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

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+109 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 04:51 PM
WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.


DEEP SOUND at WTC-7 (4s pass):
WTC 7 - HUGE DEEP EXPLOSION (by Charles Ewing Smith) :

That deep explosion sound is the only clearly audible explosive artifact in this WTC 7 collapse video.
If that sound propagated through the air, it will have traveled about 2 seconds to the camera microphone which so to see was situated about 650 m away from WTC 7. Plus the 2 seconds waiting before the start of the kinking of the east penthouse roof gives about 4 real time seconds time between the explosion and the first sign of it, the kink.
Then we have the 8.5 seconds interval for both penthouses to disappear and before the whole roof line starts sinking uniformly, starting the global collapse.
In which interval we can hear, in the Ashley Banfield video interview, those NINE (2 + 7) explosions going off, just before WTC-7's global collapse begins,
That's 12.5 seconds in totality that pass between that deep audible explosion sound and the nine audible explosions at WTC 7, and the start of its global collapse.

Thus, that deep sound can't have been the final blow that obliterated SEVEN stories worth of resistance in that WTC 7 building. Which caused the first 2.25 seconds of WTC 7's global collapse to be a FFA (free fall acceleration) event, which clearly indicates the use of explosives. Which explosives were those 9 explosive cutter charges audible in the Ashley Banfield interview near WTC-7. See below.

DENT at WTC-7 (after 4s):
The Cianca photo with the incorrect time stamp, which should be 5:20:37 p.m. :

It seems to me, that the seismologists at LDEO in 2001 were informed about that deep sound in that above CBS video. Which was their reason to set the start of the total collapse sequence in 2001 as EDT 17:20:33. That was the time that sound could be heard in that video.

The Ashley Banfield WTC-7 interview, posted by David Chandler :

You hear these 9 explosions in that video, ending 2 secs before the whole roof rim line began to sink down as one entity, which was the start of the global collapse of WTC-7. That began with a period of 2.25s free fall. Which means that in those 2.25s period, there was no resistance of importance over a height of 7 floors.
When the 33 upper storeys went first through those lower demolitioned 7 storeys as if it was hot butter, and then they hit the still erect 7 lowest floors, and deceleration kicked in when the crushing started, which ended at the Manhattan bedrock.

The simple fact, that the amplitudes registered by the LDEO seismic station at Columbia University during those 8.5s of WTC-7's collapse sequence, were bigger than the amplitudes that were registered after the whole building started to come down as a result of those explosions, indicates that those first amplitudes must have had an explosive origin.
That same difference in amplitudes strength is only registered during demolitions.
See the work of Prof. Brown from Oklahoma City University, who as the first one ever, noticed that demo charges exploded, resulted in bigger amplitudes than those resulting of the whole to be demolished structure, after the explosions,
coming down.
Dr Brown, now professor, found that explosives going off, on or near columns and/or beams, are much more efficient at exciting ground motion than building collapses. And thus appear on seismograms as much higher amplitudes :

"Now I think that there is no longer a question that there was energy activity at the Murrah Building in addition to the original explosion, and we simply need to determine the source of that activity," Brown told THE NEW AMERICAN. The leading contenders for the source of that energy are either another explosion inside the building or the falling of the building debris.
But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown.
The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. " Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives were much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling directly after it was bombed on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

And not a mystical, two times only occurring "reflective layer" causing an "echo effect" in the seismograms from the Murrah building in OKC, when it was bombed in 1995, and its remains were blasted down a few weeks later. These are those 2/3 remains, to be blasted, and recorded by Prof. Brown on his seismographs during those demolition blasts :

edit on Mon Jul 27 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: code doesn't work for titles

+35 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:22 PM
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

edit on 27-7-2015 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)

+12 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:23 PM
1. Dr. Brown probably deserves 24/7 security so that he doesn't commit suicide via two shots to the head.

2. Not sure if link is accurate.

+28 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:24 PM
My posts will follow, regarding those handheld seismographs in Manhattan on 9/11, as told by Brent Blanchard, then journalist and editor of a monthly paper, called Implosion-World, owned by PROTEC, when he visited this ATS 9/11 forum. Told as if those PROTEC's seismograms were evidence that no explosives were registered by them on 9/11 .

