It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Since it is Xmas and we deserve a bit of levity after all our bickering over the last n months, the latest episode of Smith vs Billy reminded me of an old avatar I used to carry. Enjoy...


























posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
ROFL!! I never saw that one! LOL That's pretty funny!



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You're incredible man!
Thanks for making my Christmas, I heard some people lose it but you really take the biscuit!
It's because that strange, paranoid (and oh so wrong) way of thinking (or not as it may be) tars us all with the same brush, that conspiracy theorists that deserve to be listened to just get laughed at! You're incredible man! Keep it up



hey, thanks man. i guess tongue in cheek homour doesn't translate on the web.

you ARE a mason, aren't you? didn't i see you and your dad with masonic regalia on your clothes?

it doesn't change the rate of freefall in a vacuum on planet earth, which is the rate at which tower seven fell.

maybe, i'm giving the laws of physics a bad name by insisting that we hold to the letter of the law?



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
No one is denying that the force of a cap falling would be enough to break the connections and buckle the beams of the first floor beneath, and many beyond it. This is a convenient strawman. As an aside, I get about 385kg (0.385t) of TNT of kinetic energy for a 45,000t cap in freefall across 12 feet. While this is moot in a way because that's still a lot of energy, if I'm right it shows yet again that Eagar is either careless/sloppy/wrong in his calculations, or he has upped the figure to half a ton because it sounds more convincing. Furthermore the kinetic energy figure assumes that the cap was in free fall and zero negative impulse was provided by the columns as they buckled. Last time I checked, the official story states that the collapse did NOT occur in freefall, so why then go ahead and use freefall speed to calculate the kinetic energy?

But anyway, that's not where the problems lie with the collapses. The problems lie in:

1) The alleged severity of the fires and their ability to weaken all of the supports enough to initiate a collapse in the first place, despite the enormous redundancy of the structure, and despite the physical evidence showing that the steel did not experience temperature excursions above 250°C.

2) The perfect symmetry and synchronicity of the collapse initiation at all 283 support points on one single floor, despite asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical damage.

3) The symmetry of the ensuing collapse thereby following the path of MOST resistance in direct violation of basic physics and plain old intuition.

4) The speed of the collapse implying little to no resistance from the structure beneath.

5) The apparent lack of any retardation to the collapse acceleration as would be expected from the progressively stronger supports towards the ground.

6) The inconsistency of the observed disintegration of the caps and ejection of debris when reconciled with the pancake increasing-mass theory.

7) The observation of two completely separate events in the collapse, being a) The destruction waves running down the side of the buildings, and b) the collapse itself many floors above.

8) The lateral ejection of huge portions of debris by also necessarily huge impulses at a complete 90° angle to the vertical vectored forces involved.

9) The total pulverization of the concrete, the desks, the telephones, the computers and everything else into clouds of nano-dust, even right at the beginning of the collapse when the kinetic energy build-up was relatively low and the floors were bumping into each other at 18mph, and further despite the inefficiency of vertical steel "spears" on the central interior and on the perimeter as a grinding mechanism.

10) The massive overpressure created tens of floors below the collapse zone exploding pulverized debris out of isolated areas, despite the destruction of the "syringe" walls allowing air to escape sideways, despite the destruction of the "piston" allowing air to escape up, despite the severely constricted nature of the HVAC and stairwell system thus inhibiting their ability to convey pressure, and despite the fact that a generalized large overpressure across a single floor would blow out multiple windows or all of them and not just in a single location.

45,000 tonnes of cap can't seem to explain these anomalies, and so the debate continues. In fact a billion tonnes of cap couldn't explain them, because the heavier the cap is, the stronger the building below is. So cursing and fussing over the weight of the building is largely moot for these considerations. And this is simply addressing the tower collapses. Bring WTC7 into the mix and whoa baby, some major problems with the official story. Add in some molten steel for spicing and the official broth is starting to taste mighty bitter. And if we want to get into the prior knowledge and NORAD stand-down side of things, then we'll be here for 4 years..oh wait, we already have been.

