We need to stop thinking within the boundaries of commercial textbooks and realize this was a unique method for a one-off operation. I'm not sure why so many are incredulous at this - it's a long established chemical reaction that causes extreme temperatures - what's the shocker? What amazes me, is that even in their incredulity these same people are quite content to believe that the waxing and waning diffuse flame of an office fire could weaken the steel.

Yes, this proposed demolition device needs more expounding. Number one, you are arguing that one of the reasons that WTC7 didn't collapse from fire and damage is because there was no precedent for it and then simultaneously suggesting one of the only reasonable alternatives to this explanation is something for which there is no precedent. Is precedent important or not? 1500 lbs does not equal 'small non-descript box', and really, a patent application? The reason I also think this is important is because of this whole 'symmetry of collapse' argument. My understanding there is that you think the only way this is possible is via demolition, and I'm assuming that is because a collapse like that requires that the necessary supports all be destroyed simultaneously. All the mentions I can find of explosions are a decent period of time before WTC7 actually collapses. No one saw the obvious concussive force of these demolition explosions? If this was to initiate some type of thermite reaction that more gradually melted through the steel columns, then how did they manage to time it so exactly? I may be making too many guesses on the mechanics of demolitions here though.

August 11, 2012

That's the problem - the groups I mentioned means there is no unanimity. Let's take your proposed split and say that 3 of every 10 MIT professionals mentioned do not find the official theory convincing. What incentive is there for them to kick up a fuss? To go it alone against the current establishment (that is, the government with their own Lysenko-like backing, political groups, business and media, not to mention the public loyal to those bodies - do you realise what an enormous task this is?) and the American moral basis for two wars? They would face attacks all round for even suggesting the WTC buildings were demolished - because if those scientists won, America on the world stage is screwed. The perception shift required cannot come from scientists at a high level - there is no safe outlet - but must come from education of the grass roots public over a period of a generation or more - only they have the power to make a difference.

Sorry, I misread your original categories and then further messed up my subsequent edit. We're mixing my original argument regarding the number of the AEtruthers with the 3 of 10 split, with a point that I think is really something that you are necessarily stuck with. I believe you are stuck between these two conflicting positions:

1- You have said that this demolition is blatant. This means that the vast majority if not all of the experts who look into it (which I think are a great number, these are the most spectacular and controversial collapses of all time) will obviously come to the same conclusion as you, it's obvious and you're not even a true expert. Which then means that we have two gigantic pieces of evidence that require an explanation concerning this group of experts who have looked into this enough to see the obvious conclusion you see: the experts that are remaining silent and the experts that are lying and saying that a demolition is not the most likely answer. I see no explanation for the lying experts to assert what they don't believe except that they are being bribed or are connected to the conspiracy, and it is unlikely that they all fit the requirements of the 'vetting' process by which loyalty is somehow assured. I've mentioned multiple times the benefits to anyone who can bring a good case for what you are suggesting.

-OR-

2- The demolition is not as blatant as you assert. This means that there is a controversy of undetermined legitimacy on the mechanics of the collapse and the possibility of demolition. Despite this, you take an unskeptical, unneutral position and assert it is blatantly demolished.

I don't see really any way around it. The more you insist how obvious it is, the more 'splainin you have to do as to why we aren't seeing the required unanimity amongst our experts who would bring this to obvious light. You're just asserting stuff about what high level scientists can and cannot do and where education needs to come from, how this will affect us on the world stage, so forth. Not every high level scientist is directly connected to the government you know; we do have private universities. And better that we be the ones to uncover the obvious demolition as opposed to another country. There exist other radical extremists too you know, extremists who will serve the truth no matter what the cost.

I'm not sure we will ever take any topic to completion - rather agreeing to disagree - so I will ask now, as the official narrative is complete and accurate, how do you explain the actions and circumstances of those Israeli agents? Is this an area which should have been investigated more thoroughly in the public eye?

I'll have to get back to you on the agents but I will, gotta play some bad golf tomorrow and need a beer stat.

August 12, 2012

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
You're only claiming that there are extremists in any group? Oh, well, then I agree with this obvious fact. I thought you were making different arguments. Like that there is no risk to 'them' because of your assessment of the psychology of scientists, politicians, the media, a few hundred million other American citizens, which somehow allows you to conclude how they will react if they were shown some actual good evidence for your conspiracy.