Now again triumphantly mentioned by "hellobruce" in this thread's post on page 26 , as if he really ever saw these non-existing PROTEC seismograms :

hellobruce : Here are what some real demolition experts said who actually examined the wreckage, had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area -snip- So real experts who were there, as opposed to an expert who watched youtube video's say there is zero evidence explosives were used, including the evidence of their own portable field seismographs.!

I do assure you, "hellobruce" CERTAINLY did NOT ever see those 9/11 handheld seismograms from PROTEC.
Since they do not exist anymore, as was told to me already in 2006, when I phoned Blanchard his company PROTEC : they told me those seismograms from their handheld portable seismographs used on 9/11, were mysteriously lost from their archives...They had no idea how that had happened...In my opinion, the only way-out left for them, when confronted with the possibility that real seismologists would scrutinize these seismograms. If they really existed.
Like Dr. Rousseau scrutinized the LDEO ones, and concluded that all these LDEO seismograms clearly indicate the use of explosives (see also my 5 signature-LINKS).

Time to listen to this video again, about all the explosion sounds taken out from ALL the main networks footage, before it got aired :

Go to 93 secs : When this man came home to see the endless replays of the WTC collapses on TV, they already had taken OUT from all of the 9/11 TV footage, all these rows of explosions he definitely and totally clear had heard near and during both WTC collapses that day.

This is an example of what the audio really has been, before "they" took it all out, before airing "their" footage to all the Networks.
Listen to this FOIA freed from NIST, Trinity Church clip its TWO HUGE EXPLOSIONS :

Read this patent : Radio frequency and electrostatic discharge insensitive electro-explosive devices.
United States Patent 6192802 by Baginski, Thomas A. (Auburn, AL) ,
Filing Date: 04/15/1998.

Read however first its long list of US Patent References, then pick one of those possibilities to ignite an explosive charge. And stop acting as if every demolition job is done by laying out kilometers of det cord and electrical wires.

edit on 27/7/15 by LaBTop because: Mixed up the last url's.

+41 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:35 PM
Yes, on the hi def video of this event, one can SEE the explosion, coinciding with the sound and seismic events.

There is a large fireflash behind a number of windows, in the upper left of the building, just below the penthouse.
Immediately before the penthouse falls down through the building, the explosion is obvious.

Building 7 was demolished, and wired to be imploded, BEFORE the day of September 11.

+43 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:39 PM
Your response evokes more laughter from me. A cursory understanding of general Western history should suffice in answering your question of who and why...amazing

a reply to: CALGARIAN

+20 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:42 PM
My handheld seismographs ATS-posts:

Posted on Oct, 29 2006 :

LaBTop : There were a LOT of 'handheld' seismic instruments at several Manhattan spots operating during 9/11.
The all seeing and knowing government has decided we don't need to see these, they are "too vague" to be applicable.
YEAH, RIGHT! The only ones which were operating, so to say, on top of the events !
And were designed to read P-WAVES, because they monitored EXPLOSIONS at building sites in the middle of NEW YORK !

To remove hard bedrock for new deep foundations or new steam pipes. Or removal by demolition of old buildings that were making room for new ones. They were specifically there to register seismic signals, so they could be used as legal defense in any eventual lawsuits.

LaBTop, May, 21 2007 : This guy from Protec has written some sort of rebuttal on a debunking site.
However, he NEVER EVER delivered the seismic graphs from these hand held devices to the public domain.
He keeps talking and expect us to believe, about no seismic proof for standard demolitions, while we saw with our own eyes, a televised event, which definitely did not look as a standard demolition. That were 2 top down demo's, and 1 bottom up.

And I suspect him to have them NOT offered to dr. Kim from LDEO, to be included in dr. Kim's 2006 second seismic report, written for NIST, who hired dr. Kim to do so.
Or perhaps, he did, and then NIST was "not amused" with it?

And then NIST removed every hint to dr. Kim's 2006 ""NIST"" second seismic report from all their sites.! Kim's first one was his Sept. 2001 one for LDEO.
Just as they did for a thorough report from an engineering firm they also hired in 2006 to write a report on the causes and effects of the 9/11 collapses.
That report, by the way, did not fit AT ALL in the NIST "picture", so they removed it.

