It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:43 PM
I REALLY don't understand at all, why hardcore JREFers, 9/11Truth debunkers and all other official story believers, can't or won't understand the inevitable conclusion of the following few logical lines of text :

IF that first huge deep sound wave was

as NIST keeps trying to convince us,

a HUGE LOW SOUND of ONE breaking steel CORE COLUMN Nr 79,

breaking over an 8 floors height,

why do we NOT HEAR then,

DURING and/or AFTER the 8 seconds of sinking roof structures,

the SAME HUGE LOW sound-levels for ALL the then breaking


and also the breaking of ALL

the slightly less stronger steel perimeter columns,

from inside and outside a totally collapsing, 47 floors high WTC 7 ?

We REALLY can HEAR only a few very faint falling debris sounds,

after we see WTC 7 start to sink down globally AS ONE BLOCK.

JUST as in all the video taped, online posted, MAN-MADE DEMOLITIONS.

There can only be one quite scary explanation.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:01 AM
Together with the above text, when combined with the below WTC 7 seismic collapse diagram,
the events just-before/-at-/just-after EDT 17:20:46 on 9/11/2001 can't be made more easy to understand than in this picture:


EDIT : Combine that also with this WTC 7 collapse video, and my THUMPs line with its underlined seconds, which you can compare with Beck's 2013 4 Phase WTC 7 collapse proposal.

LT : (16s) . (18s)ttT H U M Ppp . (20s)v . . . . . . (27s)V . . . . (32s)THUMP . (34s)thump--thump (35s)thump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (51s) )

That should do it for now.

edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: Clarification links added

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 06:34 AM
You are so wrapped up in your belief of a conspiracy you fail to accept any conclusions from any experts who examined the evidence first hand.

You have built up a cabinet full of your own evidence to support your own position to the exclusion of contradictory evidence.

You then fill up thread page after thread page to explain minutia that most people don't understand and frankly don't care about.
IMO This is why almost no one posts any direct rebuttal to your points.

If you believe that seismic diagrams proves a conspiracy fine.
But video of planes hitting the buildings trumps your seismic diagram.
That's my proof in one sentance.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:09 PM
Sam, I OBVIOUSLY do not write for short attention span readers.
One thing's for sure. Your ""too long, too complicated"" posts are surely thread-derailing. Unnecessary. Ignorant.
Just give additional information, or evidence that my laid out logic is wrong.

The long term problem with you quasi-skeptic guys is, that like lexyghot and GenRadek a few pages back, you drive by, throw some short link-defunct drivel in my soup, the usual mix of easy to prove, straight out lies, misinterpretations (intended or not), and good old online propaganda techniques. Clearly showing you do not really comprehend what is laid in front of you.
And always end your rants with some kind of triumphant statement, as if you won a debate by this behavior.

One word for your kind of posters : SAD

And you know why? I am not debating, I am T E A C H I N G
While always open for any decent, constructive corrections.
Luckily enough, you're all still free to L E A R N, whatever the Sam's of this world will throw in next.

I have stated this several times, I now post for nearly 5 months solely in here, and let me end it.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:16 PM
This and the next 4 posts are for the ones who REALLY can make a difference, the decision makers in all the other countries who are feeding on this kind of massive information,
who thrive to L E A R N :
Additional evidence for a 9/11 False Flag Operation :

Title : Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? November, 2012. 23 Pages. .--LINK--.

Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in geophysics and geology at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves. He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

Here are some of the more outstanding remarks from this French seismologist.
Compare them to all my above, and all my former seismic 9/11 forum-posts, they are a superb addition to them.
( Px = page nr. - - = snipped text) :

Dr. Rousseau
P1 - - We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. - -
P1 - - According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean or a sub-aerial explosion.
The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.

The witnesses and video observation confirm our conclusions of sub-aerial explosions close to the times of aircraft impacts on WTC1 and WTC2, a strong subterranean explosion closely correlated with the WTC1 collapse, and sub-aerial explosions closely correlated with the WTC2 and WTC7 collapses, WTC7 not having been hit by a plane. As a consequence, we draw the conclusion that the three buildings were demolished by a controlled process. - -