The blasts down the sides of the buildings, separate to the actual collapses, progressed at a constant rate (and in perfect confluence). Here watch these videos of you don't believe me:
images.indymedia.org...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

This completely defies basic physics concepts. When something is being acted upon by gravity, if gravity is stronger than any resisting force, the object will accelerate downwards. If gravity is weaker than any resisting force, the object will decelerate. In a carefully controlled event, like say an elevator's descent/ascent, this is achievable. But in a natural event, only if by some freak of probability/nature gravity is perfectly balanced by another force will a falling object maintain constant velocity. Now if we're going to assume that each floor encountered by the falling mass somehow provided the exact amount of resistance required to balance gravity once the first floor was in motion, then the time for the collapse of each floor is constant, hence the total time of collapse would have been 98 floors times the time it took for the first floor to fall. 98 floors x 0.864s (0 - 12 feet in freefall, discounting any air resistance and impulse from buckling columns) = 95.04s. We come to such a ridiculous figure because, again, the constant-velocity destruction of the floors is itself impossible for a natural, gravity-driven event. Only if the floors were blown in a human-controlled sequence could we get such a phenomenon occurring, in which case the floors could be destroyed 0.03 seconds apart, or whatever you want. The official story hinges on gravity being unbalanced in the system, in which case the pancaking should have accelerated. But it didn't, it maintained a constant velocity. And even more damning is the clearly observable fact that what has been described as "pancaking" and looks a heck of a lot more like explosions, was thirty plus stories ahead of the actual collapse zone above.

The official story also hinges on the floors pancaking as one, but watch any clear video (some of the ones I linked above will show it) and you'll see that the destruction waves which race down the sides of the structures at a constant rate leave the corners of the structure perfectly intact. The waves run down the flat sides of the structure, but the corners are still intact 25 or more storeys above. This can not be reconciled with the pancake theory.

Assessing how much resistance each floor would have provided is a mammoth and nigh-impossible task, and is far, far beyond my meager abilities, I'm certainly no physicist, and it's beyond the abilities of anyone here I'll wager, except maybe LaBTop. Maybe MacMerdin working together with a physicist could carry off an estimation. The complexity arises from needing to know the exact details of all the connections, the vertical columns, the bracing beams, the floor pans, the bolts, and on it goes; details including dimensions, assembly type, material grades, and variations across the height and different locations in the structure. From there after a few months of work, maybe one could estimate the forces required to break all the connections and buckle columns. But then once you get into the actual collapse, you'd need to guess the types of forces acting on each connection, column, beam, floor pan, etc. The ability of a component to resist stress depends on the type of stress acting on it, be it shear, buckling, tension, torsion, compression, or whatever combination of each. Ask MacMerdin if this ain't so. A column compressed from above will behave differently to, say, a column struck from the side, or with its top bending left and its bottom bending right. In a system as large and random as the collapse of the towers with all those millions of pieces all behaving differently and colliding with different components, there is no feasible way to calculate all those micro-interactions and apply them to a macro assessment, short of a dedicated computer model with years of research, teams of researchers, and millions of dollars invested in it. NIST has these resources, and they didn't touch the collapses. Funny, huh?

