Given you have no reference for what p should be there has never been a previous case of a striking a Steel Framed Skyscraper at mph before either, so your reference as to what p should be is flawed. With all the different variable of each scenario of the three tower collapses, your p's would each be different, and hence it is not a cubic function, but rather 3 different numbers multiplied together. I just went through this. Now I can see you coming, so I know you will next say you cannot "prove" an impossibility.
I would love to see your qualifications to say that all of the engineers working for NIST who have said there was no evidence of conventional explosives found, and no evidence they were used, are wrong. That is what you are saying.
I see. Childish, I will leave it. And on Silverstein there should be enough around Maybe you should start with Protec's article, unsolicited by the way unlike all the Scholar articles , that involved questioning many demolition experts, none of whom say that "Pull It" is used with reference to bringing a building down with explosives.
In fact, they say it is only used in reference to manually assisting in pulling the building down to a particular area to avoid colateral damage to a nearby structure.
These same Demolition Experts also indicate that a 3rd party such as Silverstein would never have the authority to tell a demolition team to "pull" anything. Since we know it is the responsibility of Demolition, not the Fire Department to bring down a building, He couldn't have been giving the order to "pull down" the building, as you suggest, as it would have been useless to tell the fire dept such a thing, and if he was talking to Demolition, he had no authority to tell them to "Pull" the building anyway.
Wow, you can quote passages in French, I am so impressed by your intellectualism. Shall I in my rebutal cite an equally irrelevent passage from my Russian copy of War and Peace?
Since you failed to address a single factual point that I raised, I will assume that you have conceded that part of the argument and are now moving on to some warped interpretation of probability theory. Typical conspiracy theory logic, when you are proven wrong, change the subject. Your use of probabilities is absurdly incorrect though. You cannot argue the probability of something or a series of somethings happening, based on the fact they already occurred. What are the odds that both the Seahawks and the Steelers would go to the Superbowl last year?
The Steelers hadn't gone to the Superbowl in years, and the Seahawks had never been there. Then does this prove this could not have happened? These 3 events did happen, and you would not be asking the question if they had not.
Unless you wish to repeat these events a large number of times under the exact same conditions to test their probability of occurence, the only probability you can then assign to them is 1. I have already defined a "sinister assertion". It is one or more events which are presented in ominous sounding terms, which is intended to prove some sort of sinister event occuring, but no argument is made as to its relevence. Another famous example with conspiracy theorists is Charles Burlingame, the pilot of AA Whether this is true or not remains up in the air, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is.
But even if it is, so what? It sounds ominous. It sounds like a weird coincidence, but what is its relevence. They don't argue he actually flew the plane.
The exercise did not involve actually crashing a plane, so how would him being involved in rehearsing medical triage have any relevence? It doesn't, and nobody has ever argued that it does, but they repeat it often because it sounds ominous. Thus the term "a sinister assertion". I find that very strange.
No doubt there was ample time and opportunity for optimal placement of cutting charges. Why not something more on the order a few years? Proponents of the controlled demolition theory, such as Prof. Steven Jones, postulate the use of a form of explosive, such as thermite, that was not at all likely to detonate prematurely, e. As Jones has shown, the stuff just sits there quite harmlessly, even at temperatures approaching F. The only problem with the hypothesis of an extended time frame is that it leaves the perps more time to grow a conscience before finishing what they started.
Fat chance. I would like to challenge the idea that the removal of the bomb dogs had any thing to do with the placement of demolition materials.
I do believe that the buildings were brought down by demolition, make no mistake of that. Dogs have to be trained for specific stimuli. In fact dogs that sniff for bombs are not necessarily drug dogs at the same time in fact they probably aren't, being trained for each stimulus is a time consuming matter.
This is because they are two different stimuli. A drug dog for example may be trained for pot but not mushrooms. Bombs can be composed of various components depending on the job at hand. I think that it is entirely possible that the demolition materials were materials which the dogs were not trained for. For example the basic components of thermate if brought in separately could easily be brought past gaurd dogs which would in turn mean there are less restrictions on the set up time for the explosives.
It would be nice to know the exact training regime's the dogs were on with regards to the stimulants used. Because you believe that the original French passages have been removed or translated from the English or German editions? Do you know what absurd does mean? And guess, the extremes are the most unlikely to happen Then look at the current administration.
Look at the similarly impossible official account of what should have happened at the Pentagon. They are not conditio sine qua non, though they might have played a role here and there.
