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.
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.
Originally posted by ugie1028
if they had the correct variable inputs in their systems, then it would of been easy to reproduce.
Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no reason to believe it would not have been feasible,
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?"
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.
The "military newbie" website you are reading from lists the most conventional explosives and shows the most basic blasting caps.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You should qualify these posts with the fact that you yourself have no idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I lost you on, "It matters, cuz...",
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.
What are your credentials again?
Originally posted by GenRadek
No no no, first off Bsbray, you have to prove it was pre-wired.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
No problem, SS.
His email address if you want to ask him more specific questions about where he heard what he did: [email protected]