That's why focusing on macro events are the only reasonable way to assess the physics of the collapses. For an example, something we can do is look at it from a simple conservation of momentum point of view. Assume a model where each floor was a flat slab simply floating in space, held up by a magical forcefield that turned off as soon as anything touched it. Hence, when each floor collided with the next one below, that floor gave way without any resistance at all. Assume the collisions are perfectly inelastic. In this bizarre example, the only thing slowing the collapse is the momentum imparted to each floor below by the ever-increasing falling mass. Conservation of momentum tells us that the momentum after the collision is the same as before, and since p = mv, with momentum, mass, and acceleration due to gravity known, we can calculate the new velocity after each collision, after each 12 foot free fall, and hence the total time for collapse. Using Eagar's figures for the building and cap mass of 500,000t and 45,000t respectively, and assuming an increase in floor mass in increments across the three sections of the building, I get 13.05 seconds. Further assuming that 30% of the mass of each struck floor (but not the cap) falls off the side, that brings the collapse time up to 14.08 seconds (30% is quite conservative when you consider the 236 steel columns supporting 50% of the vertical load were on the skin of the building which was thrown out all over Manhattan, when you look at debris distribution in the satellite pics taken after the event, and when you consider I didn't subtract anything off the 45,000t cap). So, that's at least 14.08 seconds assuming the structure provided ABSOLUTELY ZERO RESISTANCE and ALSO discounting air resistance which bob2000 insists would have a significant effect. Do the math yourself and tell me if I'm wrong, my math sucks so I could well be. I don't have time to lay it all out here, but if anyone wants to check my math instead of doing their own, U2U me your email and I'll send the xls file to you.

14 seconds with ZERO structural resistance. Uber-brains like Thomas Eagar with his 10 second collapse time SHOULD KNOW THIS, so we can only assume one of four things:

1. My maths is wrong (possible, so someone please do check it).

2. Eagar and his ilk are idiots (highly unlikely, at least from a mathematical point of view).

3. Eagar and his ilk haven't done any serious assessment and are simply shooting the official story off from the hip (seems most likely, considering Eagar is extremely busy, he was not contracted to research the collapses, contrary to popular misconception he is NOT a structural engineer, and lastly his primary academic focus is obscure welding techniques).

4. Eagar and his ilk, for whatever reason, are deliberately obfuscating the facts (seems impossible, but Eagar's constant mistakes and his consistent misrepresentations of the structural details are truly hard to reconcile with his intelligence, expertise, and status).

Notice, if you will, how the people who AREN'T shooting from the hip to simply shore up the holes in the official story, but rather are responsible for creating it, i.e. FEMA and NIST, have NEVER addressed the physics or causes of the total collapses beyond their initiation. AND their conclusion for the cause of the initiation was arrived at by computer simulations that are CLEARLY contradicted by the real-world, physical evidence. The best NIST provided to explain the history-making, unprecedented complete collapse down to the very pavement of two steel skyscrapers in 10 - 15 seconds, was once single sentence: "Global collapse then ensued." Am I the only one who finds this to be just crazy?? Never before has anything like this happened in the history of mankind. It then happens three times in one day while the entire world is watching, and THEY DON'T EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN IT OR STUDY IT?!

But I don't know why we discuss the "global collapses" so much when the conditions alleged to have brought about the collapse initiation in the first place are directly contradicted by the physical evidence. The fires were dying. Steel cools and regains its strength. If the buildings didn't collapse at the height of the fires, then they were never going to collapse. Check the metallurgical tests NIST did on the steel, check the location of those columns tested, and then compare it with their 1100°C computer simulations and you'll see that they simply DO NOT MATCH UP. I'm busy with major RL stuff and don't have the time to pull out all the images and so forth, but it's all there in the NIST reports for everyone to see if you really want to.

You can find the testing methods and results here: wtc.nist.gov...

The tested component locations are tabulated in Appendix E here: wtc.nist.gov...

And then you can compare it to the fire computer simulations here: wtc.nist.gov...

In addition to this bald-faced deception, rarely mentioned is the 1975 fire in WTC1:


911research.wtc7.net...
On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.

The fire, which broke out just before midnight, did not kill anyone but forced the evacuation of fifty people, consisting mostly of maintenance staff. The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."


