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.

 

Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

page: 12
91
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

So your whole thing from 1993 seismograph is they made it disappear? Who are they? Why would they want to make it disappear when it was obviously a truck bomb. And why would a bunch of civilian seismologists and students care to make it disappear and remain silent. It's been shown building demo after building demo, the individual charges do not cause recordable seismic data at the stations. That's fact.
I'm not saying anything about NIST. Universities point out there is no indication of seismic activity due to explosives. There is no physical evidence explosives were used. Colleges, universities, and insurance companies agree on one thing. The buildings were brought down by fire. What do truthers agree on?




posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Get back to me when you start reading real scientific research from colleges, universities, engineering firms, and engineering societies. Really, you reference ATS. Then you agree everything posted here as scientific fact. Even the persons posting evidence the hypothesis of controlled demolition on 911 is a hoax. So, who would even rig the buildings on who's orders from what budget from what supplier?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
If you going to just start making up seismologists and students lost data in 1993 to make yourself believe your right in the the future, then this is pointless. Ever think low energy low frequency resonates and is carried by the ground better than high energy high frequencies? The earth is known to be reluctant to carry certain frequencies and act like a filter.
edit on 5-6-2016 by neutronflux because: Added last sentence.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Protec did not pick up any blasts from explosives on their seismographs. Columbia University agrees with thier analysis.

Something to digest?
www.implosionworld.com...

Yet another credible source referring to many credible persons on no evidence of controlled demolition at the WTC..
edit on 5-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




credible persons on no evidence of controlled demolition at the WTC..

Credible people and factual evidence are not the hall marks of a conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: LaBTop
logical explanation by David Chandler,


You mean this David Chandler?

screwloosechange.blogspot.com.au...

Please provide Evidence Silverstein bought the buildings....
Please provide evidence the Port Authority tried to get a demolition permit for the WTC several times....


Why should I.?
Do I post under the name David Chandler.?
Obviously not, so stop asking ridiculous questions to the wrong person.

That's the kind of high standard physics based web Aussie site you read passionately.?
I see not ONE facts-based refutation of Davids physics facts he brought to the FFA discussion at NIST's tables, in that page.
That page is a piss poor shoddy piece of yellow online journalism, no more, no less.
A lousy smear campaign based hit piece, sheer nonsense when used as a refutation piece against David's FFA work.
Standard cowardly behavior expressed there, here's how to smear an honest 9/11 Doubting opponent :

Find some of his misconceptions, anywhere but on his real FFA-debate pages or online videos.
Misconceptions based solely on his personal opinions, totally unrelated to the FFA-subject at hand, and then go on an attacking spray, as viciously and as dirty as can be expressed in written words.

Instead, that author could have been trying to become accepted as a civilized and educated reader, as a cultivated and well bred, refined, polite person, showing his education, while trying to counter any of Davids WTC-7 FFA-FACTS, instead of David's other opinions about subjects he did not research really well, it seems, since it's not one of his majors.
(FFA = free fall acceleration)

If you yourself don't have the expertise or the solid arguments to counter David's physics based FFA-arguments regarding the collapse of WTC-7, keep out of this discussion, and don't hit-and-run, throwing dirty tricks from others in.
It's clear by this kinds of posts you don't have the FFA counter-arguments, and that's why you fall back to underbelly street fight techniques.?? What a disgrace.
Do you guys really haven't any basic civil moves left to bring to the 9/11 facts tables.?

And show some respect for a MAN, who dared to confront a colossal, well paid from US tax-payers coffers, docile government backing and obeying Moloch, called NIST, and who WON that battle.

THERE SHOULD FOLLOW MANY MORE of these BRAVE ONES,
stop the cowardly hiding and obeying, FIGHT the MOLOCH.


We all know by now, you do this merely to TEASE me, but dare once, to take me or David on, on my challenge to attack his 11 minutes FFA-physics explanation I offered recently above.

There is no flaw to find in there, since you can't measure a point right above column 79 that was right under the E-penthouse, in any WTC-7 collapse video available.
So we and NIST have to rely on parapet roof line points their downward acceleration measurements in those videos of the WTC-7 collapse, just like David did, and NIST indeed also did.
They came even closer to FFA than David.

So there's no need at all to know the exact column 79 downward acceleration.
Since it would be visible as sticking out above the free falling roof area, if it went down slower.
And it can't fall faster than absolute FFA.

Your turn. And keep it civil.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Great post.



Destruction of Physical Evidence


The former head of fire science and engineering for the agency responsible for finding out why the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 collapsed on 9/11 (the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) – who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering – wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed. And see this.

In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

The government has also refused to release the computer models showing how the trade centers fell, making it impossible for anyone to double-check its assumptions.

Whether you believe the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 were brought down with explosives or by airplanes and fires, destroying evidence prevented engineers and scientists from figuring out what went wrong … to prevent skyscrapers from collapsing in the future.


www.washingtonsblog.com...-57272

9/11 Commissioners Disgusted … and Call For a New Investigation

Not only was the government complicit in destroying all the evidence of the WTC, there is plenty of evidence they destroyed all the evidence in all the separate events that happened on 911.


9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”


Planting False Evidence


The type of torture used by the U.S. on alleged surviving 9/11 co-conspirators is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating FALSE confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

According to NBC News:

Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”
One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ!


Presumption of a Cover-Up …


Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for the person who destroyed the evidence.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence

For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.

(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company. And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)


www.washingtonsblog.com...-57272

So WTC 7 has what to support the official narratives?

The proven pseudo science of NIST, nothing else.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

It means there was a grand conspiracy to begin with, and to destroy all the evidence says the government was involved in in the 911 attacks.

The government hired a demo company that already had office in the WTC to remove all the WTC debris, the same demo company had secured the area and used GPS tracking on all the dump trucks so no stops were many on the way to the fresh Kill site dumping ground.

The fact is, this grand conspiracy proves one thing for sure, Higher ups in Washington and the Bush Administration and Obama Administration where complicit in a mass cover up by obfuscation, lying, and stalling every investigation that was going on in every department in the US government concerning 911.

Yet some people just close their eyes to this proven fact and insist the OS narratives are all true. You and I know the government lied about what really happened on 911, even the 911 Commission has admitted that much in their last reports.

edit on 5-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




The proven pseudo science of NIST, nothing else.

And just how many experts agree with you ?
Not even the impressionable newbies fresh out of college agree with you.

That's the problem with this conspiracy theory.
You can't walk up to most any expert and get them to agree with the conspiracy side.

The other problem is the truth movement can't settle on one theory.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


And just how many experts agree with you ?


www.ae911truth.org...

Real science that is not bought and paid for by the government.


FAQ #6: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?


Q. Isn’t it true that the signatories at AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of all architects and engineers worldwide?

A. Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth. The real question should be, ‘Is the evidence that they are bringing forth factual and worthy of a real investigation?’ To that question, the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether there is one architect and one engineer, or 12, or 100, or 1,600, or 16,000. Those who question the premises offered because the number of adherents to those premises is deemed too small are engaging in a logical fallacy often referred to as an ‘appeal to majority.’


Consider this example:


“7 in 10 doctors say the pharmaceutical drug Lipitor works, therefore it must work.”

It doesn’t really matter if 10 in 10 doctors say it works: If there is insufficient evidence to support the statement, we cannot simply trust a majority of opinions – particularly if there is a vested interest in dispensing the drug. If a large number of doctors believe that it works, then all that is really worthy of our time is further investigation for evidence to support the claim, but there is insufficient reason to blindly believe the unproven statement based only on a belief by a majority.

AE911Truth accordingly places its spotlight on the evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, and asks that people not simply believe any explanation blindly, but rather, consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method.



It should also be noted that the failure to condemn the official story by such a ‘majority’ should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history.


www1.ae911truth.org...

There is plenty more in the above source to read concerning these facts.


That's the problem with this conspiracy theory.
You can't walk up to most any expert and get them to agree with the conspiracy side.


Let's put it this way, most Americans know after 15 years that the truth was not told about 911 and that is something we all can agree on.

Many Americans that have done some real research into 911 know the OS narratives of 911 "are the conspiracy theories".



edit on 5-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

All the persons the worked ground zero because they lost family and friends helped the government hide and destroy evidence. Family that volunteered to find lost one's remains. The firefighters and police that lost sisters and brothers. The demolition experts. Construction workers. The truck drivers. The engineers. The everyday people the combed the ruble and debris. They were all part of the government conspiracy?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


All the persons the worked ground zero because they lost family and friends helped the government hide and destroy evidence.


Where did you read that?


Family that volunteered to find lost one's remains. The firefighters and police that lost sisters and brothers.


Where do you get your information from?

The fact is, Police and Firefighters went on public record claiming they were in explosions, and heard many explosions.
Which goes against the OS narratives.


The truck drivers. The engineers. The everyday people the combed the ruble and debris. They were all part of the government conspiracy?


No, the only one's that were, where on a need to know information, meaning it was "compartmentalized" from the rest of the rescue workers at ground zero.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
The fact is, Police and Firefighters went on public record claiming they were in explosions, and heard many explosions.
Which goes against the OS narratives.


No it does not, you seem to think "explosions must mean explosives", which it obviously does not. It just shows your poor understanding of how things actually work, and how you twist everything to meet whatever conspiracy theory you are pushing today!



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Real science that is not bought and paid for by the government.


But Gage gets a very good wage out of it!

We have all seen the "real science" that they push....



The fact that you consider that "real science" says a lot about your understanding of science!
edit on 5-6-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


No it does not, you seem to think "explosions must mean explosives", which it obviously does not. It just shows your poor understanding of how things actually work, and how you twist everything to meet whatever conspiracy theory you are pushing today!


Yes it does.

I have not twisted a single thing in my posts. I do not have to convince you of anything period. It is up to the casual ATS viewers to form their own "opinions".

The OS narratives are the conspiracy theories that you are still pushing today.

I can prove that you are wrong.



13 WTC TT Part 4 Eyewitness Reports of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out


www.youtube.com...


EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses


www.youtube.com...


14 WTC TT Part 5 Direct Evidence of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out


www.youtube.com...


14 WTC TT Part 5 Direct Evidence of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out


www.youtube.com...


60 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS CITE EVIDENCE FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THREE WTC HIGH-RISES

How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant? Fires could not do that.

OFFICIAL COLLAPSE THEORY DEFIES ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS


www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


But Gage gets a very good wage out of it!

We have all seen the "real science" that they push....


The OS narrative supporters can only "ridicule science" but yet cannot debunk it.


The fact that you consider that "real science" says a lot about your understanding of science!


I should know, I have been on ATS for many years debunking the OS narratives and the pseudo OS narrative science.

I have been very Cordial towards you in answering your snide and insulting remarks, there is no reason to be nasty on here on ATS.
edit on 5-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Yes it does.


Uhh not it does not.

Spray cans explode in fires.
Depending on their contents they can be very loud.

There are a lot of things that go boom in fires.
Ask your local fire department.

Better still get a statement from any fire fighter that says:
"Explosions are only caused by explosives."



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


Uhh not it does not.

Spray cans explode in fires.
Depending on their contents they can be very loud.

There are a lot of things that go boom in fires.
Ask your local fire department.

Better still get a statement from any fire fighter that says:
"Explosions are only caused by explosives."


Source please?

Am I and LaBTop are the only one's on this thread given credible source to back our claims? Where are your sources to back up your "opinions"?

The door swings both ways in debunking conspiracy theories, your claim is I am wrong, now prove it?
edit on 5-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I use universities with rules and procedures for their research. Research from credible persons. It takes what process and credentials to post something on YouTube with the flat earthers, space exploration deniers, and ghost hunters? Here, debunk this www.jod911.com....



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


I use universities with rules and procedures for their research. Research from credible persons.


www.jod911.com...

Thanks for proven to everyone what you consider "Research from credible persons".

A very bias website full of yellow journalism and proven out right lies.


YouTube with the flat earthers, space exploration deniers, and ghost hunters?


Thanks for lumping credible science with flat earthers, and ghost hunting videos.

Since you cannot debunk anything on here, but to only ridicule everything, you have nothing left to defend.

Question? what are you defending anyway?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Informer1958




Yes it does.


Uhh not it does not.

Spray cans explode in fires.
Depending on their contents they can be very loud.

There are a lot of things that go boom in fires.
Ask your local fire department.

Better still get a statement from any fire fighter that says:
"Explosions are only caused by explosives."


LOL!! Spray cans????

You lose!


With that, you just reduced your own credibility to a value of: LESS THAN ZERO
edit on 5-6-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
91
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join