BTW, in my view, NIST is not an entity, made up by thousands of honest scientists.
The NIST I see and mention all the time, is a cluster of politically approved CEO's, who prescribe those honest researchers what to look at, and what to ignore. And if they step out of line, their career is toast.

I repeat, PROTEC told me by telephone that all these handheld 9/11 seismograms were lost.
PROTEC did not say they did not want to give me copies!
No, they said they were LOST. Read the whole post.!

LaBTop, posted on Jan, 30 2013 :
It is in fact exactly this Brent Blanchard who happened to visit this 9/11 forum around 2006. I have told you to search, then read all my ATS Search - "LaBTop" seismic - and - "LaBTop" thermobaric - posts. You did not !

You would have found my interaction with Mr Blanchard here at ATS.
I challenged him to produce those damn important hand held PROTEC seismograph's seismograms he is bloating about in his point 3. He disappeared.
So, I did some off-line investigation at PROTEC, and lo and behold, what a pity sir, but by some strange accident, all these seismograms have been absent from our repository for a long time already.
Mr Blanchard was a PLANT, and I dare say, he still is.

LT : Same goes for that guy from that demolition firm who came to this forum and said they had lots of hand-held seismic devices seismographs from the events in New York on 9/11.
I challenged him to directly post just one of them, since I really would like to get my hands on a real one, because I am sure I can prove then even better how clear it is that there were explosions registered as seismic events, before any tower moved a millimeter.
Never heard from the guy anymore. He got whipped by his bosses probably, for going on-line with such damming potential evidence. Later you could read that all the seismograms from those handhold seismographs got lost.....How convenient.

+11 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:46 PM
The fall of WTC 7 is the most difficult for skeptics to explain and the explanations they do offer often do not stand up to scrutiny.

Yet, another way to show that explosives were used is to analyze the seismic and audio data using spectrum analysis. It could be that the sounds and vibrations of explosives have a different spectral signature than does a collapsing structure. Furthermore, it may be possible to triangulate where certain sounds came from in the building and correlate that with the spectral signature, showing that it may or may not have the signature of explosives.

Comparing the sound signatures made by demolished buildings with those made by unplanned collaspes will also help. The visual differences alone are quite revealing.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: LaBTop
if he really ever saw these non-existing PROTEC seismograms

hellobruce : Here are what some real demolition experts said who actually examined the wreckage, had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area -snip- So real experts who were there, as opposed to an expert who watched youtube video's say there is zero evidence explosives were used, including the evidence of their own portable field seismographs

Where did I say I saw them? I prefer to listen to real experts, not people posting and believing silly youtube video's posted from their basement! All because some random pushing silly conspiracy theories rang them up, and was told to go away does not a conspiracy make!

We know what caused the buildings to fall, it was not silent explosives, or nanoo thermite, or beam weapons from space, or invisible ninja's putting egg timers on the walls!

+24 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:51 PM
LaBTop, this dovetails nicely with the public statements by Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority), He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He stated that not only did an explosion demolish the stairway he was descending leaving him dangling for his life, but that he and his co-worker saw afterward that BOTH twin towers were STILL STANDING.

+25 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:51 PM
This explanation by "wecomeinpeace" in October 2006 makes the whole -explosion versus plane impact- seismic effects, suddenly clear for most of its readers :

What clinches it for me is that the WTC7 pre-collapse signal was larger in peak energy than the collapse of the entire building, so it simply cannot be explained away by a partial collapse inside the building.