P3 - - Normally in this type of study the time of origin is known with great precision (to the millisecond), which is necessary in order to calculate the propagation speed of the different waves. Unfortunately, that precision is not possible for the events at the WTC. In this case, timing of the waves must be correlated as well as possible utilizing video evidence. - -
P3 - - Finally, the enormous indeterminacy of 2 seconds in the calculations attempting to fix the time of origin of each of the signals, admitted by the LDEO authors themselves (Kim et al., 2001), oblige us to view the official conclusions critically. - -
P3 - - Further, the waves generated by the two events do not have the same apparent velocity.
The calculation of the propagation speeds, derived from the times measured in the graphs of Figures 1a and 1b between the origins fixed according to the corresponding crashes and the first wave arrivals – namely, respectively 11.7 and 15.8 seconds - indicates roughly 2900 m/s for WTC1 and 2150 m/s for WTC2. - -

edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:19 PM

P4 - - The actual waves generated by the crashes had to have been deadened before hitting the ground. Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of 1 Hertz (1 Hz, or one cycle per second) --which is the case with the Rayleigh waves shown in figures 1a and 1b-- while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hz and are often around 100 Hz.
Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments (0.6-5 Hz) cited does not allow for the recording of the high-frequency waves that would be created by plane impacts.

As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it is inadequate because in such a case we would have had a "square" signal of long duration and a constant amplitude, while in actuality we observe a "bell-like" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2. - -
P4 - - The waveform data, far from suggesting the conclusion of LDEO that they were caused by plane impacts into the Towers, suggest instead two explosions with different time displacements from the moments of plane impact at each building. Further, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to differences in the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface. - -
P4 - - the signals attributed to the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, instead of being similar as one would suppose from the official thesis, are in fact very different. They differ in their form, their composition, and especially in their apparent propagation speed, as calculated from the official origin time.

In fact, the recording for WTC1 (Fig. 2a) demonstrates the three types of wave characteristic of a brief explosive source confined in a compact, solid material :
a P wave with a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical value for a very consolidated crystalline or sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan), an S wave with a speed of 3500 m/s, and a surface wave with a speed of 1800 m/s (a Rayleigh wave).
These values match those registered from an earthquake or seismic prospecting (see for example Kim et al. 2001).

On the other hand, the recording linked to WTC2 (Fig. 2b) does not show the P or S body waves observed for WTC1 but only the surface Rayleigh wave, for which the spreading of the amplitudes over the duration is different from that of WTC1. The propagation speed of 2125 m/s is also markedly different from that of WTC1. Further, this wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave four seconds later. - -

edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: Added excerpt tags in all 4 posts.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:21 PM

P5 - - We find the same thing for WTC7 (Fig. 2c), where the calculation of the speed of the wave according to the determined origin time indicates a Rayleigh wave with a 2200 m/s speed. Note that the amplitudes are comparable to those of the waves emitted at the time of the crashing of the airplanes into the Towers. This wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave 6 or 7 seconds later.

In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the fall of debris. The total mass and the average mass of individual building fragments were relatively small and fell to the ground over a period of more than ten seconds (which is a very long time in geophysics). Also note that the duration of a seismic signal does not tell anything about the source, in distinction from the amplitude and, particularly, the frequency. - -
P5 - - What are the indisputable data here? There are two: the time that the waves reached the Palisades station, which is relatively easy to determine, and the distance from the WTC to Palisades (34 km). If the recorded wave is actually a Rayleigh wave, its (group) velocity is around 2000 m/s. Therefore, this wave was created 17 seconds before its arrival at Palisades. - -

P6 - - there is a hiatus of 15 seconds between the plausible time of the origin of the Rayleigh wave based on the Palisades data and the time -- afterwards -- of the crash of the plane into WTC1 based on the ground radar data.
What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an earthquake? A similar discrepancy exists in the data for the seismic wave and impact times for WTC2. - -
P6 - - The necessary condition for the creation of seismic waves by such a crash would be the direct impact into the central columns by a full body. - -
- - In conclusion, even if a seismic wave could be created in a steel column, it would hit the ground only in the form of seismic noise, and as the passage from metal to rock is a refraction that absorbs energy, there would not be much left to propagate in the ground. - -

edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: tags

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:24 PM

P7 - - Only explosions could produce the waves observed but various possible explosive configurations must be considered. We must distinguish between 1) subterranean explosions, 2) aerial explosions and 3) sub-aerial explosions (close to the ground without touching it).

Subterranean explosions are similar to earthquakes in that mechanical energy is transmitted to the earth in the form of body waves of two types, P and S (for "primary" and "secondary," or "pressure" and "shear"), and surface waves (either Rayleigh or transverse L) when the signal reaches a solid-fluid interface (for example, the atmosphere at the surface). Another name for Rayleigh waves is ground roll.

Aerial explosions release all of their energy in the air (as P waves, which in the atmosphere are simply sound waves), and what remains upon hitting the ground is thus too weak to create body waves in the solid earth (although there can be surface waves over a small distance).