This is what is relevant at this stage. Anything else can't diminish the generality of the evidence [controlled demolition]. If it makes you happy, I don't mind if we say, as a first approximation, that the charges have been placed by magical flying armadillos Tell which "sinister event[s] occurring" you mean, which are the "ominous sounding terms," and which shortage of arguments makes you suffer.
Maybe you have not noticed that the book which I have given as the reference has a title in French, and it does come from Belgium [where people speak mainly French, then Flemish, plus several dialects]. But don't worry, would have the book have been written in [say] Italian, or Swedish, I would have translated the passage.
Not wrong, strictly speaking. Indeed it should have been: 0. I know what pleonasms are]. Notice by surplus on the other hand that not only have ALL the three towers disintegrated. All ears?!
And where have they been--your ears--all the time, now that it is anno Or you just have started yesterday to connect to the Internet? Which kind of a joke are you? Try to type at google. For those who insists in displaying their--see below--"utmost total ignorance" He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions] "[I] will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.
To call this explanation a "conspiracy theory" is to display the utmost total ignorance. Any physicist or engineer who maintains that buildings can "pancake" at free fall speed has obviously been bought and paid for or is a total incompetent fool. You think all the people who think most of the official story is correct are just stupid or simpletons Not all intelectuals focused their studies on multiple languages.
Is Mr. I known The people at Protec are. I will trust their world any day over anyone less qualified, no argument. As for the free fall issue, neither of the buildings fell at free fall. What do the experts that believe it was "inside job" have to say about the NIST explanation. Proffesor Jones, or Professor Wood, or Professor If so then give the names and tell them to publish their papers on it, so the general public can see their work.
As for falling in its own footprint, it was far from in its own foot print. How many nearby buildings were severely damaged from the fall of those two towers. You wanna argue the Physics or mechanics of the crash, find someone who is an expert I have enough sense to quote them. I can argue the logic of a situation, or what strikes me as strange, or unusual, but then I usually go to the EXPERTS in that field and see what they have to say. Things have gone downhill ever since that Napoleon guy, where have you been?
What are the odds that the average American would be willing to conduct an attack killing thousands of his fellow citizens? Figure that on the low side there are 50 people involved in the attack.
You allege of course that this took place in 3 buildings, so that lowers the odds. What are the odds that each these 50 conspirators would, after the fact, keep perfectly quiet, and not leak or expose themselves or others? How about all the news agencies? How likely is it that they would not find out about the biggest plot in the history of the world? So our probability formula based on your rules works out to:.
So we have scientifically determined that the probability of this being a plot involving controlled demolitions is 1. Stratesec was briefly one of my clients.
My employment was with an insurance broker and my role for Stratesec was to broker for them a surety bond line of credit from an insurance company. A surety bond is a third-party guarantee of a legal obligation - no connection or relationship to bonds in the sense of stocks and bonds.
In this instance, the main purpose of the surety bond line of credit was to provide tender bid security and peformance and payment bonds to guarantee contracts for security systems work. Stratesec came to my employer because the insurance company, Frontier, was broke. In a nutshell, Frontier had had too many contractors go broke and it cost them too much money in their claims from project owners. Stratesec's first name was Securecom.
Another firm had that name, so it was changed. Securecom was a spin-off from a security company named Burns. Other shareholders included President Geo. McHenry, chairman of NetCom. McHenry's firm, Network Solutions Inc. The official story is that Stratesec's original business plan was to increase revenue faster than the profit curve in order to rapidly acquire market share and thereby become a dominant national security firm.
Actually, the term "systems integrator" is more appropriate. A contract to install systems at the WTC towers was identified as a major problem. Contract losses reportedly resulted from problems in developing custom software that they subcontracted to a group of Berkely professors. Its President, blamed for the losses, left when that chapter was closed. McDaniels said that all of the people involved in the matter were gone, that the contract was poorly documented and that, in consequence, nobody understood it well enough to discuss it, so it just wasn't worth delving into.
He said that Thomas did not delegate adequately but instead carried a lot of information concerning the contract in his head and that he wasn't available to discuss it either.
Thomas had left with a golden parachute that included shares and and a consulting contract for which he had to do virtually nothing. This conversation with McDaniels was in I suggest that an appropriate area of research might be to obtain 1 a copy of the contract to determine precisely what sort of equipment and software Stratesec was to install and 2 obtain a copy of the subcontract with the Berkley professors.
Another of Stratesec's major contracts at the time was installing security systems at TVA facilities. Maybe a dam or two will blow up next time. I am still waiting for a reply.