A three hour "blow-torch" fire and the building doesn't give a murmur or a creak. Nobody expected the building to collapse because no steel-framed building had ever done so until 9-11. Sure, it didn't have a jet liner crash into it, but it was also the 11th floor, supporting nearly 100 floors of weight above it, which is consistently the reason given as to why the South tower collapsed first. By comparison, the 2001 collapsed of WTC1 initiated at the 98th floor, with only 12 floors above it. The redundancy of the structure compensated for the jet impacts, as evidenced by the fact that they stood with barely a sway after the impacts, so all that was left to collapse the buildings - by NIST's own admission - was the fires. The jet fuel burned off in the first 15 minutes, also by NIST's admission, so that leaves the office furniture to create these alleged super-hot fires. But the fires weren't hot enough to heat the steel to even 250°C as shown by the physical evidence, whereas steel needs to reach 600°C before it will begin to show plastic yield...aaaaaand it seems we're back to square one with collapse impossible. You see where I'm going with this? There's a hole in the frikkin' bucket, dear Liza, well fix it dear Henry, and round it goes all the way back to the hole in the bucket.

Remember the guy from Canada's Underwriter Laboratories who blew the whistle on the NIST tests? Now have a look at what Fire Engineering institutes in the UK have to say about the effects of steel and temperatures on steel structures. These guys built actual structures and then set them on fire, instead of simply heating beams in an oven like NIST:


www.corusconst ruction.com

Cardington fire tests

The tests were carried out to determine if the fire performance of real buildings of this type is better than is suggested by tests on individual elements of construction. Evidence that this is the case had been provided by studies of actual fires in real buildings, such as the Investigation of Broadgate Phase 8 Fire, published by the Steel Construction Institute; tests carried out by BHP in Melbourne in Australia and also small scale fire tests and computer modeling of structural behavior. In all these cases, composite floors had demonstrated robustness and resistance to fire far greater than was indicated by tests on single beams or slabs.

In order to determine a direct comparison, the first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding area of slab. The results demonstrated that a failure deflection (normally considered to be Length/30) would have occurred at approximately 1000°C, far greater than the temperature of 700°C at which the beam would have failed if tested in isolation.

Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m.sq. to 340m.sq. with fire loading provided by gas, wooden cribs or standard office furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not. However, despite atmosphere temperatures of almost 1200°C and steel temperatures on the unprotected beams in excess of 1100°C in the worst cases, no structural collapse took place.


What about these Canadian guys:

ar ticle.pubs.nrc-cnrc.qc.ca

A state-of-the-art review of the behavior of steel frame structures in fire is presented. Results from different studies indicate that the behavior of a complete structure is different from that of a single structural member under fire conditions from the point of view of fire resistance. Earlier studies also show that analysis and design of steel structures against fire based on their overall behavior could lead to a reduction or the elimination of applied fire protection to ertain structural members. The effects of continuity, restraint conditions, and load ratio on the fire resistance of frame tructures are discussed. The beneficial aspects derived from considering overall structural rather than single-member ehaviour in fire are illustrated through the analysis on two one-bay, one-storey, unprotected steel portal frames, a column, and a beam. Also comparison is made between the performance of a beam with different end restraints in fire. Results from the analyses indicate that the fire resistance of a member is increased when it is considered as part of a structure compared with when it is considered as a single member.


Here's more, from the UK's Arup Fire Engineering:


www.arup.com...

The WTC towers behaved very well following impact and in response to multiple floor fires indicating that it was a
robust system. The draft NIST report appears to rely on dislodged fire protection. Our main concern with this conclusion is that thermal expansion can swamp all other behaviours and this is not discussed in the NIST report yet. We believe it should be included in a thermo-mechanical analysis to predict the response of any structure to fire, particularly when determining a probable collapse mechanism.
[...]
Collapse mechanism proposed by NIST in April 5 Presentation Report:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is also column behavior in fire. However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displacement between the core and perimeter columns, much greater than the 300mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true.

Why upward expansion of the column would act against the mechanical shortening:

Crude initial calculations indicate that the elastic downward deflection at half the modulus (say at approx. 500C) will be roughly 38mm. Assuming plastic strains, a maximum yielding of approximately 190mm is possible. If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed, the rotation at the perimeter connection would be 300mm vertical over an 18000mm span - extremely small.
The floor elongation must be less than 2.5mm to generate tensile pulling forces on the exterior columns as a result of the column shortening in the core. Thermal expansion of the floor truss would be 65mm at 300°C over a length of 18000mm. Therefore the 2.5mm is swamped by thermal expansion and the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of column shortening. The NIST collapse theory also states that “floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns. Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings. Collapse then ensued”.

