It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:51 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

nf : Bottom line, no recorded detonations of explosives at the WTC.

LT : See my other thread, titled WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved, with all the FOIA freed Network videos which have the explosions you deny, in them.

Do you realize that you come to this ongoing ATS-discussion 15 years later, and have to read up on a huge amount of precious evidence, collected here in this forum, or linked to from here to other 9/11 researchers? Should you not have the decency to tone down the aggressive tone a tad bit.?

nf : No metallurgy evidence the columns were worked on by explosions or thermite. No explosive fragments found to shape blasts. No evidence of columns drilled for explosives. no remains of a detonation system or blasting caps.

LT : Mayor Giuliani and his Commissioner sidekicks ordered the immediate removal of all the debris from WTC-7, they started doing that already in the first night, on 9/11. I posted a video of HUNDREDS of brand new dumpster trucks rolling into nightly Manhattan, taking a right turn at a Manhattan crossing equipped with traffic lights, in an endless row passing the traffic camera. No time and effort allowed there and then, to meticulously search the debris piles. As expected for a crime scene, which 9/11 definitely was. It was exactly the other way round, how to get as fast as can be, all the dangerous evidence away from prying eyes...

nf : They are a hoax, but how does this fit with Thermite or energy waves. Does your work disprove their hypothesis.

LT : It's nice that you now see it as MY work, which indeed it is, and in your next post start to seed doubt about that.
Every long term poster and reader of ATS threads knows about my work, you come in 10 years later after I started to post about seismic discrepancies and re-start all the same ridiculous questions, again. It's the nature of the Internet, sigh.
And the effect of youngsters growing up and at last getting investigative, or defensive...

I have some doubts about the use of thermate, based on its distinctive slower working, however, it could have been used as pre-weakener charge and then displacement charges could have started the global collapses. There are also rumors in science circles connected to the military, about thermate charged thermobaric weapons, I posted a long list of scientific references regarding thermobaric bombs.
Which TB's have the greatest chance to have been used as the three collapse instigators. Triggered by radio or other safer wave signals, or by pressure registering caps, or by simple battery powered timers, or by re-build hand-phone timers that were triggered by one or (for safety reasons) two calls to them (first call to arm them, second one to detonate the connected charge) .

Energy waves is a fruitless endeavor, not one sure indicator has been brought to the table.
The rows of burned cars were transported from their parking places where they hindered the rescue and clean-up activities, already on 9/11 and in the later days.

The mini atomic devices? No sure indicator found, a lot of Tritium in the waste water and the air, which is still a big question mark to investigate, but no additional excessive alpha, beta or gamma radiation levels proved. To which I must add, that the first two are gone in days or maximum two weeks, while there was no effort made by official instances to try to measure those levels in those first two weeks, while we should expect them to do that in the first place, since we all knew about the threats by Arabic terrorists to use dirty bombs. Made from alpha and beta radiating hospital surplus, or even black market plutonium sources. There was even a concerted effort to keep the researchers from USGS away from the Ground Zero sites, they were not allowed to sample in there, only around the periphery. While every first time responder in the first weeks could stroll around there...however, only after being checked by the Military, FBI and Secret Service if they had cameras or other equipment with them....Getting slowly curious why.?

In short, I always try to find the simplest solution when asked how to blow up huge objects, and this should be done in the same mind set, when investigating 9/11. Look for the least dangerous methods, which are fool proof and can't go wrong, when planted in advance.
Specifically TB's, can be placated one hour, one day, or weeks, months and years in advance. They are small enough to be carried on one's back, with tremendous blow up power, and leave no discernible chemical or hardware traces, since the explosive residues are mostly gasses that disperse in the air. And you can camouflage them at will as ash-tree buckets, air-condition units on the wall, PC-towers, waste bins, whatever comes to the creative mind.
That's why the Russians were the first ever to have used their TB's against strongholds inside high rise apartments in Chechnya, when cleaning up resistive pockets in that capital. They literally flattened all that city center high risers.

Before starting a whole new row of repetitive questions about TB's, use ATS Search with the two terms :
LaBTop thermobaric
Do the same with :
LaBTop seismic

Hundreds of my posts on the subjects. No need for more questions after 15 and 10 years that I began posting about them.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 04:00 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

nf : Then publish a paper and have it peered reviewed. Why waste your time here.