No one comparable building in history has ever been destroyed by fire structurally. This restricts our already microscopic p further. Let's pick the biggest one of them [the p's] I concur wholeheartedly. Unfortunately it is pure speculation about the situation. If an individual was told to place detonation devices so that the buildings could be brought down killing the inhabitants more than likely only a sociopath would go through with it.
On the other hand if someone was told to install devices for a legitimate demolition in which all the inhabitants would be cleared at the time of demo. This is a matter of perception control, something the US government has researched extensively.
The matter of how to get someone to do something is to manipulate their view of the situation. For reference I recommend looking up "Solomon Asch" on "social conformity". Again this is speculation.
Maybe the people bringing in the demo's weren't hidden but the materials they brought in were or were masked. The WTC's had a large number of people working there could it possibly be that hard to blend in?
For all we know some story could have been concocted to fool the people planting the demo's. To speculate even further the people who were not in the know could have been told to report to the WTC that day to do some 'other' work and in the process they could have been killed and thus silenced.
We should steer clear of speculation because we have plenty to work with as is. The buildings were pulvarized in a manner inconsitent with gravitational forces alone. Not every call monitored makes the headlines. Generally the ones the government wants us to hear about to manipulate our opinion on matters. Either you are willfully ignorant and trying to rationalize your own cognitive dissonance on the matter or you are trying to confuse others who are seeking the truth.
Well when speculation is all you have, such as with all the Conspiracy Theories, I guess you are entitled to speculate here, so go ahead, speculate away. Also, why not calculate the probability that out of all the people that would be required to set up this "legitimate" Demolition, noone involved would tell someone about it. Oh, I know, you'll say they were told "not to tell", but the same is said to all those who whistleblow or leak info, so it is irrelivent. Don't you think the fire department was on the scene of where a fire was located?
Moreover, you'll have to ask Mr. Silverstein why he used the firemen in his story. Well, in controlled demolition there is precision vs. In context the "terrible loss of life was in reference to what had happeened that day. You keep avoiding this concise point by posing questions on a bogus story to begin with Uh, how is he bragging? Again, your questions bypass the context you keep avoiding. After that length of time, it is a degenerative process that is going to provide you with a more and more disappointing outcome.
Ok, so yeah, with the exception of essential oils the main ingredients are the type of products you will find in the grocery store and used for baking, but the aspect of the answer to this question is both quantity and recipe. The ingredients used in a bath bomb are used in far greater quantities than when used as part of a recipe in baking.
In fact, they make up a tiny proportion of the overall recipe and interact with the other ingredients for a range of potential outcomes. Trust me, do not try this at all. If you were to consume a bath bomb, you would be very poorly indeed. Not to mention, someone would need to take a look inside your head as to why you were even thinking about it in the first place, let alone sitting down to munch through your favorite bath bomb.
A bathbomb enthusiast who happened to be in the birthplace of bath bombs as they were born. My passion remains to this day. If you want to make luxurious hydrating homemade soap you have to Superfat your recipe and this is achieved by creating a lye discount in your recipe. Whilst this may seem confusing at first there is One way to ensure you reach total relaxation in the bath is to have a relaxing bath routine. These Eleven tips can be the start of making your bath more enjoyable and the best way to take a bath for Skip to content There may be more than one reason you are looking for troubleshooting tips for bath bombs.
Sticking — Why does my bath bomb stick to the mold? This article explains the best humidity to have when making bath bombs and how to check the humidity for making bath bombs so you can diagnose possible issues with drying If the mix is too moist it may remain tacky as you put it in the mold and there is only going to be one result from that.
Sinking — How can I stop my bath Bomb sinking to the bottom of the tub? Calling in a bomb threat gives the individual with a micropenis the feeling of power and potency that their lives have lacked for so long. The opposite of a chode. This contradiction creates a rage that is eventually directed toward society as a whole. A condition caused by morbid obesity where the belly fat literally covers the penis. If you thought the shame of being fat in America was bad, imagine how it feels to be so fat that your very best friend now hides from you.
When other countries realized that America held this type of power, they began the race to develop their own. Thousands of innocent Japanese people died from the impact of the bomb, millions more where affected by the residual radiation.
Millions of dollars where spent to develop and effectively test the Atomic bomb. Many cities had already been completely destroyed from fire bombing, people believed it was unnecessary to drop the atomic bomb. Japan was very close to surrendering anyways, dropping of the bomb added insult to injury in a major way. It created a great amount of animosity and anger between the two nations, that still exists today.
0コメント