This is similar to some of our collapse proposals but no mention of thermal expansion is made, the floor buckling and lack of support to the columns seems to be entirely due to loss in strength and stiffness in their view which we would consider to be only part of the story.


Why are fire engineering firms outside the US saying different things to the ones employed by the US government to analyze the WTC collapses?

But what about WTC7?! NO jet impact, NO jet fuel, MINOR debris damage, LOTS of smoke but MINOR fires, and BICKETY-BAM! FREE FALL IMPLOSION!! Seriously, what does it take to make ya go "hmm...." ?

Man... :shk: I give up, I cave in, I implode, I go into global collapse...



[edit on 2005-12-24 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you ARE a mason, aren't you? didn't i see you and your dad with masonic regalia on your clothes?


ROFL!!!


If you're on about this photo.........



.....then neither the people I'm with are related to me, the guy on the left is Apollo 16 Astronaut Charlie Duke and the chap on the Right is Apollo 11 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin.
The medal you see Buzz wearing is the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I havn't ever posted a picture on here with my Dad in it for a start, but I'm flattered you think I am so important!

You are probably also talking about my Eye of Providence or the All Seeing Eye of God, but all that means is that I can see you when you're sleeping..

Oh and no, I'm not a mason.

And also I don't think they would let me join, so they can't be all that bad ay? LOL

[edit on 24-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

terrorize.dk...




What's your take on the white 'thing' that appears in this video at the lower floors just below the darker band?

It doesn't look like a squib because it doesn't change but it also doesn't look like a person because it just appears and again, doesn't move?

It's just a white thing which just appears out of a window as the buildings coming down. It has a pretty long shadow aswell.

Looks like there could be some frames missing from the vid or else that thing just appears out of thing air?




posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
terrorize.dk...

What's your take on the white 'thing' that appears in this video at the lower floors just below the darker band?

It's just a white thing which just appears out of a window as the buildings coming down. It has a pretty long shadow aswell.


That one looks to me like a window which popped out but remained connected along its bottom edge. You can see the reflection or refraction shining up the side of the building. JMO...



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Problem is, if you overlay a shot from just after the initiation of collapse and his frame where he tries to show the debris was thrown up and out:



You can clearly see his fatal flaw, for some reason he is making out that the debris in question was thrown out many stories below it's actual ejection point.


I must agree with AgentSmith in this one particular point. (Although not on any others.
) That the debris trajectory measured and compared to the science site cannon ball does fall from above the level indicated.

HOWEVER, looking above the area concentrated on in that particular point, one can see debris being ejected practically straight up into the air.

I think they picked the wrong arc to illustrate that particular point, maybe simply because it was east to see.

AND notice, after the trajectory is measured, the smoke is immediately sucked back into the pattern of the falling building, indicating a strong vacuum.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Vacuum can easily be explain in that instance by the rapidly falling building. The only time I see a valid point regarding vacuum is in the speed of the WTC7 building collapse where they say the speed of collapse is what one would expect in a vacuum and hence if explosives had gone off. That is assuming the calculations are correct bearing in mind atmospheric pressure, etc. There isn't much room for error.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Here are the momentum calculations I mentioned earlier if anyone wants to check or refute them. If my calcs are right, it shows that WTC1 would have taken 14+ seconds to "pancake" assuming the structure provided absolutely ZERO structural resistance, which pretty much shows the pancake story is completely bogus right off the bat.

Assumptions:

* For distance purposes (except for the cap striking the ground), each floor is an infinitely thin slab with all of its mass concentrated into that slab.

* Collapse initiates at the 98th floor.

* Air resistance is zero.

* Resistance from the structure is zero.