LT : Have done that, it's in peer review for two months already at the moment, after first being accepted and publicly published for more than two years already, which is very strange indeed. However, its a US based one....easy to put pressure on them, after discovering it by the 9/11 mop-up agencies, or vitriolic readers of this forum.

I repeat, you only need Basic School skills to understand my reasoning, no fancy academic phraseology needed at all here.
That's for the geophysicists circles. But they did and do understand it completely, don't worry about that.

It's just very basic adding and subtracting of by cameras and seismometers and seismographs recorded event times, and comparing them with the research by honest NIST researchers.
What the NIST politically appointed CEO's and department heads, which were the end-editors of the hard work of the NIST minions, made from it later, is a whole new chapter in State lead deception.

nf : Still don't understand if this is your work or you took someone else's work.

LT : Quite rude remark, since you have all the links to my earliest work here and my screenshots from StudyFor9/
See my last post too for additional remarks.
MacQueen and Rousseau read my 2005/6 work and my posts here, and then developed their own additions to it, which I had hinted at, but not worked out, since I hoped for, and expected this.
I've always said that everybody could use my work to build on, and they had the decency to not hijack my WTC-7 thesis as their own, that would have been too obvious, by the way.

nf : You are able to do the the calculations for the leg time from event to when it should be recorded? You already have 50 percent error built into you calculations.

LT : Enlighten us readers about your 50 % error discovery. In lag time, you really mean that?

Btw, it's all LDEO's calculations, not mine.
Dr. Rousseau is the one who already showed you (see ONE of my above posts) that Kim et al. their calculations (34 km / 17 secs = 2 km/sec, then they added that huge + or - 2 secs error margin) lack an enormous 2 seconds of precision. Normally its a precision within the milliseconds. That's within 0.001 second.
Because the government did and does all what's in their might to fog up the events their originating times, for long years already via NIST, 89RADES, FEMA, USGS, etcetera.

nf : Simple paragraph that does not need endless paragraphs. I know seismologists can do it. And I think Thermite guy Steve Jones has a PHD, but was still caught Photoshopping evidence, unethical peer review, and is a hoax.
Longer the posts, less believeable you are.

LT : Let me follow up on your line of reasoning :
Shorter the post, shorter the effort, greater the faults in reasoning.
Lesser the typos, more of trust in professionalism. (there's a decrease in typos showing, luckily for you)
Lesser the provided links to sources, lesser your credibility.

Please, provide links or evidence to your accusations, or it is just loose key strokes coming from a keyboard addict.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:21 AM
Simple question, does your work discredit Thermite, laser, nuke bomb, and energy wave truthers?

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:47 AM
A reply to: neutronflux

I just gave you in my top page-post my opinion about them.
They were discredited for the most part already, by other OS-doubters, who confronted them with anomalies in their theories.
You yourself can see that my work indicates foul play from the side of the official story tellers.
What more do you want ?

This ? :

--- more ---

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:54 AM

Chapter : The day NIST cried: admitting WTC 7's free fall collapse

One of the better known issues related to the WTC 7 collapse is that it partly came down at free fall speed. Back in 2008 when the final NIST report was about to be published, and years before we found out about missing stiffeners and the like, it was already clear that NIST scientists were doing their absolute best to obfuscate this fact. The reason is obvious.
As NIST's Shyam Sunder inadvertently admitted: "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." [20] How is this possible? A building, especially a steel one, should always put up resistance during a collapse. They shouldn't be coming down at roughly 85 kmh / 50 mph as if there is nothing underneath them. Free fall means that WTC 7 came down at a similar speed as when one would have thrown a nickel or block of concrete from the top of the building. While technically it doesn't absolutely rule out some sort of structural anomaly we haven't figured out yet, free fall is most definitely very compatible with explosives having been used to take out several floors worth of columns, beams and girders.

About the in this thread proposed lack of explosions and their sounds, recorded on videos, the next chapter should put you on the rim of your chair :

Major explosions around 11:00 a.m. ignored, despite potentially ordinary explanation

- - - sadly had to snip a huge chunk of highly interesting text, ATS doesn't like you to post too huge excerpts - - -

While maybe not very well known, these reports are absolutely accurate. We know this from videos that are even less well known than these, the most important being one of Richard Peskin, who was shooting from his high-rise apartment building roughly 650 meters (700 yards) north of Ground Zero.

