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.

 

So Larry Silverstein *did* want WTC7 demolished on 9/11. Discuss.

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


if they had the correct variable inputs in their systems, then it would of been easy to reproduce. they were given the task to re-enforce the official lie, and they modded the results which took the weeks and computer power to reproduce this garbage animation that doesn't even emulate what happened that day.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I feel like I'm babysitting. Like a small child keeps asking the same questions over and over just because they don't like the answer they get, so they ignore it.


No, that would be us.

It's been pointed out countless times that the sounds don't match the brissance nor loudness of any known CD explosive. The CT answer has always been an appeal to magic - "secret military stuff".

You may choose to educate yourself about explosives, how they work, and specifically relevant to your major how close to high powered radio transmitters you would use RF devices ( as in the transmitters in the towers ) you would place them, you can read some here:


www.militarynewbie.com...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028

if they had the correct variable inputs in their systems, then it would of been easy to reproduce.


And I say it wouldn't have been.

See how easy that was?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

There is no reason to believe it would not have been feasible,



Actually there is.

Ryan Mackey wrote an excellent post explaining it once, concerning drift (IIRC) and the exponential nature of the animation needing to correct itself at every point along the way.

Exponential. Not linear.

Eventually, there isn't enough computing power.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No, that would be us.


No it wouldn't, because you can't even understand the significance of the computer simulations not matching real observations. You think it makes a difference which simulation I refer to when they all fail to show what I'm talking about. This being one small example amongst many of how you utterly fail to grasp logic.


It's been pointed out countless times that the sounds don't match the brissance nor loudness of any known CD explosive.


It's been said but it's not been proven. When you say "that doesn't sound like explosives to me," I'm left thinking, "who the hell are you and how exactly would you know again?" And you never have a satisfactory answer for that. It makes a difference, child.


The CT answer has always been an appeal to magic - "secret military stuff".


I don't think the military considers their classified technology as "magic." But nonetheless, I'm not making any claims as to what was placed in that building anyway. Now you are diverting to other topics.
Can you tell me why I'm not surprised that you can't keep your mind on a single line of reasoning? Any ideas?


You may choose to educate yourself about explosives, how they work, and specifically relevant to your major how close to high powered radio transmitters you would use RF devices ( as in the transmitters in the towers ) you would place them, you can read some here:


Not having the education yourself, I can understand how you would be unable to understand how circuits can be designed to deal with these issues. The simplest solution (that is actually used on many devices already) is to require a specific digital or analog signal to be received before the circuit does anything further. High-impedance resistors can prevent inductance from generating noise on the circuit.

The "military newbie" website you are reading from lists the most conventional explosives and shows the most basic blasting caps. It is designed for laymen who are not actually educated in the technical fields that have produced this information in the first place. If you would like to discuss more explicitly the electrical properties of various circuits and how it is possible to modify them to better fit this scenario, that would be right up my alley.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Ryan Mackey wrote an excellent post explaining it once, concerning drift (IIRC) and the exponential nature of the animation needing to correct itself at every point along the way.

Exponential. Not linear.

Eventually, there isn't enough computing power.


You should qualify these posts with the fact that you yourself have no idea what you're talking about.

Many computer processes already involve exponential expansions of calculations, and are still easily within the capabilities of modern processors. You use the word "exponential" like it's something exotic and computers automatically can't handle it.

I don't doubt that Ryan Mackey posted some of his personal garbage somewhere, but you obviously didn't come away with any better understanding.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

When the points I am making apply equally to all simulations NIST attempted, this is a moot point and doesn't make a damned bit of difference.



It matters, cuz only 2 possibilities exist that I can see, and neither give me confidence in the fuitfulness of further discussion:

1- you've been wrong all along when you've shown that figure as reailty, and you've believed that.

2- you realize it doesn't but have been dishonest.

And it's amplified when you refuse to admit that the FEA analysis in the final report IS accurate.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I lost you on, "It matters, cuz...", and then the rest of your post about dissuaded me from responding at all.

I pointed out 2 specifics issues with WTC7's collapse that NIST was unable to recreate in any of their simulations. That's not dishonesty. It is relevant to any and all of their simulations, until you can prove one of them actually achieved this. You won't. Stop diverting and manipulating the issue and posting pure rhetoric. You denying the inaccuracy of the simulations, even as I explain what is missing, is dishonest, or blatant trolling.

I don't know why I even feel the need to respond to you. Anyone could come on here and post most anything they'd like and expect others to take it seriously. What are your credentials again?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
So if it is a stupid idea, then why the hell are you even suggesting they demoed it?


Because I'm not saying they did it all in one day.




