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: 61
160
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   


That won't fly because I have provided proof that demo explosives were not used to bring down WTC7,


You have not provided any proof..





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


No such video exists....








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


I have done that already, here it is again... I think at this point your creditably is in question..





posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   


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



Wake up call , modern jets don't smoke...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


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.


We have provided scientific evidence from A&E Technical papers. Yet you have not debunked the real science of A&E proven demolition brought down the WTC.

Again you hang on a silly time line by asking everyone to prove when the explosions happened. The fact is there is no such videos and most if not all the actual videos have been tampered with.

Every time I and many posters post any real science from A&E you have "ignored" it. In fact you don't even comment on their science, but to say they are wrong, yet you give us no creditable evidence A&E is wrong.

No one has all the facts about 911 and we probably will never get them since most of the evident was destroyed and rushed away so no one could inspect the debris fields at the WTC.

However we do have the science that proves demolition took down all three WTC and that science is undisputed.

Go ahead and prove the real science www.ae911truth.org... is wrong? You cant.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

It is amusing that David Chandler says that if you don't hear the explosions, turn up the volume. I find that rather amusing considering that demo explosions can be heard miles away. Just another prime example of how David Chandler has been duping truthers.

BTW, both of your videos have been debunked by structural and demolition experts and firefighters.

We can also take a look here.



When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...


Perhaps, David Chandler is a disinformation agent who is out to discredit the Truth Movement. After all, others have been impersonating truthers over the years as well and have flooded CT websites with so much disinformation and misinformation that the Truth Movement is now considered discredited.

Let's take a look here.



CIT publishes response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement about the 9/11 Pentagon Attack

We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.

Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.

Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.

While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.

citizeninvestigationteam.blogspot.com...


I might add that David Chandler has done a great job of making a mockery of the Truth Movement. The effectiveness of the campaign against the Truth Movement can be read here.



Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock. The easily-discredited claims (lies) contaminated the greater issue and soiled dissenters across the board. “Turd blossom” was a Karl Rove phrase that could describe what the movement had devolved into.

The media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, could find people ranting about “the Jews” or the Illuminati, the Lizard People, the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space beam weapons vaporizing the Twin Towers.

www.911truth.org...


You can never say that I haven't warned the CT folks about the disinformation they have been posting. Now, figure why after 14 years, not one shred of evidence has ever been found in regard to demo explosives and thermite.
edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Same old stuff, FUBAR.....



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: skyeagle409

No, it was not. Scientists can look at data from a close seismograph station that is synchronized and timed to an atomic clock, calculate the wave propagation speeds, and tell within a fraction of a second EXACTLY what time an event originated with a pretty damn slim margin of error. And that slight error margin comes from uncertainties with slight variations in earth core models. Those earth models have been and are getting more accurate over years and years of seismic event analysis verifying previous events. And they are adjusted accordingly, on a regional basis where bedrock composition varies and thus produces different propagation speeds and distortion and reflection characteristics.

For NIST to come up with some arbitrary criteria based on sound is not only irresponsible and suspicious, it's absolutely unscientific and ludicrous.


You have been shown evidence and have heard from many experts in their field of expertise here on ATS.

I will Liston to them and form my own "opinions".



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   


t is amusing that David Chandler says that if you don't hear the explosions, turn up the volume. I find that rather amusing considering that demo explosions can be heard miles away. Just another prime example of how David Chandler has been duping truthers.


Yes , really? why would he do that??



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


I find that rather amusing considering that demo explosions can be heard miles away. Just another prime example of how David Chandler has been duping truthers.


I find it amusing that some OS supporters have been duping their own supporters and the Truth movement. Just another prime example to how far some will go to support a proven fallacy.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

You can't argue with reality. Haven't you figured it out yet as to why I really posted those videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7?

Think about it.
edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I find it amusing that some OS supporters have been duping their own supporters and the Truth movement.


Considering that you have failed to post those time lines for the videos in question, proves that no demo explosions occurred as those buildings collapsed.

I knew you could not post any time lines because there are no demo explosions evident in those videos, which explains why there are no demo spikes in the seismic data and why after 14 years, there is no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.
edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Considering that you have failed to post those time lines for the videos in question, proves that no demo explosions occurred as those buildings collapsed.

I knew you could not post any time lines because there are no demo explosions evident in those videos, which explains why there are no demo spikes in the seismic data and why after 14 years, there is no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.


You lose my friend. No one is Listening to you anymore. Your question about time line is BS. No one can prove a negative.

The science from A&E proves you wrong.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
It appears that someone is not reading, purposefully, in another attempt to lie.

From the document:

We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. 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 subaerial explosion. The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.


www.journalof911studies.com...


The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.