Sub-aerial explosions give off energy that splits into sound waves, mainly in the air, and surface waves in the ground. - -
P7 - - Read this whole chapter, it's too important to miss : EXPLOSIONS THE SOURCE OF 9/11 SEISMIC WAVEFORMS - -
- - A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is sub-aerial, in which case surface waves could be generated. The seismic wave data - - etcetera - -

edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: tags

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:29 PM

P8 - - Based upon the kind of waves coming from WTC2 and WTC7, they each underwent one or more very large sub-aerial explosions, heard and reported by witnesses. - -
- - The same thing happened at WTC7.
A witness watching this building heard something like a "thunderclap" that caused the windows to explode outwards, while the base of the burning building gave way a second later, before the whole building followed the movement (Testimony [4]), aided by a second explosion, which generated the second Rayleigh wave 6 to 7 seconds later. - -
- - Even if standard controlled demolitions do not create seismic waves (because the explosions are aerial), it is useful to compare the data from the World Trade Center on 9/11 with seismic data obtained during the controlled demolition of other buildings such as the Kingdome in Seattle (Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network, 2000) and at Oklahoma City (US) (Holzer et al., 1996). The case of the Kingdome is particularly interesting because seismologists expressly asked that the explosions be measured (in order to take advantage of the occasion to gather research data), and those in Oklahoma City were part of a reconstruction, using explosives, of the partially destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. These two examples involved a powerful sub-aerial explosion and the emitting of Rayleigh waves. Furthermore, the falling of the debris had no seismic consequences, even at distances well below 34 km (less than 7 km and 26 km respectively). Only the seismic equipment situated close to the source during the reconstruction of the bombing in Oklahoma City was able to record the seismic energy created by the collapse of the building.- -

edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: tags

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:47 PM
Well, that "Oklahoma City (US) (Holzer et al., 1996) " paper, that's the one I already for many years am nagging you people about.
Since Dr. Brown, the colleague of Dr Holzer (his boss at the time), explicitly stated then, after having seen the demolition of the remnants with his own eyes, which both were also glued to his seismographs, that the explosives going off excited the needle of his seismograph much higher than all the following debris thundering down. He remarked then, that this made clear that explosives, coupled to steel or concrete columns, significantly forced much higher seismic signals then all the debris falling together, afterwards.

Which is exactly what you see in my WTC 7 seismic diagrams with my added texts.
Dr Rousseau now says the same. He even interprets the first, highest amplitudes from the second group of seismic signals, 6 seconds later, as also originating from still another sub-aerial explosive.
Thus the rest of those last signals with their much lower amplitudes, are probably the formed WTC 7 debris heaps impacting the bedrock of Manhattan, after falling 28 meters in free fall gravity based acceleration.
That were huge packs of TBs going off there in WTC 7, to result in such a huge first seismic pack of peaks on seismograms, recorded 34 km further north. In Palisades, N.Y. State in the Geology department of Columbia University.

As I said, read that whole chapter and the next 14 pages, absorb what this French Geo-specialist tells you honestly.
He needs not to be afraid for his job anymore, at last, he's pensioned now. Even in France you had to be afraid for the US repercussions if you prematurely did spill the beans..

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:03 AM
A reply to: LaBTop

- - The same thing happened at WTC7. A witness watching this building heard something like a "thunderclap" that caused the windows to explode outwards, while the base of the burning building gave way a second later, before the whole building followed the movement (Testimony [4]), aided by a second explosion, which generated the second Rayleigh wave 6 to 7 seconds later. - -

The thunderclap sound is a known artifact of a thermobaric explosion, it is the implosion caused by the 21% oxygen in the air that is consumed instantaneous. Directly followed by the explosion of the remaining gases in the air that were thus pressed/sucked inwards, then after maximum compression is reached, those gases explode outwards again.
Like when you clap in your hands, but quite louder.
Another audible artifact from TBs is the peculiar crackling sound in the air, while the piezoelectric device charges the molecules in the second stage its expanding gas cloud with a high static electricity voltage of circa 20,000 Volt. It's especially audible when the air is dry, like in Oklahoma City that day the 5 bombs went off in 1995.
Look up the 2 OKC bombing witnesses, 1 male, 1 female, who specifically mentioned that effect, while they were inside the Murrah building, when the blasts occurred. Use the ATS search function.

The man who mentioned that WTC 7 thunderclap was ex-police officer Craig Bartmer, who suffers from very bad health after his 9/11 experiences. He was standing near WTC 7 when it started to disintegrate.
Look up his videos in You Tube, search there, use "Craig Bartmer WTC7" or use instead WTC 7 or WTC-7.

