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.

 

Larry Silverstein question

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   


No, I'm saying people will hush up if they want to keep their job. Nothing more.


But they would still have to be morally corrupt to suppress Jones, and cover up the murders.



Since his papers are of physics and have been reviewed by physicists....I would say that they certainly have been peer reviewed.


By which journal?



Since you are going to say that physicists aren't qualified and only structural engineers are, go ask a structural engineer about the physics and dynamics of a failing building. I bet you'll get the answer "I'll get back to you" while they go ask their physicist/mechanical engineer friends. Since structural engineers study statics (stationary physics) they aren't more qualified than a physicist who studies dynamics (physics in motion). I should know...I'm a structural engineer but couldn't tell you squat about dynamics until I relearn dynamics. Physics professors teach about dynamics and know a heck of alot more than a structural engineer would about dynamics.


Structurals engineer study how buildings stay up, they will be able to tell if the damage and weakened steel will be able to bring it down. What happens after may not be the realm of structural engineers, but they would still be in the realm on engineering, not physicists. Demolition experts would also be able to tell you if it looks like a demolition, as shown here.
xbehome.com...




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

  1. Very little of his paper deals with physics. He strays into chemistry, structural engineering, and politics.

  2. The other physicists are: Judy Wood and Derrick Grimmer. A professor who couldn’t get tenure and a pothead. I bet their CV’s are just loaded with relevant work. Not.

  3. Let’s not forget the theologian who peer reviewed his work.
    I wonder if Jones, as a Mormon, considers a non-LDS theologian a “Peer?”




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Demolition experts would also be able to tell you if it looks like a demolition, as shown here.


You mean the demolitions expert from your link who stated that they did look like a controlled demolition?

You are right that structural engineers would be able to find out how the collapse initiated. The only problem is you need to know the exact design and how it was built (as-built drawings). Since the construction documents are under lock and key, no structural engineer will be able to do the kind of investigation you are implying. That goes for both sides.

[edit on 8/15/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

  • The other physicists are: Judy Wood and Derrick Grimmer. A professor who couldn’t get tenure and a pothead. I bet their CV’s are just loaded with relevant work. Not.


  • Funny how you mention this. Have you ever smoked marijuana? If so, I can wave my hand to you and say....move along, these are not the potheads ..er droids your looking for.


    Furthermore, what does smoking pot have to do with her intellegence? Unless you're one of the gullable people who listens to all the propoganda about marijuana spewed by the government. Pot doesn't affect your intellegence....it may affect your short term memory loss but not your intellegence. Anyway...getting off the thread topic.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:13 PM
    link   


    So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!


    Taken from www.debunking911.com...



    You are right that structural engineers would be able to find out how the collapse initiated. The only problem is you need to know the exact design and how it was built (as-built drawings). Since the construction documents are under lock and key, no structural engineer will be able to do the kind of investigation you are implying. That goes for both sides.


    I thought Dylan Avery, creater of loose change, was able to purchase a copy, have you ever tried calling them to ask for them?



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:14 PM
    link   
    This didn't show up in the last post.



    The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mr_pointy
    I thought Dylan Avery, creater of loose change, was able to purchase a copy, have you ever tried calling them to ask for them?


    No, they're unavailable. De facto classified information.

    Not even the engineers with FEMA/BPAT/ASCE/etc. had access to the original construction drawings, and this was voiced as a complaint in their investigations.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:08 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark

    1. Very little of his paper deals with physics. He strays into chemistry, structural engineering, and politics.




    Howard, do you want your board classification from most of us?
    Personal opinions of him aside, look at his work. Isn't it always said, forget the religion, look at the science... or some form rather.

    But that doesn't have anything to do with the thread however.

    The question is the nature of "Pull it" and the building falling straight down afterwords, given the situation WTC 7 was in at the time.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:37 PM
    link   


    The question is the nature of "Pull it" and the building falling straight down afterwords, given the situation WTC 7 was in at the time.