His tape for WTC 7 starts just before 11:00, right after he heard a major explosion and noticed a new cloud of smoke rise from WTC 7's east side, where later in the day the collapse initiated from. In the minutes after that he captures what appear to be four additional explosions and reports on at least one other he failed to record. So we're talking at least 6 loud potential explosions in the minutes before and after 11:00 a.m. which NIST hasn't addressed. Peskin:

"[Start video; Peskin zoomed in to east corner of WTC 7:] A blast, explosion, or something, because now there is a lot of police activity and sirens and more smoke rising from the ground. [Smoke is rising from the side of WTC 7's east corner, but not exactly clear which smoke cloud Peskin means.] New smoke. So there was some kind of additional explosion, but I don't know what it was. Definitely. Smoke is rising from the ground. Maybe it was a federal building or something like that. Okay. Okay, sweetie, I'll call you later.

"[New take:] It's now 11 o'clock. We're still continuing to hear explosions. [Another crack or explosion can be heard.] I don't know what it is. A lot of smoke. ... [Another crack or explosion can be heard.] ... There's a fire [away from of WTC 7]. Maybe a car on fire. [Another crack or explosion can be heard.] ...

"[New take:] [Very loud crack/explosion and echo] It's another explosion. [Seems to be not much after 11:05, judging by the shadows.] ... [New take:] It's now a little bit after twelve

[Showing of a Richard-Peskin-zoomed photo from his video]

Beginning of the Richard Peskin video after he heard an explosion at WTC 7 (strangely it starts with Peskin mid-way a sentence). Zoomed in here at the location where he sees new smoke arise, which is WTC 7's collapse initiation corner and also where Barry Jennings is trapped. My estimate is that the side of WTC 7 is visible here from roughly floor 14, immediately above the collapse floor.

The initial explosion right next to WTC 7, or possibly inside it, which Peskin failed to capture, appears to have been picked up by at least four other cameras that we are aware of.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:15 PM

These 4 cameras were operated by :
9/11 "filmmaker" Gideon Naudet, independent journalist Lucia Davis, firefighter Steve Spak and another unknown camera man. Possibly they picked up different explosions, but at the very least they were all captured in the same period around 11:00. We know this for a variety of reasons.

Follows much more of Joel van der Reijden's explanatory texts which you'll have to read yourself, can't post such huge chunks.
These are the 4 explosion videos he links to :

Gideon Naudet in the 2002 documentary '9/11: The Filmmakers'. He captures a huge explosion around 11:50 a.m., 500 meters (550 yards) to the north-west of WTC 7.
It's easy to miss unless you know what to look for :

Firefighter Steve Spak video. WTC 7 is located about 300 meters directly behind St. Paul's Chapel. The dust from the collapse of WTC 1 obscures everything at this point. :

Lucia Davis video (Phoneboot explosion).

See for that one my thread : WTC7 phoneboot explosion sound pinned to corner Murray Str-W.Broadway, 2 blocks from WTC7.

She was located immediately in between Steve Spak and Gideon Naudet when this explosion occurred. Located on the corner of Murray Street and West Broadway, she was also the closest, only being roughly 150 meters (165 yards) north of WTC 7. As a result, she also captures the blast with incredible intensity. Interestingly enough, at this moment Davis is filming FDNY firefighters at a phone booth. One of the firefighters comes walking towards them right after the explosion and says: "We gotta get back. Seven's exploding." The explosion also comes from the location of WTC 7, with everybody looking in that direction.

- - - clipped more text, sadly enough, Joel's explanation style is worth reading - - -

This use of the sun's position also turned out to come in handy with other video clips. A clip from an unknown news station which recorded a loud explosion reveals pretty much the same azimuth, proving it was either the same explosion or one that followed quickly thereafter.
This link should jump to the 24 secs position.

Lucia Davis Phoneboot explosion video offers us a cutter charge sound. When compared to the sound of a cutter charge set off, and recorded by professional equipment like Sophia's cameraman used, you'll see the near identical audio footprints of both explosions.
That comparison video has been posted here. Or you search YouTube for a cutter charge video, then you can do the comparison to the Phoneboot video with your own ears.

Then read the next chapter :
Ignored explosions in the afternoon and at collapse

This is the most intriguing part of it :

The calculated time of 8.1 and 8.7 seconds between the loud boom and collapse initiation between respectively the CBS and MSNBC videos isn't a whole lot, considering how tricky it can be to determine the exact moment of the collapse initiation from different angles and with shaky cameras, apart from a small difference the distance that the sound needs to travel. It's quite safe to say that it is certain that the noise picked up by Banfield is the same as the CBS camera.

It seems Joel van der Reijden from hasn't seen my screenshot nr 30, with the 8.2 secs interval explanation by NIST :

It fits as good as E X A C T L Y within Joel his roughly calculated time windows, and explains perfectly what is happening in those two videos.
First that huge explosion with a deep sound profile, then 8.2 secs lag time where the building starts to disintegrate, as witnessed by us, looking at the denting of the east and then the west penthouse and the totally disappearing of both. Then the global, evenly spread collapse begins.
Fitting all perfectly in what I wrote already in 2005 and 2006, see all my screenshots in my opening post.

edit on 26/5/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Simple question, does this disprove thermite, nukes, lasers, and energy waves?

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 03:23 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

Simple question, does this disprove thermite, nukes, lasers, and energy waves?

Depends on which conspiracy Youtube you watch.

Maybe they used all of the above.
When you really want to be for sure, for sure.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 03:34 PM
To keep it simple, you are saying WTC steel was never examined on site. WTC steel was never staged, studied, and process before being shipped. › library › fema403_apd_x

edit on 26-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 05:01 PM
Already three times on this page alone you asked for simple answers.
In other words, a simple man wants simple answers, or is there another implication I seem to miss?
Is that FEMA thingy an attempt to post a link? In that case, please try again, but perhaps now with http:// in front of it, and using / instead of >, and end with .html ???
Are you all this time posting from a crappy hand-phone perhaps? And have no former experience with forum posting?

When a few small pieces of recovered steel from WTC 7 were scientifically examined, it turned up that some fast sulfur assisted corrosion process had taken place on the steel, and caused some of that steel to end up razor blade thin and looking like a Swiss cheese with holes, where it should have been an inch thick.

Of course the heat and lots of strange corrosive chemicals in the debris pile could have been part of this process.
But, why no follow up on this strange corrosion discovery took place, is another one of these extravagances in the whole processing method of handling a crime scene.
And do not forget, another important reason for a deeper probing of the subject is of course finding solutions to decrease the danger of collapses in burning high-rise steel structures, eventually caused by exotic steel corrosion processes.
A honest politician would press for further research into the matter. None took up the glove.

The New York Times found out about it in 2002, pressed for answers, and the result was that we never heard about any follow up investigation on it anymore.
As usual, every single piece of evidence, from discoveries, out of the Official Stories order map, was silenced.
edit on 26/5/16 by LaBTop because: Removed too complicated abbreviations.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Simple question, does this disprove thermite, nukes, lasers, and energy waves?

No. Of course not, since the source of the explosions that triggered the seismographs needles is still not 100 % clarified, and I have little hope that I shall live to hear it from a perpetraitor's mouth.
I told you already what in my opinion fits the recorded events the best on all points and levels :
Thermobaric explosives, from an, at that time, military grade.

Military grade, since the Anthrax that was sent to those key politicians to show them who was really in charge of it, was a very specific military grade, from the Fort Dietrich bio-warfare labs, while the indicated and thus automatically suspected "perpetrator" was conveniently "self'-murdered before he could spill any beans.

How you OS Trusters can keep on trusting such a heinous ensemble at the helm of your nation, is beyond my grasp.
It must have something to do with a wild mix of misplaced patriotism, deep seated authority trust (Tsk,tsk), a dark sense of an unconsciously approaching personal worldview-shattering, an overcompensated trust in the might of your Fatherland and its military, the unwillingness of accepting that everyone of your politicians is a hot stove of contradictions that each has to fight to stay his or hers ground in the quagmire of Party, Congress and House, and the constant threat of blackmail.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 05:48 PM
The Aims strain Anthrax WMD attack on America.
Anthrax originated from the laboratories of Ford Detrick, Maryland.
Dr. Bruce Ivins worked on an Anthrax vaccine, and was pointed out at as the lone nut perpetrator. He died a week before being charged with the crime from a self administered injection of Thylonol. How damn convenient...

