It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 60
160
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Let's review this video interview with Danny Jowenko, who debunks the claim that explosives brought down WTC1, and WTC2. In the video, Danny Jowenko says that it would have taken a year to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition.

Start the video at time line 0:48.




edit on 25-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
According to Protec, the demolition experts, their seismic monitors did not detect signals from demo explosions, which is understandable because there was no evidence of demo explosions at ground zero.


LOL. Seriously. I just read a scientific document that based its data from a known network station 34 km away- not on any demo company's data.



Now if you knew ANYTHING about wave propagation through bedrock, vibration decoupling effects, and how impossible in the first place it would be for that station at 34 km away to register anything but impulsive data from explosions, you would not be pushing that rubbish on me and the rest of the readership here. I know what that scientific document says is total truth, because I have 10 years or more watching seismic data myself. And not just on waveforms. But on spectrographs too. I know amplitudes, and I know relative propagation distances for various sized events. And not only that, but I can tell you what specific frequencies propagate how far.

That document is sound in its analysis, and to anyone who really knows seismology, pretty much irrefutable.
www.journalof911studies.com...

The problem is the public at large cannot understand these deep technical documents. So they have to rely on people that can to tell them if they are true or not. And my vote is cast. That document is truth as best I can tell with my abilities. There were bombs. Face the facts. Or be deceived again by those with a mission to lie.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican



Now if you knew ANYTHING about wave propagation through bedrock, vibration decoupling effects, and how impossible in the first place it would be for that station at 34 km away to register anything but impulsive data from explosions, you would not be pushing that rubbish on me and the rest of the readership here. I know what that scientific document says is total truth, because I have 10 years or more watching seismic data myself. And not just on waveforms. But on spectrographs too. I know amplitudes, and I know relative propagation distances for various sized events. And not only that, but I can tell you what specific frequencies propagate how far.


That won't fly and to be frank, not one seismic monitor depicted demo explosions as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed and to underline my point, I asked you to point out time lines in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 where explosions are heard and you failed to do so.

I also know that if demo explosions were detonated if attached to steel columns, the explosions would have been detected, yet no such detection was noted by seismic monitors.

Are you now prepared to post those time lines from the WTC videos that prove demo detonations occurred as those buildings collapse? Yes or no.



. There were bombs. Face the facts.


Then prove it by posting those time lines that I have requested. Just to let you know that I have experienced many explosions due to explosives.

edit on 25-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Are you now prepared to post those time lines from the WTC videos that prove demo detonations occurred as those buildings collapse? Yes or no.


Why in the world would you rely on a video, when a seismometer tells the tale so clearly? Especially when its data is analyzed by a seismologist who knows the characteristic impulse signatures from explosions? Screw the videos. That scientific document is all anyone needs. The end, as far as I'm concerned. But I do have some of the necessary experience in order to draw that conclusion. I don't expect anyone else to either agree with me or draw the same conclusions when they don't have the experience to satisfy them that the scientific analysis is sound. There were bombs, people. The document proves it, at least for me, way beyond the shadow of a doubt.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   


There were bombs, people. The document proves it, at least for me, way beyond the shadow of a doubt.


The paper made sense to me too. There is more than enough evidence of explosives. Building 7 aside I don't see how anyone can look at the towers disintegrate and think gravity did it...



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

The seismograph, does not show evidence of demolition explosions. The amplitudes are not high enough and the wavelengths are way too big.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I do not understand how anyone can look at the evidence and think there were bombs installed. I guess watching CDs in person spoiled me.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican



Why in the world would you rely on a video, when a seismometer tells the tale so clearly?


There are a number of WTC videos, not just one, that do not depict the sound of demo explosions, some from official news services.



Especially when its data is analyzed by a seismologist who knows the characteristic impulse signatures from explosions?


Let's see how much you know. Please show the characteristics of demo explosions on this chart, and then, match them up with the videos I have posted.

Seismic Chart

Now, if you are as knowledgeable as you are leading us to believe, let's see you compare the seismic data with the videos of WTC1 and WTC2.
The end result will be that the seismic data does not depict demolition detonations.



There were bombs, people.


That won't work because you did not post the time lines in the videos which do not depict the sound of demo explosions and that explains why there are no spikes on the seismic charts, which you would have known if you were truly knowledgeable on seismic data.

I figured that you were trying to impersonate an expert, and there are ways to determine whether a person is real or not. A major blunder was to dismiss those WTC videos and there was a very good reason why I posted that challenge for you in regard to those WTC videos.

If you were truly familiar with demolition detonations, you would have known the significance of those WTC videos and why I posted them for you. To sum it up, you failed the test.



edit on 25-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Very POWERFUL bombs, is what the seismographic data shows.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



Very POWERFUL bombs,...