NATURAL buckling or collapsing of that famous column 79, declared by NIST as the collapse initiator, can never ever result in a much higher amplitudes seismic peak pack than the whole 47 stories high WTC 7 steel building NATURALLY globally collapsing.
In other words, it's totally impossible that one column 79 failing would seismographically write a much higher amplitude peak in that WTC 7 LDEO seismogram, than all the following other identical massive steel columns ALL TOGETHER at once failing, as you saw happening in all the WTC 7 collapse videos :

== Title : 9/11: WTC Building 7 collapse video compilation :

Did you see all those other vertical thick steel columns sticking out from ABOVE the fully intact, sinking roof lines.? Like for a few long seconds, the 40 to 60 floors high core column spikes sticking out from above the collapse dust clouds from both 110 floors high WTC 2S and 1N video-taped events, swaying so strong that they then failed further down or got cut there, and also sunk out of sight :

== Title : 9/11: WTC Attack Compilation (New York Times)

NO, the thick steel columns didn't stick out above the sinking roof line, they ALL massively failed also ALL TOGETHER in the same short moments at initiation of WTC-7's global collapse.
Lateral deflection and sinking, following shape-charged cutting, caused them to sink and/or buckle.

Which means that about 7 to 8 floors worth of vertical structural steel between the 7th and 14th floor were cut/displaced or obliterated ALL AT ONCE. Just as the 2.25 secs of free-fall acceleration indicates. Free fall for such long periods doesn't occur in a NATURAL FAILING steel structure, PERIOD.
Only in massively blown up steel structures.

== Title : WTC 7 Explosion - NIST FOIA Cbs-Net Dub5 09
That's a non-You Tube reserve copy of the famous video of the deep explosive sound just 2 seconds before the east penthouse on the roof of WTC 7 started to sink.
READ ALL my explanations on that page 10 of the method NIST used to get all 9/11 times from photo- and video cameras corrected to one atomic clocked event they thought was accurate.
Which was the "nose in" event at the second plane impact into WTC-2S, filmed by multiple networks who used the NIST atomic clocks to time stamp their news channels.
And luckily, exactly all the photos in the camera of Nicholas Cianca were used by them as an example how they worked their 9/11 photos and videos time correction method out.
Cianca shot his now famous photo of the first sign of WTC 7's collapse, the denting of the east penthouse its roof line.
And it was time-corrected time-stamped afterwards by NIST as 17:20:46.

== Title : WTC 7 Explosion - NIST FOIA Cbs-Net Dub5 09
Uploaded by ShadowHerder (photo attached to his YT-profile) :

Comment section :

It is part of a Tera-byte (huge) of video footage that was confiscated by the government from the media after Sept 11th. The International Center for 9/11 Studies sued the government under the freedom of information act. They had to sue because the government refused to give it to them on request. They won and I believe around 46 gigs of video they received. some of which was edited.

== Title : Huge explosion before the destruction of building 7 WTC .mov -
Charles Ewing Smith once enhanced all sounds from his uploaded video, to let the explosion sound stand out better :

This is the audio print-out of the deep explosion sound and the rest of the WTC-7 collapse sound signals in this FOIA freed video :

== Title : 9/11: WTC 7 Collapse (NIST FOIA, CBS vid).
This is however the original one from Judicial Watch its FOIA set of 1 Tera-byte, wrestled from the claws of NIST by court orders, with the original, non-enhanced sounds.
Use excellent speakers and audio equipment, a laptop or cheap headphones won't let you hear the "KhaBooomm" in the very first seconds :

You can grab the DivX that the uploader, Nathan Flach, made from the FOIA file here :
Source : right-click, save to folder.

== Title : WTC 7 simulation overlaid over Camera No. 3 ("CBS-Net Dub #5 09.avi")

iBlindGame : My apologies for this being a little jumpy at the beginning.

NIST's WTC7 simulation does a lot of hand-waiving before the descent of the northeast corner begins. However, if you ignore that and look only at the portion of the video that matches the descent, you can see that they modeled only 3 floors collapsing. You can see also that the general shape of the building (on the left in this view) looks nothing like WTC7. This is apparently due to the use of "thermally thin" parameters, as NIST claimed. (In other words, NIST used unrealistic parameters for the conductivity of heat, which is why their simulation looks nothing like reality.) They chose not to release the simulation data, as explained in another film on this channel "We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results."

Incidentally, the simulation video that was used (and the only one they released?) had a low number of frames per second, so that's why it seems choppy.

== Title : 8 WTC7 Part 7 Virtual Unreality NIST Animations - ESO - Experts Speak Out

== Title : World Trade Center 7 - Dataset from NIST
The whitish colored 7 to 8 floors near the bottom are the suddenly failing (missing) floors that are the cause of the 2.25 free fall acceleration period at the onset of the global collapse of WTC 7, says NIST. Read the up loader's comments also, click "More". :

Now just read all the posts on that page 6 and 7 from that thread, titled :
"WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments."