* Collisions are "flush" and perfectly inelastic, meaning the falling mass of the cap "acquires" each floor it collides with.

* 30% of the mass of each lower floor is lost over the side of the building (note this only adds 1s to the total time).

* None of the mass of the original cap is lost.

* When the cap strikes the ground, it collapses on itself in free fall.

(What may seem like minor errors are in fact because the xls file calculates using all of the decimal places, but I only set it to display four.)







And this calculation is using Thomas Eagar's figures for the weight of the cap and the building. He gives 45,000t for the cap and 500,000t for the entire structure, the cap thereby comprising about 10% of the weight, which means that Eagar has assumed (or deliberately lied) that each floor of the structure was built the same across its entire height, and therefore the 12 floors of the cap comprising 10% of the height equates to 10% of the weight. This is nothing short of calculated deception. We all know that the towers, as all skyscrapers, were built progressively stronger and heavier towards the base. The cap would therefore be MUCH lighter than 45,000 tonnes, and the 14 second figure would be adjusted UP accordingly. Add in air resistance, kinetic energy lost as heat and sound and most importantly the mechanical resistance of the structure, and once again the global progressive collapse hypothesis is revealed as the complete fairytale it is.

I quote Jerry Russel Ph.D:


www.attackonamerica.net...
The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.


Once again, all this is moot because there is simply no evidence nor scientific basis for the towers initiating a collapse in the first place as they did, without a helping hand.

[edit on 2005-12-26 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

quote: PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Well think about this!


hey, thanks man. i guess tongue in cheek homour doesn't translate on the web.

you ARE a mason, aren't you? didn't i see you and your dad with masonic regalia on your clothes?

it doesn't change the rate of freefall in a vacuum on planet earth, which is the rate at which tower seven fell.

maybe, i'm giving the laws of physics a bad name by insisting that we hold to the letter of the law?


That was you post, it contains 385 characters. Each character can be one of these: a - z, A - Z, 0 - 9, space and ,.!?

It's total 2 * 25 + 10 + 1 + 4 = 64 different characters. Then, let's assume that each character is equal likely to appear. The probability to write that post is as much as:

1 case out of 64^385, wich is about 1 : 2,4*10^695. And still you were able to write that.. spooky isn't it?

[edit on 26-12-2005 by msdos464]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464
It's total 2 * 25 + 10 + 1 + 4 = 64 different characters. Then, let's assume that each character is equal likely to appear. The probability to write that post is as much as:

1 case out of 64^385, wich is about 1 : 2,4*10^695. And still you were able to write that.. spooky isn't it?


Sure, but only if it was a random event. Add intent to an event and the probability of that event occurring becomes 1 minus probability of failure, no?

Since the chance that billybob would fail to post what he intended to post is negligible, that means the probability to write that post is still 1:1 for all intensive purposes.

But isn't this kind of off topic?

[edit on 2005-12-26 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

quote: PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Well think about this!



That was you post, it contains 385 characters. Each character can be one of these: a - z, A - Z, 0 - 9, space and ,.!?

It's total 2 * 25 + 10 + 1 + 4 = 64 different characters. Then, let's assume that each character is equal likely to appear. The probability to write that post is as much as:

1 case out of 64^385, wich is about 1 : 2,4*10^695. And still you were able to write that.. spooky isn't it?


it would be spooky if it had any meaning.

your thesis assumes that i am a monkey sitting at a typewriter. you assume that when people are typing, the letters are punched randomly. pretty dumb, no?
your thesis also ignores that some letters, like 'e' and 's' are more frequent in the language.
in fact, your whole purpose with this random outburst of signature critique seems directed at making ME seem incredulous, and it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread(except that it's the same people behind it, ...the NWO).

good luck.

i'm not going to defend that sig. it's interesting, and the link will take you to the source of the calculation, and the assumptions that went into it. argue with them if you don't like it.

back to FREEFALLING TOWERS held together with air-bolts and air-welds!