    I've explained this over and over to you. You decided to stop responding when I called Jones a crackpot because he never had his papers peer reviewed, and the scientific community rejects his theories. If you could address these issues, do so.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Griff
    I'm going to chime in here for a second. I'm working on something right now and hopefully post it by the end of the day (if I get time.....we've become very busy lately at work). Anyway, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy in this (I know, we on the other side can be hypocritical also, so this isn't really a jab at you personally Mr_pointy).

    OK, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the molten steel found at WTC7. Now, I'm not sure about photos. So, you guys say that eyewitness accounts are better than photos when it comes to the "fires" of WTC7...correct? Well, how about eyewitness accounts of engineers (who would know the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum) seeing molten steel. Molten aluminum doesn't glow in daylight...molten steel does. See the hypocrisy?

    On topic. I believe that Silverstein has delusions of granduer.

    First, why would a fire chief ask the building owner to pull his men out (or even contact him for that matter)?

    Second, why would Silverstein tell the fire chief to demolish the building? If this was a government/Silverstein conspiracy, why would Silverstein now involve the fire department's chief with critical information that could potentially ruin him (Silverstein)?

    My only conclusion that I have come up with is that Silverstein lied in the interview about that conversation. I don't think the words "pull it" ever came out of Larry's mouth on the day of 9/11. I'm even suspect of him ever having this conversation in the first place. IMO, no side of this part of the arguement makes sense.


    Very good points!
    You have voted Griff for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

    Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

    [edit on 15/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:12 PM
    link   
    Yeah, it is interesting how this site: www.thewebfairy.com...

    is only showing pictures. Wouldn't they want to show all the media? i.e. the video showing the smoke; Or is it okay to choose your evidence as you see fit?


    Hmm, but I guess it happens on both sides.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:58 PM
    link   
    DoomX, that's probably the most important and really tells the story that the conspiracy theorists just aren't making a good case because one site doesn't show media yet a lot of others do.



    K, cept not.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:28 PM
    link   
    Yet, the site seems to ignore the smoke poring from the building and the eyewitness testimonies, just like you have in this thread.



    posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:40 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mr_pointy
    Yet, the site seems to ignore the smoke poring from the building and the eyewitness testimonies, just like you have in this thread.

    Where there is smoke there is fire or in the case of smoking mirrors what may be fire can be something else. Sliverstein actually had explosives in the building prior to 911 and thats a fact. The fact all three building mimicing each other in a mirror like state is giving fuel to the surge of people feeling that this ain't kansas anymore.
    Mr. pointy why are you so incested with proving the wtc feel by gravity and fire and not by command of pull it. Should sliverstein have said light the fuse and run like hell. Would that change your opinion the day sept 11 2001 was perchance a blow at robbery and insurance fraud and not really a terrorist attack after all.
    twc1, twc2 and twc7 fell by using explosives. The steel struts as you call them have to be tested to 2000 degrees for 3 hours before using them. Remember who was in the building cia,usss,fbi,atf,security exchange commission their building have to withstand blasts and fires and multiple plane hits.
    plus there is not mention of sprinkler systems again. whats with that has america done away with sprinkler systems in all its buildings. Another thing why would sliverstein want a 99 year lease when the building was thirty years olde. Why was marvin bush in charge of security, why was elhurd olmert in charge of boston air port security a lot of whys out there and its the whys that keep cropping up that has us asking why?



    posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:25 AM
    link   
    In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 mill.
    www.prisonplanet.com...

    Looking at the upper right-hand corner of the building we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions, and in fact nothing but small explosive charges could create such an appearance.