+15 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:54 PM
a reply to: CALGARIAN

Obviously a much smarter mind than you..

+5 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:55 PM
Don't forget to read an example of a possible manner of how they rigged those towers with explosives in ONE night, max ONE day, using small thermobaric bombs camouflaged as AC units, or dust bins or computers, or whatever other utility that was fire-resistant sprayed and contained in fire-hardened materials :

TB's are the only explosives that can explain all or most of the peculiar collapse signatures we see/hear in all WTC 2, 1 and 7 collapse videos.
And it would be very difficult to find any traces of TB-explosions using routine EPA exotic accelerant/explosive residue tests, since they leave only gaseous residues and some carbonized soot.
The gas is dispersed by the wind, and the soot is to be expected in all burning buildings that mysteriously collapse caused by fire, as the authorities concluded....worth no more anymore than a smile? Or a smirk perhaps.?
TB References 1.
TB References 2.
TB References 3.
TB References 4.
TB References 5.
TB References 6.
TB References 7.
TB References 8.
TB References 9.
TB References 10.
TB References 11.

TB References 12. If you after reading this post still not believe in Thermobaric Bombs (TB's), then you need not participate in this 9/11 forum.
Huge TB explanation.

And read this thermobaric link with a photo of an unexploded FAE :

Technical Note 09.30 /04 Fuel Air Explosive (FAE) systems.Jul 1, 2013. Development. 2. 6.2. Enhanced Blast Munitions (EBM) and Thermobaric munitions. Technical Note 09.30 /04; Version 1.0 (Amendment 1, July 2013) ANNEX B, page 18 of 20.

B.2 Thermobaric munitions.
The thermobaric weapon works by propelling a warhead that scatters an aerosol explosive on or before impact with the target and then immediately igniting this to create a high-pressure blast wave.
The effect is a much more rapidly expanding blast than a conventional explosion.
Compared with a fuel-air explosive, the thermobaric weapon has a much higher expanding concussion effect and lacks the degree of vacuum implosion produced by fuel air weapons. Primarily, this is because fuel air weapons take time to distribute the aerosol explosive widely before ignition.

Explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than the collapse of a whole building. Ryan Mackey post about him using those hanging objects from NIST, which are ceiling rims. He parroted NIST, without any research of his own.

+6 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:55 PM

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
LaBTop, this dovetails nicely with the public statements by Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority), He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He stated that not only did an explosion demolish the stairway he was descending leaving him dangling for his life, but that he and his co-worker saw afterward that BOTH twin towers were STILL STANDING.

He has...

Or did...

Until he died.

Nothing to see there, just an unexplained death and a family who refuse to talk about it going off the grid.

@Calgarian... Whatever pal.

+3 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

I don't know why people keep coming with new evidence and theories. A long time ago the investigation should have started which would put those in jail who are responsible for the deaths of all the policemen, firemen and innocent people. And not to forget all the innocent people who died in the middle east because of this satanic false flag operation.

+1 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:02 PM
Blanchard's 2006 paper : : Latest News: Read Implosionworld's paper on the World Trade Center Collapse [read more] .
The article published by Brent Blanchard, August 8, 2006.
It's thus definitely NOT their latest news, as they write in their web page now in July 2015, that's 9 years old "news".

Assertion #4 : -snip-
The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross-
reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent
ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11.

Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to
the public and currently appears on their website.

Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

Ain't that strange then, that PROTEC told me in 2006 those handheld seismograms were absent from their archives when I phoned them? And Blanchard, after I mentioned that phone call, was never seen back at this board again, to discuss that strange missing of evidence, with me.
Also quite strange is, whatever I try in any ATS search (ran by Google btw), that ATS thread where I discussed those handheld seismographs with Blanchard, is not turning up.
Is it dumped? On request by PROTEC, or any "body" else? I got the impression that PROTEC was not so pleased with Blanchard's visit to this conspiracy/corruption revealing website.