Read all my posts on this thread's page 5 for more indepth information on the WTC 7 explosions all day long untill collapse.
Title : WTC7 phoneboot explosion sound pinned to corner Murray Str-W.Broadway, 2 blocks from WTC7.


World Trade Center Collapses | Truth Phalanx :

WABC on 9/11/2001, 11:08 - 11:23 am (WTC 7 explosion at video time 2:39 )

Explosion at 2:39 matches time frame for famous thunderclap recorded by Lucia Davis beside firefighters using a pay phone at Murray and West Broadway 3 blocks north of Ground Zero, more details :

The guy with the 4-knotted handkerchief on his head, asking the tall thin firefighter if he wanted to phone his mother, and then that huge explosion. Read my above page 5.

FACT SHEET World Trade Center 7 - Kollapssekvens (Read the English text about the ~13 secs WTC 7 collapse sequence in the NIST fact-sheet from their first report, also see the two WTC7-damage-after-WTC1-collapse diagrams)

Table 5-3. Timeline for major WTC 7 collapse observations

Time(s) .........Observations
- 3 Dust and/or smoke are observed being pushed across West Broadway from the east side of the building.
0 The east edge of the east penthouse starts to move downward; the east penthouse folds roughly 40 percent of the way across from the east edge; the two sections of the east penthouse appear to rotate into the roof, with the east section disappearing first.
0.6 Glass breaks in windows 40-44B and 40-44 D; additional windows open on this floor over the next couple of seconds.
1.3 The northeast corner of the east penthouse disappears from view; evidence suggests that the east section of the east penthouse had broken into two additional pieces along an east-west line.
1.6 The southern part of the eastern section of the east penthouse disappears from view, ap­pearing to rotate into roof about an east-west line.
1.9 A small section at the east end of the north screenwall detaches and falls away; it may have fallen through the opening in the roof created by the descending east penthouse.
2.0 The western section of the east penthouse disappears from view; it appears to rotate into the roof about a north-south line; a tear-drop shaped light variation covering several floors on the building façade begins to propagate downward on the north face; a bright area in the windows on the east side of the 46th and 47th floors is attributed to sunlight shining through the open roof.
2.0 Additional windows start to open between Columns 43 and 45 on the 40th to 45th floors.
3.4 A small piece of debris falls away from an area at the eastern end of the screenwalls.
3.8 Earliest view of a small portion of the area at the base of WTC 7 indicates that a dust cloud has already formed.
~~ 5 The tear drop shaped light variation on the north façade moves out of sight near the 33rd floor.
6.9 The beginning of the global collapse of WTC 7 was detected on the north face; the roofline below the east penthouse location and the eastern end of the screenwall start dropping simultaneously; the eastern end of the north wall rotates northward and a kink develops near Column 47.
8.0 Windows open over multiple floors on the west side near Column 55; the amount of dam­age grows rapidly; dust flows from open windows.
8.3 A small object, likely part of the south wall, falls away from the east end of the screen­walls.
8.5 The east end of the screenwall disappears behind the north face parapet.
9.2 Dust begins to flow from open windows on the east side near the top of the building.
9.3 The west penthouse disappears from view below the north face parapet.
12.0 The upper portion of the building breaks up as it collapses.
13.5 The upper portion of WTC 7 disappears into a dust cloud created by the collapse.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Chapters 1 - 8, side 290

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:52 AM
The following VT article is a long read with some quite interesting thoughts.
They really should include hard needed links to their ""-remarks in their future articles, to give them a more seriousness-style impact, like the next excerpt from this article :

Jeff Smith on the upcoming Able-Danger leak :

One construction expert wrote: “The complexity of the other relationships are also what we would expect from a high-energy nuclear explosion rather than the low-energy fission in a controlled reactor. Fission did not stop with two fission fragments—many of these were fissioned in turn into smaller atoms by the intense concentrated neutron radiation in and underneath the building[s].”

I looked it up for Jeff, the author, and this above remark originates from this excellent article by William Tahil, titled "An Analysis of the US Geological Survey Data - Ground Zero", which I already linked to in recent years. In fact already in my first thread at ATS in Spring of 2005. It seems the VT writers frequently read my posts, and with quite some interest. Or, we read and collect the same sources over these past 13 years and 4 months.

I have recently postulated that depleted-uranium lined HE-cutter charges could have been used in the three WTC collapses, instead of the usual copper linings, thus causing these lock-stepped findings of nuclear fission products in the dust by the USGS researchers six days after 9/11. That DU could perhaps have originated as nuclear waste from fluid metal cooled (liquid Sodium) Pu-239 Fast Breeder Reactors, which DU and DPu results from much higher energetic neutron radiation and formed more fission products than in standard light water cooled fission reactors.
The level of neutron emission in fast breeders is around 1 MeV (Million electron Volts).