It's right there. READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

At issue here is not MY expertise, which some people here are trying to bring into question. I only have limited expertise, and am NOT a professional seismologist. Your big problem however, is that the people who wrote that document know seismology. They understand different types of wave propagation through bedrock. And they determined that it could not have been an aerial explosion, that it had to have been subaerial or subterranean.

But this document goes on to even address the event frequency propagation issues as well, and point out that a simple plane impact could not produce energy in the .6 to 5 Hz region. No, for those low frequencies to be present AT ALL at 34 kms distance, it would take a seismic event. Or explosives.

If you'd READ the darn thing, they have clearly pointed out that in order for seismic energy of any kind to be registered at even 5 km, much less 34 km, the towers would have had to have been totally solid objects and completely unyielding. AND EVEN THEN, the residual waves from a plane impact, that were not consumed by this hypothetical, solid-as-a-rock structure, would only propagate out to a very limited distance.

Now anyone with a brain would understand this to mean, must I spell this out so clearly for you, that in the case of 9/11, where the towers absorbed much of this impact, and they were not unyielding structures, and that due to their construction- the residual energy transmitted to the ground is so minuscule that it is T TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a station 34 km away to register frequencies in the .6 to 5 Hz region from the impacts OR the collapse. Leaving only one conclusion left absent an earthquake: EXPLOSIONS.

IT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION LEFT.

And this document does not stop there. In it there are even more reasons, from a scientific point of view, that the OS is a totally concocted fraud. It tears the OS such a new one, and such a big one, that it shows the OS to be exactly what so many of us have suspected: A case of perpetual diarrhea. One BIG FAT LIE.
edit on Mon Sep 28th 2015 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



ou lose my friend. No one is Listening to you anymore.


Sorry, but did you really think that your comment would have changed reality?! Now, let's take a look how truthers were duped by disinformation.


ERROR: 'Seismic Spikes Preceded the Towers' Collapses'

The leveling of the Twin Towers generated seismic disturbances that were recorded by a half-dozen seismic recording stations within a 20-mile radius of Manhattan.

Numerous websites have repeated an erroneous interpretation of the seismic recordings as evidence that bombs in the basements of the Towers severed the core columns at the onsets of the collapses.

One source of this error is an article by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn, reprinted in Serendipity.li.


Now, you know why I have challenged truthers to match the WTC seismic data with the WTC videos.
edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

From your link.



We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. 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 subaerial explosion. The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.


Just to let you know something else. There are no demo spikes within the seismic data.



Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites.

Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse.

None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.


www.jnani.org...

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


In other words, the operators of those seismic monitors have confirmed no demo explosions detected.



IT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION LEFT.

And this document does not stop there. In it there are even more reasons, from a scientific point of view, that the OS is a totally concocted fraud. It tears the OS such a new one, and such a big one, that it shows the OS to be exactly what so many of us have suspected: A case of perpetual diarrhea. One BIG FAT LIE.


You have yet to prove it. After all, It has been 14 years and still no demo evidence found. In fact, you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that demo explosives were used, which explains why you are unable to provide a single time line depicting demo explosions in the WTC videos in question.

Now, let's take a look here.



Sudden Onset of Collapse ‘Consistent with Demolition’

This is one of the central myths of the CD theory. NIST show clear photographic evidence of the bowing of the exterior walls and collapse of interior floors in both Towers, with timings showing an acceleration of this bowing prior to the initiation of collapse. There was no sudden onset of collapse consistent with demolition. On the contrary the CD theory is unable to explain the bowing and other structural deformations prior to collapse.

Eyewitness accounts from firemen also confirm a huge bulge in the south elevation of WTC 7 prior to collapse, the phenomenon more than any other that persuaded fire chiefs to withdraw their forces from danger.

www.jnani.org...





It's right there. READ IT FOR YOURSELF.
At issue here is not MY expertise, which some people here are trying to bring into question. I only have limited expertise, and am NOT a professional seismologist. Your big problem however, is that the people who wrote that document know seismology. They understand different types of wave propagation through bedrock. And they determined that it could not have been an aerial explosion, that it had to have been subaerial or subterranean.


Now, let's hear it from a demolition expert whose company was operating seismic monitors in the area.



QUESTION: DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?

ANSWER: To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
It's like talking to a wall.

Don't you get it?

These people are saying that what registered 34 km away were powerful enough explosions that were obviously timed so carefully with the impacts and/or collapses that they caused an attempted "masking" or confusion of the seismic signals. They obviously anticipated real seismologists getting a hold of the seismic data. These explosions were bigger than typical demo charges. Much bigger. Too big to register in the frequency range they did at 34 km away to be caused by the impacts or collapses.

So they pay off a couple of starving seismologists (and there are many) with credentials to say what they did. End of story. Until some honest seismologists took it upon themselves to go back through the data carefully and find the problems. And find it they did. That's what this document is all about.