Clarification posted by Blanchard 9/3/06 :
In attempting to simplify technical references, we described vibration monitoring activities in a manner that could benefit from further clarification to provide context and minimize confusion.
As our report states, Protec was engaged in vibration monitoring activities on private construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11. Because these portable field seismographs were not physically installed and manned on the Ground Zero site, we do not feel it is appropriate, nor scientifically possible, to categorically state that data from these monitors alone can specifically prove or disprove the existence of an explosive catalyst.
In general, portable field seismographs are far less technologically advanced than permanently installed instrumentation such as the monitors at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which is why we chose to comment in detail on the Columbia University data before commenting on the Protec data.
For example, the Columbia seismographs can pinpoint a relatively accurate geographic location for a vibration event, (i.e., “this event likely occurred at or near Ground Zero”), whereas portable field seismographs do not possess this capability.
However, that said, the fact that the Protec monitors were activated and recording does appear to have some value in that they did not record vibration spikes that could be even remotely associated with explosive events during the time-frame in question.
Therefore, our specific clarification reads as follows;
a) The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used,
b) To the contrary, our interpretation of these waveforms – and the interpretation of many (LT : he does not dare to state the word "every" instead ) other experts – is that they clearly indicate explosives were not used, and
c) Protec’s vibration data recorded during the same time-frame, while far less specific, does not show any vibration events that contradict the data recorded by Columbia University.
To this end, clarifying text modifications, not affecting our original conclusions, have been made to Protec Experience Point #1, Protec Comment to Assertion #4, and Protec Comment to Assertion #7, Point #3.

Simple question, simple answer. Show us your 9/11 handheld seismograms, PROTEC.!
They couldn't in 2006. "They are all absent and lost from our archives", they said to me, when I phoned PROTEC to ask for copies of their 9/11 handheld Manhattan and New York City seismograms.

Dr. André Rousseau in 2013 and myself in 2005-6 already explained that the LDEO seismogram from the collapse of WTC 7 indicates without any shimmer of doubt, that explosives were used in the initial phase of the collapse. See his paper at Journal of 911 Studies and my 5 permanent signature-links for both of our extensive explanations.
After 32 top-floors had fallen in free fall through a now as good as empty space occupied earlier by 7 to 8 stories in the lower regions of WTC 7, the HUGE sudden deceleration, when the lowest of those 32 falling upper floors hit in its totality the still standing lowest floors, was the motor that the rest of the collapse ran on. No need for further explosives.
That huge and sudden deceleration did the rest.

Dr. André Rousseau : "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? "

Dr. André Rousseau : On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.

These are three threads by me, which cover WTC 7 extensively, including the usual trusters :
Title : WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

Title : The Sequel of the above thread, to include my original 2006 seismic forum posts from the now defunct -Study of 911- website. :

Title : WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments :

+7 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:06 PM
The main irrefutable problem for OS-Trusters, is the fact that ALSO in THREE secs measurable elapsed video-time, no deceleration can be measured acting on a sinking HD video pixel-point on top of the WTC1N Tower, when it started to collapse. As proven by David Chandler, it's evidence video is in my 5 sig links.
Read THIS whole post to see all these diagrams, videos and photos that prove all that.
Then read that whole page 4, and you will be enlightened.
None of the usual debunkers here will ever touch all this evidence on this page of mine, since they know they WILL lose that battle...

THREE seconds in any NATURAL collapse is an ETERNITY. Deceleration should have occurred within the FIRST second already.
As any filmed NATURAL occurring collapse of a steel or concrete building shows.

See the natural collapse PART of the French ABC tower in Cité Balzac, Vitry-sur-Seine (to be found in all my posts their 5 bottom line signature links, visible only for ATS members), filmed to show how displacement of all vertical columns on one floor; the middle floor of that French high rise building, executed with expanding hydraulic-jacks, caused a following natural collapse of the huge top half part mass FALLing through that now completely FAILing middle floor space its height, then SLOWER through the bottom half part, all caused by the sudden huge deceleration forces acting on that top part mass within the FIRST second of descend already, meeting and then acting on and thus crushing the bottom part of that ABC tower high-rise building.