No, let’s not confuse different threads of the discussion. The mention of extremists was in response to your suggestion that those responsible were ‘in it for the money’ or would have some unspecified reason to ‘turn on one another’. It also answers the question of how those responsible for planning the operation knew who was ‘faithful to the cause’ – those extermists were charged with the implementation. This is all discussed in my post #78, response to your final quote box, to which you did not respond, other than to state you disagree with my analysis of these peoples’ psychological makeup. The mention of extremists had nothing to do with scientists, the media or a few hundred million citizens.

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
You are trying to argue that you know what people think and how they will behave under various conditions based on what you have researched and because you're 'in their head'; that is not nearly enough data for you or anyone to make these specific determinations, it isn't really possible short of telepathy or time travel. And your statements seem to indicate that you are not at all skeptical of your abilities in this regard; the risk is 'non-existent', the idea that the conspirators were worried about being caught is 'without merit'. Needless to say, I'm seriously skeptical that your research or anything can enable you to determine behavior to this this level of specificity, and I'm not certain why you would think anyone including yourself can. You may have some idea what 'drives extremists', but how extremists will behave is not as predictable, and the other extremists know that about their fellow conspirators.

I’m not sure you understand – the implementers are selected specifically because they are extremists who think the way I have described. I’m not trying to guess anyone’s thoughts here; extensive psychological profiling is carried out prior to the operation, with implementers chosen on that basis. One of these guys is going to need a complete meltdown to blow the operation.

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
Remember, this is where we are discussing possible 'risk', something that is truly 'blatant'. I've had contractors come to my home to do work, and yea, I supervised what they did, wouldn't you? They don't have to 'accompany' them, there only need be the risk that someone who knows something about the construction of the building and works for the PA comes up to look at their progress, and yes, does notice your 'small non-descript box' (!). Wouldn't the bomb scare potentially cause a problem if they happen to bring in the drug-sniffing dogs that are later destined to nab our Israeli intelligence agents and they caught a whiff behind the wall?

Well did Port Authority staff strap on a harness and pop up the elevator shafts to examine Turner Construction’s progress? I’m not sure that’s to be expected. And if they did, chances are they would never see the charge with each device installed and concealed quickly: firewall removed, place charge, firewall replaced. And if they did see that non-descript box, why do you expect it would cause panic? It’s just a toolbox... obviously. Where is the risk?

To the second imagined ‘risk’ – a bomb threat – there is no full sweep of the building in each case, nevermind searches behind firewall inside the elevator shafts. In fact, warnings no more specific than, "there's a bomb in the building” were ignored altogether. It’s going to require a bomb threat specifically stating “there’s a bomb behind the firewall in the elevator shaft”. It’s not going to happen. So where is the risk?

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
Maybe. You nor they obviously can't be sure of that, they can't predict the future. And this seems to be inconsistent on your part: Turner Construction gives us unfettered access to the necessary WTC structure and their boss is connected to Cheney, but Cheney can't be tied to the demolition. Is the connection there or not?

The connection is there insofar as potential discussions between Cheney/Leppert/Netanyahu on subject of the demolitions. And I don’t need to demonstrate anything more than potential here – the whole discussion is in response to your claim that the demolition cannot be reasonably carried out – I only need show that it ‘could’ be.

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
But am I correct that despite all this expertise you just praised and talked up, the conclusions they reached as to why WTC7 fell are clearly incorrect? I'm not sure that I'm getting your overall point here if it is consistent.

I have never looked in detail at the WTC7 simulation since its release. After determining the methods used for the twin tower simulations, released earlier, I didn’t have to. I know that NIST’s simulations do not necessarily compare to reality.

Again I will say I have confidence in the physics, material science, computer modelling and the results derived from them (though it is imperative to understand exactly what NIST is simulating). What I do not have confidence in is NIST’s impartiality or narrative conclusions.

Perhaps if I describe NIST’s method of simulation and conclusion in case of the twin towers this will explain what I mean more…

Ok, NIST began with a “best estimate” for the most important variables. This included factors such as the aircraft weight and speed, angle of attack (to impart more or less energy to the core structure) and building material strength, amongst others. The “best estimate” for these factors did not produce a collapse in the simulation – that impact and damage scenario left the tower standing. NIST also simulated a “severe case” whereby the factors were altered, within measurement errors, to increase damage to the building. It resulted that the “severe case” caused approximately twice the damage to the core structure and more readily led to collapse in the model. And this is all fine so far, I don’t have a problem with any of these simulations or results, until the following…

NIST compared the “best estimate” case and “severe case” to photographic evidence of the actual building damage. What they found is that the “best estimate” (which remember, did not lead to collapse in the simulation) provided the best match to that observable reality. This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality. So what did NIST do? In their conclusion NIST, for no reason other than a desire to provide the politically pre-conceived answer, discarded the “best estimate”/best match case in favour of the “severe case”/non-best match.