Let's ask the experts.



Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

e have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

www.representativepress.org...


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...


American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

911-engineers.blogspot.com...





... is what the seismographic data shows.


It is peculiar that you would say such a thing when the seismic data proved no such thing. To prove my point, please point out evidence of demo explosions in this seismic chart that depicts bomb explosions as you have claimed, and point out the characteristic demo explosion spikes for us all.

Seismic Data Chart

You've claimed that bombs were used and that seismic charts proved it, so now, the ball is in your court to backup your claim, and do so for us all. As a reminder, demo detonations make a lot of noise.



Demo explosions not heard as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed.
edit on 27-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
You cannot compare a random video of the Landmark implosion with a random video of a twin tower. You need the same distance/height and same microphone setup to compare it. The tower should be stripped and be empty and the same kind of explosives should be used and the videos should be raw. As long as you don't know that information you cannot quantitatively compare the sound that's comparing apples and oranges. Also take into account that while there is a collapse the sound of the demolition itself is a great excuse to hide sound of devices. For wtc7 the Ashleigh Banfield video is an interesting one. It is still available at the NBC site and the internet archive and they both contain distinct sounds. It is by some debunkers believed to be the penthouse already giving way, but that is a patch for the fire epicycle theory and a weak one.
edit on 28-9-2015 by drommelsboef because: typo



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
60 pages of evidence that proves the OS of WTC 7 is a hoax.

Anyone watching the demolition videos of WTC 7 can see it is a classic demolition and nothing else.
No building just falls down in it's own foot print, just from a few office fires, that is impossible. It has never happened before 911, nor after 911.

Good work folks for doing your own research and at lease proving we were lied to about WTC 7 official report.
We may never get the entire truth to what really happened that day, but we have enough evidences that proves NIST and government officials tried their best to hide their crimes that day.

DEMOLITION BROUGHT DOWN WTC 7



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: drommelsboef



You cannot compare a random video of the Landmark implosion with a random video of a twin tower.


Of course I can. It does make a difference whether a building is striped or not. Explosive detonations make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles.

Now, please post the time lines where demo explosions are heard in this video. If you are unable to supple the time lines, then my case will be made, and that is, no demo explosives involved.





edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly, because the evidence is in; Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and the internal collapse of WTC5.



DEMOLITION BROUGHT DOWN WTC 7


Well, if that is the case, you should no have a problem posting the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the WTC7 video. So, let's try it again and post those demo explosion time lines in the following video of WTC7. If you cannot post a single time line of demo explosions, then it will become evident that no demo explosives were involved.


edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Maybe you didn't read what I said. I was referring to the video with Ashleigh Banfield. A genuine video. I have two versions of it on my harddisk. They both contain the same sound and the reaction of them is interesting. You can post a video that doesn't have that sound which is a little bit silly. I believe a plane hit the pentagon but it could be that only one camera picked it up or maybe even none of them.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   


Well, if that is the case, you should no have a problem posting the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the WTC7 video. So, let's try it again and post those demo explosion time lines in the following video of WTC7. If you cannot post a single time line of demo explosions, then it will become evident that no demo explosives were involved.


How many times are you going to post this video and ask the same question?




Maybe you didn't read what I said. I was referring to the video with Ashleigh Banfield. A genuine video



Correct, he did not, this video clearly has the demo charges going off, the reaction of the reporter is a no brainer, however he does not want to accept that...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


That won't fly, because the evidence is in; Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and the internal collapse of WTC5.


Your OS evidence is as phony as a three dollars bill.

A&E proved the OS pseudo science a hoax and they put their names on their papers risking everything to expose the truth.
The fact is the OS supporters deny real science and cling to pseudo science because that supports the OS lies.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



our OS evidence is as phony as a three dollars bill.


That won't fly because I have provided proof that demo explosives were not used to bring down WTC7, and backed it up by highlighting your inability to post a single time line where demo explosions are heard in the video as WTC7 collapses.


edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: drommelsboef



I believe a plane hit the pentagon but it could be that only one camera picked it up or maybe even none of them.


One video did pick up American 77. I also noticed the vertical stabilizer and trailing smoke in the background.



The tower should be stripped and be empty and the same kind of explosives should be used and the videos should be raw.


Explosions make a lot of noise regardless of the condition of a building. I found that out in Vietnam when my living quarters were violently shaken from a B-52 strike many miles away.

We know that demo explosives were not used because if used, seismic data would have depicted that evidence.

edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Correct, he did not, this video clearly has the demo charges going off, the reaction of the reporter is a no brainer, however he does not want to accept that...


If it is a "no brainer" why is it that you cannot post a single time line where demo explosions are heard in the WTC7 video. After 14 years, no evidence of demo explosives was ever found.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join