Which THREE seconds filmed LACK OF DECELERATION in the WTC 1N Tower its top floors collapse thus irrefutably shows it was NOT a natural collapse.
Every filmed NATURAL collapse that proceeds through its own underlaying structure will show deceleration in the FIRST second, it has nothing to do with what type of building is observed.
And that's why we, conspiracy facts collectors, strongly DOUBT the official collapse stories constructed by obedient officials from US Institutions, hired by the US Government / various-Administrations to broadcast their interpretation of 9/11, that suits their long-term foreign and national policies.

+1 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:07 PM
Great thread LaBTop.

+8 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:10 PM
A MUST read.
A life long French geologist and seismology expert, Dr. Andre Rousseau, explains in 2012 why and how the seismic signals from the WTC grounds indicate that it were EXPLOSIONS that were registered by LDEO.

Plus read all my own 2005/2006 and follow-up seismic posts links, see my 5 Signature Links under each post of mine.

And a link to Major Tom his impressive, comprehensive 9/11 collection, from which this link, to his Authors Conclusions, by Major Tom..
And for WTC 7, this critique of the final WTC 7 NIST report.
He is a former JREF top poster, since long now disgruntled with JREF, together with most real serious posters there, who joined him in his excellent site's FORUM. JREF changed its site name b.t.w. to ISF, international skeptics forum. The obnoxious JREFers harassed his forum to such extent, that he closed it for new member applications, for a long time already.
JREF was, and ISF still is a vipers nest of (far) right-wing excuses for every US administrations evil deeds. They lack all sorts of decorum there, all these years already.

And the discussion about Charles M. Beck's three papers from Cornell University :
Title : Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse.
REFUTE THAT, by Charles M. Beck.

Found those Beck papers related posts of mine and the usual opponents back in this same thread in this post.
Do then read also from this thread its pages 14 to 25.
It's the pages long discussion about these three Charles M. Beck papers.
They couldn't refute them. Not by far.
Perhaps you get interested enough to Read this whole, full thread you now reading one post from. It has become my repository for all my important 9/11 information.

For the OS doubting readers, hardcore OS trusters show time and time again, they do not read our links with an open mind, if they read them at all.
Found those Beck-posts easily back through the ATS Search, by using the words " labtop Charles M. Beck "
Beck wrote three papers by the way, on the WTC 2-South and 1-North towers collapses, and the WTC 7 collapse, all very advisable to read and then trying to understand and refute them, or find additional fine-tuning areas of interest, which Beck should include in his newer versions.
I would like to see him refute the faint possibility of any form of lateral displacement of vertical core or exterior steel columns (buckling), caused by overloading of one or more columns.
Don't forget he proves that if even half of all vertical exterior and core columns are removed from his equations, the remaining half of them which he also let loose half of their strength, were still several orders stronger enough to not buckle.
The inwards "buckling" of rows of exterior columns seconds before collapse initiations of the two Twin Towers were in fact "pulling inwards" caused by displaced floor areas, which were pulled down near the core, by a row of cut core columns where that floor area was still firmly connected to and also to that exterior column row. His calculations show there is no other possible explanation for that inward bowing of those exterior panels situated all on the rim of one floor. At near center positions on that exterior, where the floor plate areas were connected perpendicular to that exterior columns area.

Links are in my posts in this thread's pages, and in my LaBTop Pearltrees pages HERE.

Especially extensively discussed in my 27 L.Abtop pages, together with a lot more related mathematical, architectural and engineering papers.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:11 PM

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
LaBTop, this dovetails nicely with the public statements by Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority), He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He stated that not only did an explosion demolish the stairway he was descending leaving him dangling for his life, but that he and his co-worker saw afterward that BOTH twin towers were STILL STANDING.

So taking his statements out of context, you want us to believe that not only was the building deliberately demolished using explosives (in a manner never seen before or used by any other demolition expert in the world) but also that this was done so badly that it occurred in stages?

Why, if you're demolishing a building, would you set off explosions elsewhere?

And his statements back up the theory that the damage was caused by the impacts of two jet liners in the two towers, hence them STILL STANDING when he heard the EXPLOSIONS (notice he didn't say "charges" or "bombs")

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in