The Plutonium Breeder :
Page 2 and 3, in 2. Breeder Primer : ""Every gram of U-235 consumed produces 0.61 gram of Pu-239. In other terms, 0.75 gram of Pu-239 is produced per Mwd (LT: Mega Watt days). Most of the Pu-239 is either fissioned, or converted to heavier isotopes, in situ. --snip-- About 95% of the energy produced in an LWR (LT : Light Water Reactor) comes from fission of U-235 and Pu-239, and the remaining 5% by fast neutron fission of U-238. --snip-- In about 14.5% of the cases where U-235 captures a neutron, it does so without fissioning, resulting in the production of U-236. Consequently, 1.169 grams of U-235 are consumed for every gram fissioned.""
Read also page 5.
Of course the neutron emission in a fission device explosion is more massive during millions of a second first, then spreads its neutron emission mostly over a few seconds.

I am still not convinced by the various online accessible sources, that 9/11 was fueled by low yield, low neutrons emission, nuclear weapons.

* Firstly, the building collapsed top down, not bottom up as suggested by this author and the other authors referenced in this article. We saw explosive clouds spitting out on all four sides on the way down, which does not fit with a basement or bedrock nuke. We also saw the 10 to 20 floors lower than the collapse fronts high velocity outbursts from single windows.

** Secondly, there were these firemen and Port Authority policeman and two women that survived the collapse in stairwell B without afterwards showing any kind of radiation sickness, or worse, gotten vaporized in a neutrons storm front.

*** Thirdly, there's too much missing from the video evidence. Like the blue-ish radiation ionization coloration of the air, above an underground or ground-level, open to the air, nuclear explosion aftermath its fission products, which is not to be seen in photos and videos of the 3 collapses. And proof of eventual nightly blue residual Cerenkov radiation light effects in fire-fighting water at the bottom of the WTC basements excavations is also missing before those 2, later 3 gigantic blue skyward light beams were installed at ground zero. And the brownish colorization of the usual Nitrogen gases in the air, by strong radiation, is also not to be seen in any WTC collapse photos/videos.

**** Fourthly, we would have seen the ripples of a huge pressure wave climbing up the WTC´s if a buried nuke was the cause of the collapses.

That's why I try to find other reasons for these still very intriguing and peculiar lock-stepped fission products findings in the USGS reports by William Tahill, Jeff Prager, Ed Wood MD and others.
Like my proposal of DU or DPu linings in HE cutter charges used to eventually cut these very strong steel core columns in the WTC's. And note also that the lock-stepped fission products quantities the USGS recorded, when calculated for the total amount of dust, were in the several gram equivalents.

It is a pity that the VT articles lack some important relation links to names and articles where they get these above kind of stand-alone remarks from. It now gives the impression that writers try to build a seemingly solid story on the quick sand of unlinked quotes. Which can quickly be remedied if they want to do the small extra work.
Also the overly use of the word "possible" in their texts gives the strong impression of opinion instead of facts.
However, their articles are a mix of sometimes vague remarks but also many intriguing facts.
That's why I keep reading them, for those abundant "make me wonder" facts. And because their quoting-quality is steadily increasing.!

The 1960-ties article about possibilities for peaceful nuclear explosions usage.
In depth descriptions of formed cavities and their dimensions when nuclear devices are exploded under ground in rock strata.
In bed rock, the cavities are much smaller than the average reader would expect them to form as in sand or clay. The residual hard and softer radioactive radiation is also within days or weeks dissipated. Gammas first in 3 days, followed by betas and alphas in a matter of weeks.

Inaccurate Effects of Nuclear Weapons Effects and Terrorism.
Author denotes the eventual nuke effects on a city center. A terrorist nuke would be much easier placed by a van than by a plane (for an aerial explosion which have the widest effects).

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:58 AM
Jeff Smith on the upcoming Able-Danger leak :

--snip-- Seismologists point out that Richter readings always come from Earth’s movements, or explosives coupled to the ground, not from plane impacts on buildings or falling debris. Earthquakes rumble up to a climax and then decrease, but a sudden spike denotes a ground-planted explosive device.

A look at charts in the endnotes from the Palisades station across the Hudson River shows sharp spikes of short duration, a hallmark for detecting any underground explosions whether from nearby quarry blasts or faraway nuclear testing.--snip--

This is what Dr Andre Rousseau explained in his article at 911Truth.
Why not give earned and due credit?