How did the pre-planted explosives and wiring manage to NOT degrade over time, NOT get discovered, NOT detonate when it was impacted by the falling debris, NOT detonate from the long burning fires over 6 hours, and then detonate silently and take 18 seconds to collapse?


These are not valid questions, and are based on confusion, ignorance, and fallacious reasoning.


How did they not degrade? Prove what they used and how long it was there first.

How did it not get discovered? Again, prove what they used and where it was placed first.

How did anything not detonate when impacted by falling debris? Prove that something was hit, and prove that it could be detonated by a physical impact. I hope you realize this doesn't set off most explosives to begin with, but I doubt you do.

How did whatever survive the fires? Prove that it would have been in an area exposed to fire. Prove that fire could set this device off in the first place. Many explosives are also not set off by heat (even basic C4).

How was it "silent"? Prove it was silent, because I have numerous witnesses who reported major explosions in and around that building, and even recordings of explosions coming from that building. So good luck proving it was silent in light of this.


What makes it all worse is that you have already received these responses countless times before. I feel like I'm babysitting. Like a small child keeps asking the same questions over and over just because they don't like the answer they get, so they ignore it.


No no no, first off Bsbray, you have to prove it was pre-wired. That is #1. What you are doing is demanding to prove a negative. There is NO proof of any pre-wiring done at any time. Only in your mind, and that is not good enough in the real world. Show real evidence that this happened.

Second, the questions I pose are relavant and are based on an understanding of the real world, which includes something called critical thinking and common sense.

What you are doing is nothing short of throwing feces at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Yes, explosives and their wiring DEGRADE over time. The longer they are exposed, the greater the chance of a misfire, or total failure.
Yes, when explosives are exposed to heat and fire, they can degrade or detonate, as well as the wiring devices, which are more suceptable to fire and shock. The WTC7 building was burning from top to bottom accross multiple floors. Heat and flames would degrade or detonate the wiring and/or the charges themselves. This is a fact.

Random sounds of "booms" does NOT equal democharges going off. Also, having random detonations going off throughout the day is NOT how a demolitioon works. No sir. Eyewitnesses who reported hearing booms are just that, they heard booms. I can name a few things that are non-demolition that can go or make a "boom" sound.

The video of the alleged "boom" has been shown to be edited or added in, based upon a preliminary audio-analysis. Hell, even I could tell that the sound of the "ka-boom" was a little too clear and loud for what it was. And for a "boom" that big, there would have been a lot more notice of it ALL OVER lower Manhattan. Why is that? Have you ever been to a fireworks display in a downtown area with tall buildings? Come down to Chicago for the 4th of July fireworks. You can hear the fireworks going kaboom nearly two miles away, clearly. Why? The sound bounces off the neighboring buildings and echos. Its very loud and very noticeable. But those are fireworks. Democharges that are powerful enough to cut steel beams are much much much more powerful and therefore LOUDER than fireworks. There should have been heard detonations from all over LM. Even recorded ones. But the only reports I hear or see, are small secondary explosions. Small secondary explosions cutting large steel beams, haphazardly?

At the time of the collapse, there was NO sound of the series of detonations prior or during the collapse. NONE. Show me just one, or at least one report of a series of detonations.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
So, BsBray, back to the OP.... Did you happen to get the names of the alleged Con-Ed guys that allegedly overheard Larry Silverstein who, according to the Journalist was at Ground Zero.

Can you also please explain how Con Ed staff were able to hear who he was talking to?

Thank you!



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Can you show us ONE, just one picture from the collapse of building 7 that even remotely resembles any part of that recreation?


You mean the part that bsbray has cried about?

No, since, as I noted, this is a figure of what 7's collapse would have looked like if there hadn't been any damage from 1's collapse.


Huh? It is a simulation of something that did not happen? Why would they bother to do that? Did they make one that would show what would happen had a gian bowling ball hit it too?

Do you believe that simulations even remotely resembles what we can clearly see on film? Do you believe that minus the damage from 1 it really would have gone that crazy? Are you asserting the damage helped stabilze the building? Why is there a simulation of what it MIGHT look like if things had been different?



7 did in fact sustain damage from 1's collapse, and as plainly noted in the final report, section 4.5 was a study done to try and find out if the building would have collapsed without the damage and what it would have looked like.


Ahh so you just cannot admit that the entire thing is a fantasy dreampt up to explain what things might have been or could have been but absolutely nothing to show what actually did happen?


The rational realize that therefore, it shouldn't have looked like that at all, but like in figures 4-43 to 4-63. And it did.


What? It should not and it did? Maybe a typo?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Man, I know you would have been one of the people saying "there is no evidence he ever meant to demolish the building, blah blah blah blah."