If you have followed all the above then you will know why I have confidence in NIST’s technical expertise and results but not in impartiality of their conclusions.

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
Yes, this proposed demolition device needs more expounding. Number one, you are arguing that one of the reasons that WTC7 didn't collapse from fire and damage is because there was no precedent for it and then simultaneously suggesting one of the only reasonable alternatives to this explanation is something for which there is no precedent. Is precedent important or not?

Of course precedent/experience is important. There is no precedent for office fire doing what we saw on 9/11. There is precedent for thermite melting steel, and that when the columns of steel framed buildings are simultaneously compromised then such a collapse as witnessed will take place.

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344651612' post='4409397']
If this was to initiate some type of thermite reaction that more gradually melted through the steel columns, then how did they manage to time it so exactly? I may be making too many guesses on the mechanics of demolitions here though.

If the charges are initiated simultaneously then damage across the structure will occur likewise until the point of collapse initiation is reached.

LiquidGardens' timestamp='1344654360' post='4409427']
1- You have said that this demolition is blatant. This means that the vast majority if not all of the experts who look into it (which I think are a great number, these are the most spectacular and controversial collapses of all time) will obviously come to the same conclusion as you, it's obvious and you're not even a true expert. Which then means that we have two gigantic pieces of evidence that require an explanation concerning this group of experts who have looked into this enough to see the obvious conclusion you see: the experts that are remaining silent and the experts that are lying and saying that a demolition is not the most likely answer. I see no explanation for the lying experts to assert what they don't believe except that they are being bribed or are connected to the conspiracy, and it is unlikely that they all fit the requirements of the 'vetting' process by which loyalty is somehow assured. I've mentioned multiple times the benefits to anyone who can bring a good case for what you are suggesting.

-OR-

2- The demolition is not as blatant as you assert. This means that there is a controversy of undetermined legitimacy on the mechanics of the collapse and the possibility of demolition. Despite this, you take an unskeptical, unneutral position and assert it is blatantly demolished.

I don't see really any way around it. The more you insist how obvious it is, the more 'splainin you have to do as to why we aren't seeing the required unanimity amongst our experts who would bring this to obvious light. You're just asserting stuff about what high level scientists can and cannot do and where education needs to come from, how this will affect us on the world stage, so forth. Not every high level scientist is directly connected to the government you know; we do have private universities. And better that we be the ones to uncover the obvious demolition as opposed to another country. There exist other radical extremists too you know, extremists who will serve the truth no matter what the cost.

It is number 1. I think in the link I provided and further discussion on this thread I have already explained why all experts who disagree with the official theory are not necessarily prepared to fight it. I have also explained why many experts are content to accept the official theory. You introduce another category above – experts who are lying. I have not actually mentioned these individuals yet (except brief reference to Lysenko type scientists) and believe it a very small, though influential, number. It may be correct they are a part of the operation, or otherwise in denial.

Oh and BYU, former employer of Steven Jones, is a private university. What happened when this expert/physician/scientist attempted to raise the discussion in a professional capacity?

I'll have to get back to you on the agents but I will, gotta play some bad golf tomorrow and need a beer stat.

I hope that went well!

Edited August 12, 2012 by Q24

August 12, 2012

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

Brent Blanchard, Protec Documentation Services, Inc.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac

August 12, 2012

The Deception of Steven Jones and WTC 7

Conspiracists misrepresent WTC 7's condition

The firefighters

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."

FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."

FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

Steven Jones, who was not at the scene on 9/11:

“It's not an inferno, certainly.”

“Fires were random, not particularly large, and certainly not an inferno.”

“Here in this photo you see the fires in building 7. A close-up and you see a little bit of fire in there. Not much.”

“Now here are photos seen in the late afternoon. Not a lot of fire here, or damage.”

What Steven Jones didn't want us to see, which are photos of the south side of WTC 7.

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, on WTC 7:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. 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."

https://sites.google...wtc7'scondition

Edited August 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

Talking Turkey

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

W Tell

Liquid Gardens

OverSword

Posted Images

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Babe Ruth

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites