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.

 

911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly. The evidence after 14 years supports the "OS" not false claims of conspiracy theorist.



There is plenty of evidence that has been uncovered after 14 years.


Where is your so-called evidence? I am still waiting for you to post those demo explosion time lines in the WTC videos. Why haven't you done so?
edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


That won't fly. The evidence after 14 years supports the "OS" not false claims of conspiracy theorist.


The only conspiracy theories is the OS and it is so funny that you are on a conspiracy website defending a conspiracy theory.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Where is your so-called evidence? I am still waiting for you to post those demo explosion time lines in the WTC videos. Why haven't you done so?


Your time line was busted by LapTop I read his post to you. You are hopping no one else read it. Your funny.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly because after 14 years and counting, the "OS" remains standing and unimpeded.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Your time line was busted by LapTop I read his post to you.


How amusing!! In that case you should not have any problem posting his demo explosion time lines that I am requesting.

Now, the clock is ticking and I am waiting for you to post those time lines for everyone here and I hope you don't keep us waiting too long.


edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


How amusing!! In that case you should not have any problem posting his demo explosion time lines that I am requesting.

Now, the clock is ticking and I am waiting for you to post those time lines for everyone here and I hope you don't keep us waiting too long.


Here is the proof and the facts, you have been debunk!



originally posted by: LaBTop
Skyeagle409, who are you trying to deceive?
The gullible, non educated masses? You failed miserable.

This repeatedly posted by you, mockery of a seismic diagram is the most childish and cheating example of Popular Mechanics alike, yellow journalism, I ever saw :



Anyone WITH some education can tell you what example of ten- to thirty-fold cheating YOU missed in your repeatedly posted picture.
I'll give you one clue : the word nano is in it.
The honest picture would need a lot more vertical space : 14.6 plus 28.0 times more vertical space.

You are either missing quite some necessary education, or intentionally posting misinformation, and I have come to the conclusion after reading 91 pages of your stubborn endless diatribe, that the latter is the case.

If you resize your diagram to honest comparable dimensions, the REAL TRUTH would stare you in the face....
That red square would be in its vertical dimension, 42.6 times as big as it is now.!

This graph below is a comparison between a huge explosion, its top graph, and a simple earthquake, its bottom graph.
Which bottom earthquake graph would be the effect of a normal, gravity-driven collapse of a building on the bedrock of Manhattan, without explosive charges utilized as in a demolition, as in the top graph.



Now, tell me, which one of these amplitude peaks on this seismogram does look like one of the above examples :



Take your time to compare and study this one also :



Do NOT miss my RED text under this seismogram of the collapse of the North Tower, notice the same cheating by LDEO as in your posted MOCKERY of honestly comparable seismic diagrams. You can't compare your 4 seismograms, they are far out of synchronization, look at the huge difference in seismogram sensitivities, the nanometers per second values.!!!

These are the real LDEO comparable 2 collapse seismograms to the 2 plane impact seismograms, both in 10 nm/s sensitivity :

North Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :



South Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :




This is the first North Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :



This is the second, South Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :




You can ignore it all you want, however the facts peaks volumes against your OS.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


originally posted by: LaBTop
Then there is this too from your typing fingers:
Skyeagle409, posted on page 71 :


I want you to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.
To let you know, I contacted Protec Documentation Services, Inc. last year and I want you to post evidence that their seismic monitors detected demo detonations. I am not shy about contacting companies for references and clarifications.


Good work, to contact them.
Now follow up.! Show YOUR evidence.

Because I contacted the real demolition experts, PROTEC itself, the main firm, not their Public Relations firm PDS.
Brent Blanchard is simply a photographer and columnist at Implosion World, a monthly paper published by PROTEC.

Years ago I phoned PROTEC already, when I was in a vivid discussion with Brent Blanchard in this very 9/11-forum.
Which discussion btw can not be found back by ATS Search.
Inserting the terms " Brent Blanchard " in it, you get 5 pages with 48 post returns, which are mostly posts by skyeagle409 in this same thread...why not LaBTop's posts in this thread.? And LaBTop and BrentBlanchard posts in threads from years ago.?
Can anyone from Staff tell us why the ATS member name BrentBlanchard is gone...and all of his posts? Or any other possible written name he posted under?

And when I posted the RESULT of that PROTEC-contacting, Brent disappeared without ever reacting on my question to him, or anybody else here, to put his so called handhold seismograms made by PROTEC engineers in New York on the day of 9/11/2001, on the table here, which according to Brent's rants here in this same forum, he had SEEN and had still access to.
And which he was boasting about that they definitely did not show any signs of demolition charges. A real seismologist would be able to directly indicate the real explosion amplitudes in such handhold seismograms, recorded so near to Ground Zero.
That's why they never surfaced and are now disappeared from the PROTEC archives, as they told me on the phone in August 2006.

Blanchard was never seen posting on this board again...He is a LIAR.
An obedient slave to the establishment. The fascist super-wealthy ones who really make the decisions in AMERICKA.
Not the US-Government, as most of the official story readers still believe.


And there is more...



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


originally posted by: LaBTop
And this is my post about the 09/03/2006 clarification-PDF by PROTEC, posted by me on Jan, 29 2008 :
Thread title : 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'
My post : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Several seismologists and myself phoned PROTEC's head office in August 2006 to ask for copies of those 9/11 New York seismograms, which according to Brent Blanchard, were supposedly registered by PROTEC on 9/11/2001.
They said to me : "" All those seismograms are strangely missing from our repositories."" And it was not a case of them not wanting to give copies, they simply were ALL lost, they said to me.

Then this happened, PROTEC's swift public reaction, which skyeagle409 doesn't want to read, obviously, since he never even hinted at it, all these 90+ pages long, him boasting about Brent's handhold seismograms, giving hard evidence of no explosives used on 9/11/2001 :


PROTEC : Clarification posted 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-Dougherty 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 timeframe 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 other experts – is that they clearly indicate explosives were not used, and
c) Protec’s vibration data recorded during the same timeframe, 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.


Well, when you, PROTEC were so sure that these handhold seismograms of yours did not show explosive spikes, why did you guys not PUBLISH them shortly after 9/11.???
Just as LDEO did with their PROFESSIONAL 9/11 seismograms.
A HUGE Public relations STUNT would that have been, with for sure lots of NEW CONTRACTS for PROTEC, from just as overly patriotic firms and government offices. What a missed chance for greedy PROTEC CEO's, ain't that so.???
Do YOU, reader, really suppose that PROTEC would have missed that huge opportunity.???

There was only one solution left for PROTEC's CEO's, probably after some shady agency threatened them to get rid of this annoying piece of crap, written by Blanchard.
Sure, nice try at damage control by PROTEC of that, popular in the 911Trusters corner, clear example of scientific cheating and BAMBOOZLE of the gullible, insufficiently educated masses, by Brent Blanchard's already on-line paper, which they couldn't retract anymore.!
They were blatantly licking the heels of eventual future government and big corporation contractors.

Thus, another appeal to skyeagle409 or some others who also get tired from his misinformation posts, to ask him to stop his excessive post-repeats.
One thing he succeeded in. My 2005 or 2006 post exchange with Brent Blanchard is successfully buried in the ATS Search engine, his posts are clogging all Search attempts by me, to find that IMPORTANT thread back by reading all threads returned by the ATS Search.
Where the reader could see how "they" operate, spreading half-lies and other on-line techniques to muddy the waters of real 9/11 investigation.
Luckily I found at least PROTEC's clarification back. Which shows crystal clear how "they" operate.

Again, where do I find the ATS member account from Brent Blanchard, who 100% sure was a member here and suddenly disappeared after I challenged him in this same forum to produce those handhold seismograms run by PROTEC on 9/11 in New York.

Because I and himself knew already both, he was a cheating liar, after I phoned his bosses at PROTEC.


And there is more...



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


originally posted by: LaBTop
Protec NEVER EVER publicized ANY of their seismic graphs from their 9/11 New York operated hand-held seismic devices, presumably recording on the day of 9/11.

So, skyeagle409, I challenge you NOW, to produce one or any of them here in this thread.
Or shut up with that excessive posting of MY much older links to Brent Blanchard's debacle.

You are clearly posting misinformation too, with your multiple immature post-repeats with that butchered video of the first seconds of the WTC-7 collapse sequence in it. I told you multiple times by now, that your video misses the first few seconds, in my posted video however, you clearly hear that deep explosion sound in the first second already.
YOUR butchered video starts 2 seconds later, when the east penthouse already starts to topple into WTC-7's roof area and the deep sound from 2 seconds earlier is cut off.
That's why it's so obvious you are a cheater.

