WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I have challenge you to prove me wrong on the videos and seismic data and you've failed to post the times lines and seismic data proving me wrong.

I did prove you wrong. You will not READ IT.

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.

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.

www.journalof911studies.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Where is your science debunking A&E? You have none.

I have already posted a few examples that clearly debunked the claims of "AE 911 Truth" and you have been challenged to prove me wrong and yet, you've failed to measure up to the challenge.

a reply to: Informer1958

We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.

Let's look at the data. Where's your evidence of demo explosives? Either post reference on this seismic data chart for us all, or it will be very clear that you have no case.

Where's You Seismic Evidence of Demo Explosions on this Chart?

You were also made aware that demolition teams who operated those seismic monitors have stated for the record their seismic machines did not detect demo explosions.

Since you were made aware of that fact, the question is, who are you trying to deceive?

a reply to: skyeagle409

I have already posted a few examples that clearly debunked the claims of "AE 911 Truth" and you have been challenged to prove me wrong and yet, you failed to measure up to the challenge.

Those examples you posted were edited video. These edited videos and YOUR "opinions" are not science.

You have not debunked A&E. You have no science against A&E science, nothing.

Your "opinions" are not science friend.

a reply to: skyeagle409

www.journalof911studies.com...

READ IT! You will not read what I just gave you.

Since you were made aware of that fact, the question is, who are you trying to deceive?

I don't need to deceive anyone, the TRUTH does need deceiving.

However the same question goes to you, who are you trying to deceive?

a reply to: Informer1958

The examples you posted were edited video.

Prove it for us all. I am waiting for your evidence.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Prove it for us all. I am waiting for your evidence.

Prove those videos are not edited?

a reply to: Informer1958

You have not debunked A&E. You have no science against A&E science, nothing.

Of course I have and furthermore, let's hear it from one of the world's top demolition expert about your so-called seismic claim.

9/11 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. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

In other words, your seismic claim is found to be false.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Of course I have and furthermore, let's hear it from one of the world's top demolition expert about your so-called seismic claim.

His "opinions" are not science.

You don't know the different of "opinions" and mathematics and real science do you?

a reply to: Informer1958

Prove those videos are not edited?

Simple.













The fact no demo explosions are seen nor heard explains why the seismic data does not depict demo explosions.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Still spamming the threads I see with edited videos that YOU call science. How interesting.

a reply to: Informer1958

His "opinions" are not science.

I wouldn't say that! After all, his company was operating seismic machines in the area and look what you posted.

a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly. Just to let you know that I am still waiting for your video time line references and seismic data depicting demo explosions.

If you fail to post the time lines and seismic data, it will be very clear to all, that you have no case for explosives.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I wouldn't say that! After all, his company was operating the seismic machines in the area.

Still is his "opinions" nothing else.

There were other companies running their own seismic machines and you been showing their evidence, yet you continue to ignore everything.

a reply to: Informer1958

Once again, his company operated seismic machines in the area and it is clearly evident that you are stalling at providing us with those video time lines and seismic data.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I gave you the answer to your silly question several pages back and yet you keep asking me the same question repeatly.

Still waiting on your evidence of science to prove A&E is wrong, besides you ridiculing it.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I remember you trying your best to support the Jones paper in a valiant but losing effort.

LOL, you lost that debate with me years ago. I won.

I remember you getting your posts removed, because you where breaking every TC by belittling me and everyone who was giving you proof that you were sadly wrong. You were caught lying repeatedly and that is why I will never have another debate with you again.

You are wise not to engage me on the Jones paper. If you have any technical questions about it, I will gladly respond. I do remember your single-minded support of most of the variations on WTC demolitions and denial of anything that did not fit your predetermined conclusions.

The Jones paper was thoroughly trashed in a 2010 thread that you played little part in; Turbofan and I had a great time. Eventually, the joy of the Truthers faded and they went away without having Jones join the debate, as threatened. Turbo asked him but he was reluctant to debate in a public forum when he found out about my chemistry background.

Think about how you can claim that first responders hearing random loud noises [I believe them] were hearing demolitions. Then figure out where you can get physical evidence of demolitions.

a reply to: Informer1958

Still no video time line references and seismic data to post. It is apparently clear that you have no evidence that proves WTC1, WTC2,and WTC7 were taken down by demo explosives.

Why am I not surprised that you had no such evidence to begin with, which is evident by the fact you cannot post the time line references and seismic data depicting demo explosions.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Once again, his company operated seismic machines in the area and it is clearly evident that you are stalling at providing us with those video time lines and seismic data.

I did prove you wrong. You will not READ IT.

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.

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.

www.journalof911studies.com...

READ IT.

You refuse to READ IT. I am talking to a BRICK WALL here.

a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly. I specifically asked you to point out in this seismic data where demo explosions are depicted and you failed again.

Just admit the real reason why you cannot point out to us, seismic data depicting demo detonations on that seismic chart is because there are no demo detonations depicted.