So let's see. They take over the planes with remote control, so now they have speed controllable, and timeable, with an impact point. They have explosives ready, detonateable remotely as well. They can blast them simultaneously with the plane impacts, and then again simultaneously deeper charges with the collapses. All doable with the technology that existed at the time, and it has been shown over and over again to have existed at that time. It's possible the bigger explosives were used with more conventional demo charges or thermate. The demo charges didn't register on seismographs because of structure height and ground decoupling. Makes perfect sense.

But the real kicker is they had to mask the big explosions, because they knew they would register far away on seismographs. The genius of this plan is the way they attempted to mask those explosions: 1) with the plane impacts, and 2) with the collapses. Except in the face of an honest seismologist with the raw data from 34 km away. And from the charts I saw in that doc, further away even than that, like 70 km.

Do you know how ridiculous it is to suggest anything but large explosives (or earthquake) could register at 70 km at those frequencies that registered?

It's ignorance. That's what it is. But it's ok. There's no harm in being ignorant. Except when trying to push a bunch of rubbish with an agenda on an internet forum. Then there IS harm. To the honestly ignorant.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I find it amusing that some OS supporters have been duping their own supporters and the Truth movement. Just another prime example to how far


Apparently, there is a very good reason why the Truth Movement is now a discredited shell that it is today. Let's take a look how far truthers have gone in their attempt at deception.

Photo: Doctored Photo of Global Hawk

Photo: Doctored Cruise Missile Photo

Now, for the rest of the story.

Photo: Original Cruise Missile Photo

Now, let's take a look at WTC7

Looking at WTC7


edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican



These people are saying that what registered 34 km away were powerful enough explosions that were obviously timed so carefully with the impacts and/or collapses that they caused an attempted "masking" or confusion of the seismic signals.


Correct me if I am wrong, but are you implying that explosives were detonated inside WTC1 and WTC2 at the exact time when those buildings were struck?


They obviously anticipated real seismologists getting a hold of the seismic data. These explosions were bigger than typical demo charges. Much bigger. Too big to register in the frequency range they did at 34 km away to be caused by the impacts or collapses.


Where were those explosions that you are speaking of, located? They couldn't have been inside the WTC buildings because there were no secondary explosions observed.



So let's see. They take over the planes with remote control, so now they have speed controllable, and timeable, with an impact point.


That would have been impossible. First of all, the 9/11 aircraft were not fly-by-wire aircraft, which simply means their flight control systems would have had to be redesigned from scratch and modifications added, which the airlines would not have allowed. Since only a certain number of B-767-200 series aircraft were built and accountable, where are you going to acquire such aircraft that cannot be traced if the airlines refuse to allow their aircraft to be modified?

Secondly, the flight profiles of each of those aircraft proved that the 9/11 airliners were not flown under remote control.

Alititude Profile of American 11

Altitude Profile of United 175



They have explosives ready, detonateable remotely as well. They can blast them simultaneously with the plane impacts, and then again simultaneously deeper charges with the collapses. All doable with the technology that existed at the time, and it has been shown over and over again to have existed at that time. It's possible the bigger explosives were used with more conventional demo charges or thermate. The demo charges didn't register on seismographs because of structure height and ground decoupling. Makes perfect sense.


That won't fly because the question is, did WTC1 and WTC2 collapse immediately after they were struck by the 9/11 aircraft?

Secondly, it would have been impossible to place explosives properly in WTC1 and WTC2 and not attract a lot of attention, and again, no secondary explosions observed at any time.



It's ignorance. That's what it is. But it's ok.


Now, you know why I have consistently corrected truthers on the way we do things in the real world, not in Hollywood.
edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



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,...


Considering that buildings surrounding WTC7 were damaged, indicates a different story, especially since WTC7 leaned toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.


... just from a few office fires, that is impossible. It has never happened before 911, nor after 911.


Let's take a look here.



Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast.

Workers in the first building who tried to escape found the ground floor exit doors locked, and the stairwells soon collapsed. Many workers jumped from the second, third and fourth floor windows in order to escape the flames, resulting in severe injuries or death. Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.





posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb
The guy "analyzing" the Flight 77 frames is as idiotic as the guy back in the 70s who used a disc about the Kennedy assassination that he got out of Hustler magazine to declare there were 5 shots and three gunman. Framing a five frame video from a news broadcast to prove a theory? Pathetic.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican So....the detonations were times to coincide with the impacts.....and yet not cause the buildings to collapse for a period of time? You really expect someone to believe that....wait, strike that.....people who believe in the demolition theory will believe anything. Or the detonations were timed to coincide with the collapses.....so, someone was watching the buildings and they were able to react in the nanoseconds necessary to trigger the explosions and mask them??? I think the hush a boom explosives were more believable.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join