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
your thesis assumes that i am a monkey sitting at a typewriter. you assume that when people are typing, the letters are punched randomly. pretty dumb, no?
your thesis also ignores that some letters, like 'e' and 's' are more frequent in the language.
in fact, your whole purpose with this random outburst of signature critique seems directed at making ME seem incredulous, and it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread(except that it's the same people behind it, ...the NWO).


Your probability in a similar way ignores the fact that only certain central stations would be likely targets, instead it takes into accont all tube stations.
Also there are only 3 major rush hours - morning, afternoon and evening of around 1 hour duration at peak I would estimate. Your probability thing assumes all hours in the day are likely candidates. In reality there are 3 main times and the morning one makes sense in order to cause maximum disruption and costs, while also causing the maximum amount of panic during the waking hours of the whole day.
It ignores that there are frequent exercises and that it would not be strange to pick similar scenarios as there is only a small window in the morning to cause maximum disruption and the number of central tube stations in financial areas are limited. It would make no sense to attack some tube station in a slummy area of town would it?

You demonstrate the ability to spot things that need to be taken into account when performing such a calculation, yet choose to ignore it when it doesn't suit you?


But anyway, as you said, back to the discussion!



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith






why is the pentagram inverted on buzz's medal?

that's just satanic.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


why is the pentagram inverted on buzz's medal?

that's just satanic.


Uh, it's not? You really do just see what you want don't you? LOL We've seen it all folks....




posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   


I think the most pressing question is: How did AgentSmith get so chubby when it is a well-known fact that British cuisine is bloody awful?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
i see i was wrong.

okay. thanks for clearing that up.

you seem pretty interested in ufo's. waht's with that? you just don't seem like the 'type'.

geez. maybe my tongue in cheek humour was closer to the mark than you'll admit.

do you believe there is an alien threat? do you believe in ufo's?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you seem pretty interested in ufo's. waht's with that? you just don't seem like the 'type'.

geez. maybe my tongue in cheek humour was closer to the mark than you'll admit.

do you believe there is an alien threat? do you believe in ufo's?


I do believe in that sort of thing, I actually own my own UFO site believe it or not. I started getting interested in this sort of thing in the early 90's when I used to visit the old BBS' before the Internet took off.
I was actually a lot like you I think, but after reading into things more and stuff I just started becoming skeptical. I guess it's all down to the information you read/are shown.
I actually became skeptical about some conspiracies after visiting ATS and seeing a more balanced viewpoint. I've also met and spoken to a lot of different people, including people like Buzz obviously, which helps me learn and form an opinon without relying on the media (and that's anyone's media - standard or alternative).
I interviewed UK MOD employee Nick Pope who investigated UFOs and put it up as a podcast here on ATS, that was pretty interesting. Brian Blessed, a British Actor and Explorer, he had a few interesting things to say about Cydonia on Mars.
Due to the variety of people I know and have known and the people I meet on my travels, I have been able to speak to Masons, Engineers, Scientists, Ecologists, Military guys (and girls), Movie Stars, TV Stars, Civil Servants, etc. This has helped me get a broader outlook on things from a variety of viewpoints, though you never stop learning obviously.
I'm not sure I entertain Icke's theories of Reptilians, though it is not impossible. If dinosaurs had not been made extinct them may have evolved into intelligent and self-aware beings. There is a dinosaur museum here in the UK with a model made by a scientist of what he predicted dinosaurs would have evolved into. It actually looked like a cross between a grey and some sort of reptile.
A guy I met some years back who is as sound of mind as one can be, actually said a few interesting things. All I really remember is him talking about the Nordics and he said something about helping us I think. Something about weather changing to.
Who knows though, ay! Funnily enough though I still think that the explosives theory is far too elaborate and unnecessary.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I think the most pressing question is: How did AgentSmith get so chubby when it is a well-known fact that British cuisine is bloody awful?


That'll be the organic meat and vegetables I buy direct from the farm, along with the finest ingredients, and only cooking non-English food! LOL



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join