--snip-- Radioactive fallout found by the U.S. Geological Survey in samples from 35 sites surrounding the WTC for nearly a mile.--snip--

The USGS did definitely not offer any radiation measurements, so this remark about radioactivity is baseless. What he should have said is that the USGS offers a report that holds evidence for lock-stepped (former? ) fission products.
Thus, there is reasonable ground for expecting some sort of former nuclear energy product to have been present at the WTC collapses. No more than that conclusion. Yet.

--snip--electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) --snip--

There are no reports whatsoever of measurements of any EMP. There are widespread witness reports of connectivity problems with radio equipment of first responders. Which can be much better explained by ruptured cables to the relay senders on top of WTC 1, or more sinister, jammers used by the 911-planners.

--snip-- and, possibly, the giveaway light-blue Cerenkov Radiation when the debris “pile” was cleared in mid-March. --snip--

Never seen any report on that phenomenon, witnessed.
Only an opinion that the 2, later 3 light blue laser beams at night, were installed to mask such radiation effect.

--snip-- Add to all these signs, the molten metal in the footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that for three months could not be extinguished by water or daily soil changes as it consumed concrete, steel, glass, office combustibles.--snip--

You can spray water as much as you can on a debris pile and pit, 35 meters deep and a few hundred by a few hundred meters wide, and 7 stories of compacted debris high, but any water that reaches the lower regions will only trickle down there as drops.

As I explained before in this thread, those high temp hot spots recorded by NASA planes in the first few weeks ONLY could be easily explained by the "charcoal-pit" effect.

The temperatures in the first few days were hot enough to melt aluminum (from the facade cladding), but NOT steel. I never ever saw any pictures of molten steel.
That phrase came from uninformed and uneducated persons who interpreted the "meteorite" photos as showing molten steel. That's not true. It was compressed debris, with steel re-bar in it, still in its normal form and not melted. The rest was concrete, bricks, wood, drywall gypsum and tiles.

--snip-- The increasing incidence of radiation-only cancers from residents is another tell-tale sign of a nuclear “event.”--snip--

I do agree to a certain extent. The signs are there of lock-stepped fission products. But no proof of radiation (YET). Depleted uranium usage like in Feluhyah Irak also will and has cause radiation sicknesses. See reports of Major Rocke and the Canadian female researcher.

--snip-- “The complexity of the other relationships are also what we would expect from a high-energy nuclear explosion rather than the low-energy fission in a controlled reactor. Fission did not stop with two fission fragments—many of these were fissioned in turn into smaller atoms by the intense concentrated neutron radiation in and underneath the building[s].” --snip--

The USGS were allowed to start sampling, six days after 9/11.
As stated, the radioactive decay period for the gammas would be a few days max.
After that, it would be safe to be around, and difficult to measure with standard used Geiger counters. You need very sophisticated, specialty radioactivity measuring equipment to even measure any lower activity, such as from betas and alphas.

There were reports from one female NY researcher who possessed these, during the day of 9/11, that she measured higher than normal, alphas and gammas. The same was reported for the area around the Pentagon. Never heard any further from this.
Again, this would also happen when depleted U or Pu linings would have been used in cutter charges.

The most IMPORTANT conclusion however is, there is no other sane explanation for the USGS findings of lock-stepped fission products.....!
So, either it were nukes (not, see my above 4-5 points), or EXPLODED depleted U or Pu. Which is then reformed to their white hot plasmas when the cutter charges are detonated.

--snip--and the radioactive materials revealed by USGS spectrometers.--snip--

VERY WRONG. A spectrometer does not measure radioactivity, it measures amounts of specific molecules and atoms. And records them as peak diagrams, or as files in their memory, to be shown in the laboratory later on as peak diagrams.

""Electromagnetic Pulses (EMPs)"" section.
I addressed it already above. One addition : never heard any report that the firefighters and police radios were FRIED. That would have been HUGE news, if all their radios would have turned up electronically dead, fried by a proposed EMP.

""Extreme Heat in Ground Zero Cleanup"" section.

Most of it I addressed already above. Let it be clear that those extremes were measured in the first few days, after that, in about 14 days they dropped to lower than 600º F. Still hot, but explainable by the ""charcoal pit"" effects.

""‘Cerenkov Radiation’"" section.

I already addressed it above. Please let it be clear that this effect only appears at highly contaminated disaster sites, with enormous gamma ray and neutron expulsions. Or in the safe controlled environment of a basin in a LWR, light water reactor, with all these Uranium filled reactor tubes in their shielding block at the bottom of the basin.

How does that story about the 3 memorial beams, that were lit up to cover the ‘Cerenkov Radiation’, fits in then with their remark that the gamma radiation already sunk under detectable levels within 2 or 3 days? Do they even think their own stories thoroughly through, or is it all just for a "shock and awe" effect?