    Also, WTC 7 contained agency's like the FBI, CIA, DOD, Homeland, and other various contractors. On another note, the building was well built and alot newer than the Towers, since it was a mostly govermental building it had even more protection layers. Also if you look at an ariel map of the surrounding area, you will discover that WTC 7 was much futher away than many other buildings, yet they didnt catch fire or recive much damage as the WTC 7. The fires just started, personally i belive it was them burning the paperwork like they do in Embacies in a time of crisis. They already knew to destroy that building from the start, thats why very few fire fighters had gone in, Larry just gave the go. He did afterall own the building.



    posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:31 AM
    link   
    Also i have personally fought fires and i know just because theres alot of smoke doesnt mean the fire is big. Sometimes the fire almost puts itself out with too much smoke. Also, in mock disaster training as a fire cheif or emt leader, we DO NOT SEND people into a burning building if we think at all theres a chance that it will fall..we must put our safety first before others. Thats an EMT/FIREFIGHTER's first rule.

    Note: what does him being mormon or any other relgion have to do with it? thats like saying that just because someones arab they are automatically a terrorist. Dont bash someone because of their race or religion. it just makes you look stupid and desprite.


    [edit on 8/16/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]



    posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:28 AM
    link   
    seems to me "pull it" would be short for "pull em out of it", reffering to pulling the firefighters out of the building

    remember people, this is NYC we're talking about, people there talk differently than you are used to
    on top of that, this is the fire department
    fire, police, and various other public safety systems all have their own lingo

    "pull it", in context, clearly means to "pull out of it"

    just cureous, how could "pull it" mean demolish it?
    pull it down?
    pull it over?
    seems they'd say "raise it" or "level it" if that was the case

    of all the events on 9/11, this one seems most likely to have been not a conspiracy



    posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:02 AM
    link   
    How can you get such a strong feeling for what it stands for, "it" can imply anything at any rate, and that fact that when discussing that, Silverstein then refers to the building falling down, so what does that imply?



    posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    link   
    "Pull it" is a demolition term, i have never heard of it being used as a firefighter term or an emt term (to be firefighters where i live you have to have a class 2 firefighter license and EMT-I/or/paramedic.....i guess they save on costs
    ) terms they would use is: "Get the hell out of there" "evac" "evacuate the area" "the building is going to fall, get out" get out" etc etc.....yet pull it? never heard that used...i dont care what part of the country your from...that sounds odd just using it....say it with me...."PULL IT" meaning get your men out...yeah that just doesnt make sense...



    posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:55 PM
    link   


    In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 mill.


    His loss on the WTC towers is totaled in the millions, if not billions, he is requireed to rebuild them because of the lease he signed.



    Where there is smoke there is fire or in the case of smoking mirrors what may be fire can be something else. Sliverstein actually had explosives in the building prior to 911 and thats a fact. The fact all three building mimicing each other in a mirror like state is giving fuel to the surge of people feeling that this ain't kansas anymore.


    A fact? Who found the explosives, why didn't anyone hear them, and why did everyone there thing it was going to come down anyway?



    Mr. pointy why are you so incested with proving the wtc feel by gravity and fire and not by command of pull it. Should sliverstein have said light the fuse and run like hell.


    Because I don't like people speading lies.



    Would that change your opinion the day sept 11 2001 was perchance a blow at robbery and insurance fraud and not really a terrorist attack after all.


    He was required to rebuild the towers according to his contract, the rebuilding will cost more than any insurance he could hope to collect.



    twc1, twc2 and twc7 fell by using explosives.


    Not according to the people that do it for a living.
    xbehome.com...



    plus there is not mention of sprinkler systems again.


    911myths.com...
    I linked this before, the water pressure was low, it couldn't do much.



    Another thing why would sliverstein want a 99 year lease when the building was thirty years olde.


    He expected the building to last a long time, he wouldn't live that long anyway.



    Why was marvin bush in charge of security,


    He wasn't, he hasn't had anything to do with the company since 2000.
    911myths.com...



    why was elhurd olmert in charge of boston air port security


    Who?



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    << 3  4  5    7 >>

    log in

    join