Skyeagle409 strangely acts as such a newly developed programmed AI-Automaton Internet forum-poster would do.
Unleashed on the Internet by that notorious US Military Propaganda Unit. He starts posting very old links, long time ago already debunked, and then progresses slowly, while hijacking opponents their posted links to use them as if they were evidence for the official story crap, by simply stating that they are wrong, ad infinitum.
The interesting development in this new forum-thread, regarding skyeagle409's appearance here, is the fact that the usual OS defenders did not give him ONE STAR in 90 pages of 20 posts each, while that is their usual tactic with posts by members of their flock. They seem to mistrust him. The military must have failed to inform them through their forum minions here.
Only one post gets 7 stars suddenly, not earlier than one page back, on page 90, but that's no wonder, that's a hilarious, Dr. Judy Woods follower video-post, starred by her fanatic 7 followers in this forum. Which he tops off with his usual butchered WTC-7 collapse video, missing those essential 2 EXTRA first seconds with that deep sound in it.

There's btw only one perfect defense against suspected Internet forums investing military Auto-bots :
No one reading their comments should react anymore on their misinformation.

If however, readers agitated by his stubbornness, can't withstand the urge to react, knock yourself out, skyeagle409 is doing a great job, keeping this noteworthy thread alive, for so long already....

No human being can be so deaf and half blind to not hear and see the effects of the explosions on the bystanders in our posted videos, and stubbornly goes on posting his cheating piece of video-disinformation.
The by two starting-seconds butchered WTC-7 collapse video of skyeagle409.
Exactly missing the 2 seconds in which that deep explosion sound can be heard in its first second. So loud that the rest of the collapse does nearly not register as sound in the real FOIA freed NIST video.
This is skyeagle409's two secs cut-short cheating video :
www.youtube.com...



Anyone can see, that that by skyeagle409 (too many times by now) posted video is intentionally cut 2 secs short, since the officially FOIA-freed WTC-7 video from NIST its video-repository is the one I posted in page 1, WITH those 2 secs extra in its collapse start footage, this full one :
www.youtube.com...



That must have been an impressive explosion, if it would have been filmed closer by. If we had any even earlier filmed seconds of that above FOIA video, I posted already on page 1, then we would certainly hear even more explosions, since the Ashley Banfield video I also posted in page 1, has about 6 to 9 fast following explosion sounds in it, in the 8.5 seconds in which the WTC-7 penthouses start to topple.


And there is more...



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Apparently, you reference is bogus. Call Protec and see what they say. I did.


edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Apparently, you reference is bogus. Call Protec and see what they say. I did.




originally posted by: LaBTop
REFERENCES :

1. And then you read the paper of Dr. Andre Rousseau.... a real, lifelong seismologist :
Title : Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? Written by Dr. André Rousseau, November 24, 2012 :
journalof911studies.com...


Dr. Rousseau : This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. 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.


2. And thereafter the thorough debunking by Jim Hoffman of that on-line paper by would-be seismologist Brent Blanchard, at 911research.wtc7.net :
Reply to Protec's ""A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7."" :
911research.wtc7.net...


Blanchard's treatment of the issues he addresses is anything but scientific. Blanchard:

---Provides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
---Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
---Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
---Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
---Exploits fallacies such as appeals to authority and appeals to prejudice.
---Promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up.
--snip--
As noted in the conclusion to my critique of NIST's report, the destruction of all three WTC towers exhibited six physical features unique to controlled demolitions. Blanchard simply ignores this evidence and the many arguments for controlled demolition they support, baldly asserting that there is "[no] evidence for explosives use." Implicit in his denial is a confusion of evidence for the use of specific explosives with evidence for controlled demolition.


3. 911research.wtc7.net... (911 Research.WTC-7)
---- 911research.wtc7.net... (published PAPERS)
---- 911research.wtc7.net... (published REVIEWS)
---- 911research.wtc7.net... (Search 9-11 Research)

4. 911review.com... (9-11 Review)

5. journalof911studies.com... (Journal of 9/11 Studies) :
....Many ARTICLES.
....Many LETTERS, 2007 to 2014.
....Many 9/11 BEGINNERS-LINKS


No, the reference are honest and here they are.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


originally posted by: LaBTop
These are the challenges to you, skyeagle409, from other members regarding your above post at page 71, ( I suppose you made a typo ) :

wildb :

skyeagle409 : I want to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.

I can't wait, seems you are a bit frustrated.. I wonder why, hum....

PublicOpinion :

a reply to: skyeagle409
I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?