You "know" that? How? Or is it just baseless conjecture?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's been said but it's not been proven. When you say "that doesn't sound like explosives to me," I'm left thinking, "who the hell are you and how exactly would you know again?"


It doesn't matter who says it. CDI had guys there, IIRC, and they say it too. But rather than listen, CTers like you discount their statements. Typical,wouldn't you say. Kinda like babysitting you guys, I'd say.


I don't think the military considers their classified technology as "magic." But nonetheless, I'm not making any claims as to what was placed in that building anyway.


I'm quite sure that you've used this very excuse when you can't explain away the lack of loudness and brissance, as stated by the professionals during the collapse.


The "military newbie" website you are reading from lists the most conventional explosives and shows the most basic blasting caps.


No, what it is, is a primer for truthers to form some sort of hypothesis about how any of the buildings would have been brought down with explosives. Combine this with some engineering, and someone could do it.

My bet: none of them will be willing to do it.

And we all know why.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You should qualify these posts with the fact that you yourself have no idea what you're talking about.


You should qualify your post by stating that you didn't read it. Nor do you know the numbers involved.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I lost you on, "It matters, cuz...",


Cuz it's true. You've been using the wrong figure in your rants. Whether it's cuz you're dishonest, or just ill informed is the question.

Any bets what anybody who reads that post will come away with?


I pointed out 2 specifics issues with WTC7's collapse that NIST was unable to recreate in any of their simulations.


It's called an Appeal to Perfection. That's the fallacy you're employing.


That's not dishonesty.


Ok then. So you're poorly informed. Gotcha.


It is relevant to any and all of their simulations, until you can prove one of them actually achieved this.


Prove to you? LMAO.

I've already shown to all reading that you have been using the wrong figure from the NIST report in your rants. And you don't have the stones to admit that. Why continue until you do? You're being dishonest by not admitting your mistake.

The only conclusion is that since you refuse to address it, you're aware it was wrong. therefore, the ill informed is off the table to the rational. All that remains is dishonesty.


What are your credentials again?


Irrelevant.

The main difference is that I have no agenda.

You have an agenda. And to that end, you must not admit to either dishonesty nor to being illinformed, cuz it hurts your credibility.

And a truthers credibility is all they've got when all their arguments are from incredulity and fallacies.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
No no no, first off Bsbray, you have to prove it was pre-wired.


Are you saying they could have rigged it all that day?

Now retreat to a different criticism.



Second, the questions I pose are relavant and are based on an understanding of the real world, which includes something called critical thinking and common sense.


Sounds like a bunch of unscientific rhetoric to me. The assumptions your questions make are fallacious to begin with. Like me asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" I explained this in my last post to you, but you apparently don't understand.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
So, BsBray, back to the OP.... Did you happen to get the names of the alleged Con-Ed guys that allegedly overheard Larry Silverstein who, according to the Journalist was at Ground Zero.

Can you also please explain how Con Ed staff were able to hear who he was talking to?

Thank you!


No problem, SS.

The author of the article is named Jeffrey Scott Shapiro. This is what the article says about the author:


Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor and investigative reporter who covered the Sept. 11 attacks on location. To read his Washington Times/Insight piece, “Stories Prior Knowledge of 9/11 More Than Urban Legend,” click here.


www.foxnews.com...


This is what the author states:


Perhaps what Ventura is missing is that there is probably more incontrovertible evidence and more witnesses who have already established what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 than most major historical events. To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.

I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.
...
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.



This is apparently his blog: drinkthis.typepad.com...

His email address if you want to ask him more specific questions about where he heard what he did: jshapiro@ufl.edu



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you look at top line of article it says "OPINION"

Not fact, opinion which is based heavily on hearsay.

Who were the mythical Con-ED workers?

How did they happen to overhear Silverstein with all the ambient noise?

Did anyone confirm that Silverstein was even there?

Funny thing about opinions they are like a rectum in that everyone has one and usually full of crap....



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


No problem, SS.


So that explains to me how the FDNY and the Con-Ed workers heard Silverstein?

You have not supplied ANY names whatsoever, nor have you explained the feasibility of someone know who someone else is talking to on a phone in the middle of a war zone.

Did you find out if Silverstien was at Ground Zero on 9/11? Do you have any witnesses to this?

What you did in your OP was simply repeating hearsay.




A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

This Journalist is a dolt. Don't you agree?




His email address if you want to ask him more specific questions about where he heard what he did: jshapiro@ufl.edu


I'm sure the truther cult has forced his e-mail to be flooded with NWO comments etc.

You are the one that wanted to "discuss" this. You are the one I will pose my questions to.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join