I had a quick look at the results. There are apparently some continuing misunderstandings of what triangle tests are and how their results are interpreted. Here you have two beers, A and B and two hypotheses:
H0: The beers are indistinguishable
H1: The beers are different
You can't prove H1, in fact you can't prove H0 either but you can gain support, or lack thereof, for it by asking people, given 3 samples, 2 of which are the same, if they can pick the odd one. Under H0 they can't and so must guess. With rolling dice as the basis for choice of the odd beer it's not likely you'll get a lot of correct answers. If you do get a lot of correct answers then it seems that there isn't much support for H0 and you conclude that H1 may be valid: that the beers are indeed distinguishable.
The numbers in the table are the probability that n out of m panelists will make correct identifications when they are rolling dice. For example, with 24 panelists as you had, the probability that 9 will be correct by rolling dice is 40.6%. That's almost even odds (for 8 correct the probability is greater than even at 57.6%). Thus with 8 correct there is quite a bit of support for the null hypothesis. There certainly isn't much for H1 and you conclude that the beers are indeed indistinguishable or really, and this is an important point, that they are indistinguishable by your panel. It is well to keep in mind that a triangle test is a test of the panel, not the beer.
The other thing that caught my eye is that you presented triplets with two of the long boiled beer and one of the short boiled. There are 4 possible triplets, AAB, ABA, BAB, and BBA. Panelists must be presented with a triplet chosen at random from this set. The math from which the probabilities are computed is based on that assumption.