Here, their own remarks :
""The blue glow at that Soviet complex (Chernobyl) remained for two weeks until core fissioning ended and decay of nuclear remains began.
When much of the debris field was cleared away by mid-March, a light concrete cover was poured over the WTC 1 and 2 sites. The city then placed two banks of 44 light blue spotlights atop them as a “Tribute in Light” memorial to the Towers.
Lights were switched on at dusk until 11 p.m. from March 11 to April 13, 2002. This would only be temporary, the lights were extinguished almost a month later and trucked off to a Las Vegas warehouse.""

Damn, how can an author miss such facts from his own writing.
The Cerenkov Radiation was already diminishing after two weeks in Chernobyl....! And that still is a radiation hell-hole....after 30 years!

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:00 AM
NOTE : now would be a good time to listen carefully to this 9/11Eyewitness video (1:40:40 long), especially to the first 5 minutes their very deep explosions sounds, before WTC2S collapsed. Also realize, that the first collapse sounds reached Hoboken Pier only after about 4-5 seconds, while you see the start of the collapse at 04:36 min. That means the distance from the camera to WTC2S was about 4 to 5 times 333 meter (333 m/s^2 speed of sound in air of 24 ºC.)

At video time 05:29 you hear the top of the hour tone from the 10-10 WINS radio channel Rick Siegel had on all day during his video taping.
This is very helpful, now you can pinpoint back, the exact times of all these explosion sounds.!

As far as I can hear, the last deep sound was 37 seconds earlier than that 10:00:00 o'clock beep. Those beeps are coupled to atomic clocks like from the Naval Institute or from NIST.
Richard Siegel his video footage is for me the most trustworthy amids of all these other videos.
He just taped the whole day long, and luckily the 10-10 WINS radio program is audible during all its footage, including those important hour-beeps.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:52 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

These first five minutes are EXTREMELY compelling.

edit on 15-1-2015 by FireflyStars because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

So now the NYPD aerial units and the news helicopters were part of the plot? That is the only conceivable reason why they are highlighted. Disgusting.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:24 PM
A reply to: cardinalfan0596

Ever thought about comparing these choppers presence on the scene with the, over the years slowly FOIA freed News networks and NYPD video material? Seeing the abundance of choppers around and above WTC2S in the period around its collapse time, we should still see much better and sharper coverage of that tower's top section, from minutes before to seconds before WTC2S its collapse. Lots of photo and video equipment on board of them.

I vividly remember the years long discussion about the extension of the southwest corner damage of these WTC 7 corner-floors.
In the only NYPD chopper made photo, that NIST allowed in its WTC 7 Final report, it seemed as if the damage was many floors high and at least 5 to 10 meter deep at its bottom-damage.
Then after a FOIA request, at last NIST was forced to show all the footage from that NYPD chopper.
And you know what? The NIST single photo allowed in their final report, turned out to be one of a series of photos, and the others were much sharper because the thin curtain of smoke that looked like extended damage in that peculiar single NIST report photo was absent in the others. And showed a far less deep damage pattern at that southwest corner, and not so high, over less floors.

NIST did not use that damage pattern by the way, to explain WTC 7 its collapse, they told us that damage from the collapse debris of WTC1N was not part of, or the cause of WTC 7's collapse.

That was that now fabled heated steel expansion, that caused column 79 its girder and beams seats bolds and welds to break, over at least 5 to 7 floor heights. They say.

* Last year, A&E for Truth found out that NIST used wrong strength calculations for these seats. Turned out the seats were much sturdier than NIST said. I posted about it in this thread.

** Secondly, if you heat one steel beam over 60 meters EVENLY hot, it will expand about ONE inch, if heated 100 F.
There is an online calculation for Engineers for that, you fill in your data, and the expansion in inch rolls out.
Now, that expansion is evenly, meaning to BOTH sides, so at that seat side, it's just 1/2 inch, IF and only IF that beam was really heated a 100 degrees F higher over a total of SIXTY meters length.

*** And the beams connecting to column 79 were by far not 60 meters long, to begin with.

**** Secondly they were not heated over their total length, on 5 to 7 floors high at one time, around that column 79.

***** And the fires sprung from office to office, leaving burned out and cooling offices behind, as we can see in all the videos.

****** And only on a few floors we can see fires burning, then extinguishing again, all day long. Took about 20 minutes per office.

******* And steel contracts again when cooling.

******** And the steel in WTC 7 was PROPERLY insulated, no plane flew through it....
In such cases, an INSULATED THICK steel beam or girder will at most heat up about 100 F, in 20 minutes, but in most cases not even 50 F.