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:18 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

If you cannot disprove thermite, then you can can't disprove fire. As to the sulfur, building material is loaded with it. You do remember the lawsuits against Chinese drywall for making people sick and eating copper wire.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:57 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

You can believe whatever YouTube video you want that is not held to any academic standard. Again discredit the MIT and Purdue reports. Even FEMA is held to a higher academic standard than what you are. Ironic that I tend to believe sources that reference their work, don't take things out of contex, criticize the NIST with science and verifiable evidence, use their data to make better buildings, and put their reputations on the line for all to see. And you do what? Cannot even come up with your own research and waste your time with me?

That's the real heart of the matter and why conspiracies will not die in an age any person can work software magic to make their own evidence. It's amazing as home generated special effects become affordable there is all this new 911 truther evidence. Because people held to no accountability can spew any theory they want and create video evidence that fool people like you. So I'm stupid sticking with colleges and universities because they have standards, academic accountability, and oversight? It's sad you really cannot see who tried to learn from WTC disasters, used that knowledge to make a safer building, and you chase the reality you want to define in an academic vacuum.

Take Steve Jones for example. Truthers would have you believe WTC dust was not studied. Then you dig a little. You find out Jones has no chain of custody for his sample and will not share with others for study. Then you find out WTC dust has been studied many times with documentation and chain of custody. Ok, they didn't find Thermite but they were not looking for it. But why would they, building material contains the same elements and nothing of suspicion to note. Then they do sample for thermite, but find no aluminum and the red chips can be accounted for with building material. Jones didn't find aluminum either. Then truthers that didn't like the results tried to discredit the research. They use the same tactics they claim "shrills" impose on them. And that's the strongest evidence truthers have for thermite. Red chips with no aluminum. That's the people you side with?

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:07 PM
If you cannot state the conclusion that the seismic activity means explosives and disproves thermite, nukes, and energy waves, what is the point. Started to dig other sources of seismologists. The consensus is individual charges in a building demo will not create readable seismic activity. Only when all charges are detonated at once is there a chance. And setting all charges off at once is not a classic building demo.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:17 PM
So, sorry once I found people like Steve Jones Photoshopped photos to pass as evidence of molten steel at the WTC that I don't trust your screen shots. And you wonder why people don't take truthers serious. Again, he's the best person to prove Thermite? The champion of the truther cause.

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

Do you believe WTC 7 fell, due to some office fires on different floors? yes or no?

Do you believe the NIST report about WTC 7 is honest science? Yes or no?

Do you believe anyone who doesn't support the official narratives of 911 is a Truther? Yes or no?

Can you give me the real definition of the word Truther?

posted on May, 27 2016 @ 06:31 AM
A reply to: neutronflux

nf : That's the people you side with?

I side with exactly no one. I am a one man's historical truth seeking army.
That's the only way to avoid online psyops influencing.
edit on 27/5/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2016 @ 06:40 AM
For the freshly arrived members to the seismic discussion, these are the, after 15.5 years still online, five LDEO recorded 9/11/2001 seismograms, from their own Columbia Edu website.

............. Pay special attention to the amplitude-sensitivity differences between the two plane impacts and the WTC-7 collapse diagram (10 nm/s), and the two --South and North Tower-- collapse diagrams (100 nm/s).

............. I recalculated the two first huge collapses back to the comparable same sensitivity of 10 nm/s for the other three graphs in my nr 15 and nr 16 Opening Post screenshots, so it's clear for the seriously interested reader there was seismic activity, comparable to the whole WTC-7 collapse, a few seconds before the South and North towers their global collapses, hit the bedrock.

............. Note also the peculiar differences in assigned event start times by LDEO as printed above each seismogram, and their indicated seismogram "Start time" as printed by them in the top-left portions of the 5 diagrams, my explanation is in the first sentence above each graph description typed out by me :

(13 s first distinct signals + 4 s = 17 s signals lag time from NY to LDEO) :
DIFF.: +4 seconds (start 08:46:26 EDT, local NY time) :
First Impact: 12:46:26 (UTC) while graph start time = 12:46:30
Filter: BW 0.6535
BATT dbheli: ldeo antelope Tue Sep 11 16:06:19 2001

(16 s first distinct signals + 1 s = 17 s signals lag time from NY to LDEO) :
DIFF.: +1 second (start 09:02:54 EDT, local NY time) :
Second Impact: 13:02:54 (UTC) while graph start time = 13:02:55
Filter: BW 0.6535
BATT dbheli: ldeo antelope Tue Sep 11 16:09:09 2001

(14 s first distinct signals + 3 s = 17 s signals lag time from NY to LDEO) :
DIFF.: +3 seconds (start 09:59:04 EDT, local NY time) :
First Collapse: 13:59:04 (UTC) while graph start time = 13:59:07
Filter: BW 0.6535
BATT dbheli: ldeo antelope Tue Sep 11 16:15:39 2001

(18 s first distinct signals - 1 s = 17 s signals lag time from NY to LDEO) :
DIFF.: -1 second (start 10:28:31 EDT, local NY time) :
Second Collapse: 14:28:31 (UTC) while graph start time = 14:28:30
Filter: BW 0.6535
BATT dbheli: ldeo antelope Tue Sep 11 16:13:37 2001

All 4 already printed from the BW 0.6535 Hz filtered, raw recorded material, on Tue Sep 11, between 16:06:19 and 16:15:39 , 2001.
One peculiar thing to note is, that the first collapse is printed at a later time (16:15:39) than the second collapse time (16:13:37). Did they mess up, and switched them.?

A more peculiar thing to note, why did it cost LDEO 3.5 days to produce the WTC-7 graph.?

The most peculiar thing, why does the graph's start time not fit the well known by LDEO, 17 s seismic signals retention (lag) time from NY to LDEO.?

[/color=red](6 s or 11 s first distinct signals + 7 s = 13 s or 18 s signals lag time from NY to LDEO, which does not fit the same 4 above calculations for the twin towers) :
DIFF.: +7 seconds (start 17:20:33 EDT, local NY time) :
Building 7 Collapse: 21:20:33 (UTC) while graph start time = 21:20:40
Filter: BW .6535
BATT dbheli: ldeo Fri Sep 14 11:52:43 2001

Why is this BATT line so different from the other four graphs, and why is the usual PAL.EHE ps antelope value not included.?
And why is the 0. forgotten for the filter value.?

Are there any serious, educated members left in this forum to discuss these anomalies with, in a decent manner.?

posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:14 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
So, sorry once I found people like Steve Jones Photoshopped photos to pass as evidence of molten steel at the WTC that I don't trust your screen shots. And you wonder why people don't take truthers serious. Again, he's the best person to prove Thermite? The champion of the truther cause.

Why not one moderator stops this sidestepping in every thread I start, is beyond reasonable explanation.
And I had the impression that after the stumpiest time this forum was harshly warned to not use terms like Truthers , Shills etc anymore, we agreed on a consensus of calling each other Trusters and Doubters, which seems to me a civil way of shorthand addressing my opponents, or same souls.

You guys CLEARLY use the word Truther as a derogative, smear campaign. Just as your masters use the word Conspiracy.
While they are always the originator of the conspiracies.

What on earth has Prof Jones to do with my seismic thesis ?

And all your probing for my opinion on thermite, neutron bombs, star war beams etc, etc. in this seismic thread?
It's damn immature to derail a thread which asks for educated answers on ONE subject, with this kind of smear and smother techniques, so I'll ask it one time, no more, (or I, instead of you will get another warning), while you guys can go on insulting anyone in this forum without repercussions :

Answer the seismic questions or add your own seismic research, don't come up all the time with far from my thread subject derailing remarks. Go post them in other threads.

I'll answer your seismic questions or remarks. None else in this thread about seismology.

The consensus is individual charges in a building demo will not create readable seismic activity. Only when all charges are detonated at once is there a chance. And setting all charges off at once is not a classic building demo.

Search ATS for "" LaBTop Prof Brown "", and you will find the evidence why you are wrong. I already told you to search with "" LaBTop seismic "" as the search terms, when I told you to go look up the reports from, then Dr, Brown, that he recorded EVERY charge that was detonated during the Murrah building remains demolition as FAR MORE ENERGETIC than all the following, thundering down of huge concrete debris blocks, into the ground.

A real researcher reads all his opponents material first, then forms an opinion and then tries to check them against other work. Then forms a new, refined opinion and goes in discussion with the thesis originator.

You guys hop in, throw a huge pile of completely non-related subjects in, and disappear.
THE best sign for simplistic posters is their love for ultra short posts, use those in your Twitter, Facebook, WhatsUp and WhatsIt accounts, here we expect deeper lines of thoughts.

Or just click my 5 Signature links below, its also in there, multiple times ------->

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in