My Blanchard-linked big post at this same thread's page 2 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The few best ATS-Searches results and a few more that are NOT picked up by the ATS Search.... :
REFERENCE POSTS about " Brent Blanchard " (about 41 to 46 results),
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop, Jan, 30 2013 : I did some off-line investigation in August 2006 at PROTEC, and lo and behold, what a pity sir, but by some strange accident, all these handhold seismograms have been absent from our repository for a long time already.

REFERENCE POSTS about " Blanchard " (about 289 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " Brent " (about 638 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " BrentBlanchard " (about 47 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " PROTEC " (about 64 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " Protec " (about 65 results),
Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ? page 5, LaBTop, May, 21 2007 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
AHA, found my post back for R. Mackey from Randi.org's JREF forum (now ISF) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
AHA, also the next post by bsbray11, about the Cardington steel tests :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
REFERENCE POSTS about " Protec 2006 " (about 18 results),
You'd expect my argumentation with Brent Blanchard to be in there somewhere :
--- www.abovetopsecret.com... (24 pages)
Or in this one : www.abovetopsecret.com...
--- www.abovetopsecret.com...

A couple of little factoids just to set the record straight :

Blanchard is certainly no expert. He has very little explosives demolition knowledge. He is not an engineer. He just travels around to demolition sites to take pictures. He also sets seismographs up to record vibration. CDI doesn't even allow him to be around their projects. Look at his website. Notice the lack of CDI pictures as compared to other demolition companies? There was a special on ABC that called him and his partner the "Beavis and Butthead of Implosion".


Below, bsbray11's post about column oscillations after impact, and the 14 and 17 seconds discrepancy between plane impacts and radar times of those same impacts :
--- www.abovetopsecret.com...

REFERENCE POSTS about " portable field seismographs " (about 27 results),

REFERENCE POSTS about " www.implosionworld.com " (about 72 results) :
This is the earliest date : Aug, 25 2005, I found up to now, with a post with that link in it :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

REFERENCE POSTS about " Blanchard's " (about 43 results),
Title : A look at Mr. Blanchard's .pdf, by bsbray11, Aug, 10 2006 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( ?,not picked up)

Read this whole following post, it's pure logic at work :
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( ?,not picked up by ATS Search, while it has the word Blanchard several times in it.! ) :


bsbray11 : Where are these handhold seismic records from Manhattan?
Only the 34 km away at Palisades based LDEO ones were ever released to the public, and they were not analyzed in any detail.

Most of the next seismic events go unexplained (labeled by FEMA simply as "further collapses" with no further analysis), and WTC7's seismic records show, again, that more energy was exerted before the building moved than during the global collapse. WTC7's records were also released later than the rest by LDEO, but I promise you it wasn't because the waves took longer to reach their lab. It was because they couldn't account for what had happened, and of course they never tried to analyze what was going on there.



You have been challenged.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

About this video you posted.



That sound is not the result of explosives, that is the sound of structural failure. This is what demo explsosions sound like.



Once gain, "AE911 Truth" caught spewing false information and distorting the facts.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Just to let you know that I am still waiting for you to post those demo explosion time lines in the WTC videos. I might add that investigators acknowledged that they heard no demo explosions either.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Challenged?? Much of what you posted was debunked years ago.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Nothing in your references that address the lack of demo explosions in the WTC videos. You are stalling!



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


That sound is not the result of explosives, that is the sound of structural failure. This is what demo explsosions sound like.


That is your "opinion".


Once gain, "AE911 Truth" caught spewing false information and distorting the facts.


That's your "opinion".

My "opinion" is You are spewing false information and distorting the facts.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Interesting stories, backgrounds, and family members for these witnesses. I see others have already done some enlightening research on them.

Also, I noticed that Afework Hagos has a close relative, Gaim Hagos, who works/ed for Northrop Grumman. Very curious.

Stinky list of witnesses, IMO. Since I know you are prone to posting disinfo, I will be certain to dig into the backgrounds and family members of these witnesses when I have the time to do the research some justice.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

None of your seismic reference depict demo explosions. Let's take one of your seismic references and tell us, where is the evidence of demo spikes in this seismic data that you posted a reference to?

Seismic Data

As you can plainly see in the seismic data, there are no demo explosion spikes. To sum it up, you allowed yourself to be duped again.
edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Just to let you know that I am still waiting for you to post those demo explosion time lines in the WTC videos. I might add that investigators acknowledged that they heard no demo explosions either.


Do they pay you over time for this?

The fact is You have been debunked, the OS has been debunked, and your silly time line of explosions has been debunked.

I see you failed to take the challenge that LapTop offer you about your own time line. You are really funny.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join