That's a ridiculous theory NIST came up with, after they outsourced the completion of their final WTC 7 report to an outside party. Who came up with this wild theory idea, and then NIST its politically placed top brass staff embraced it, knowing that if anybody could prove them wrong, they could point a finger to that firm.
I once named that firm here. Search ATS or NIST for the name (ATS will be faster).

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:22 PM
This video had me riveted, thank you.

In my opinion it's so easy it's stupid and we are staring right at it. The only reason we don't see is our blind trust in government. I know the devil is in the details, but come on. I was only 18 when this happened and I knew that there was something inherently wrong. I was a blind patriot at the time and had never questioned our leaders.

I had CNN on shortly after the first plane and they were fumbling around just like the rest of us. I don't think the MSM or the poor victims of this event had anything to do with it. But I know that money talks, as well as shuts people up. You can't deny that.

1. A jet slammed into each tower.
2. At least one helicopter shot a nuke to fuel the flames. At least one of the planes appears to have shot a nuke as well.
3. The towers were brought down with controlled demolitions. If one had went sideways prior to this, additional lives lost would be irrelevant or acceptable casualties to whoever orchestrated the event.
4. The last plane didn't show up, but WTC 7 was clumsily demoed with the best excuse they could manage.
5. There was no plane at the Pentagon, but the government had to have an apparent threat close to home to deter blame.

Police, the only organized mass of people armed besides the NRA and the military, were just a nice tasty bonus at the base of the towers, easily replaced with pliable new officers who are now turning their backs on the mayor.

I honestly don't understand why other people can't see this. If someone can look at the evidence and logically/rationally attempt to debate these points I'd take it into consideration.
edit on 15-1-2015 by FireflyStars because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:21 PM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: LaBTop

So now the NYPD aerial units and the news helicopters were part of the plot? That is the only conceivable reason why they are highlighted. Disgusting.

Have you heard of paint and decals?? Could the military not have purchased a few copters and strapped warheads to them? Argh. They could've custom built them! It's the US government! This man was in no way incriminating these organizations.

This is neither cut and dry nor is it rocket science, we've just made it that way with an endless merry-go-round of blindness vs overanalysis. Us vs them and I am guilty as charged, though I try to be gentle. We couldn't cut the crap with a laser the size of the beams at the memorial.

The whole thing could've been pulled off with maybe 50 carefully vetted citizens. Feel free to challenge the number. That's not a lot of people to shut up in the grand scheme of things. Money, murder and threats can solve lots of problems. Or maybe they did really farm it out to Al Q (which the US irrefutably created) and added their own twists, whoever "they" are.

It worked perfectly to sow dissent. Divide and conquer.

I know I personally need to swallow the bitter pill that we'll never get the specifics, but something STINKS.
edit on 15-1-2015 by FireflyStars because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2015 by FireflyStars because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 04:52 AM
To FireflyStars : I do not agree with your points 2 and 5. There were no nukes used, just TBs. And there was a plane, specifically flight A77, at the Pentagon slamming into the West wall. I only contest its flight path. It came in from north of the CITGO gas station, in a long relatively slow turn around it, and then flew nearly perpendicular into that West wall, a few meters south of those two little trees along Washington Boulevard, over the Helli-pad with its left wing tip, and then impacted. If you are interested, search ATS with my screen name and some well chosen key words I just gave you.

Addition to this post by me :

You can check between the recorded and atom clock comparable collapse start time from the Richard (Rick) Siegel 911 Eyewitness video, and the official NIST report collapse time for WTC2S of 09:59:04. They match perfectly.
I gave you the 10 o'clock radio beep hint.

At 3:41 a deep sound, pick your reason/origin.
At 4:29 you see the screen-printed text "Chopper4 Mission Accomplished @9:59 am".
At 4:33 the woman says "Oh, wait, etc", that's when the South Tower came down. (NIST stated it came down at 9:59:04 am)
At 4:40 to 4:47 and at 4:52 you hear the deep rumble sounds for 12 seconds, followed
At 5:29 by the 10 o'clock beep on the 10-10 WINS radio channel.

This means Rick's video times are reliable and comparable to NIST times.

As I explained a few posts above, sound from the WTC complex reached Ricks camera microphone (on a tripod, thus coupled to the ground) in about 4 to 5 secs.
It took 7 secs from the visible start of collapse at 09:59:04 to hear the first deep rumble.
That means it started to rumble 2 secs before visible collapse started.

Listen to Rick's long video to its completion, it's still, after all these years, definitely worth the 1 hr 40 min time.

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in