The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

Neutronflux, regarding 9/11 seismic evidence :
After having to overcome a serious health problem, during which I was absent from this board, I happened to read at last, with raised eyebrows your quoted text in this reaction by MALBOSIA on a post of yours in this thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA :
Didn't LaBTop explain all this to you vividly in another thread and you conceeded that his evidence was too long and complicated and it was unfair to expect you to understand it? That was you right?

neutronflux : You mean the individual stop posting after calling their bluff and never providing a rebuttal to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You totally ignored, as usual, all my former posts on that page 7, like these :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then your "Let's review" post followed. Honestly said, it then seemed to me to better ignore you, since you seem obsessed with defending the OS, without having the right credentials to defend it. You make too many "mistakes", to be taken seriously, yet.

A reply to: wmd_2008

This is what I wrote under that technical animation (as you damn well knew).

The pictures at the end, of the diagonally cut steel columns were not from the crucial floors, and can as easily have been cut by crews after the collapses. Therefore it's not defendable, we do not have time stamped pictures of such steel cuts, where for sure no acetylene cutter crews were present on the WTC steel debris heaps.

Note my now bolded text.
So why do you come up with all these redundant pictures?

I'll however now give it one more try, after reading this snippet by neutronflux :

neutronflux : You mean the individual stop posting after calling their bluff and never providing a rebuttal to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just curious if you learned something in the years of your overwhelming Trumpesque presence on this board's 9/11 forum.
You also like to hold, just like him, to not defendable remarks, over months long periods, and then, when solidly corrected, you either let it drop totally, or you go on an endless "rebuttal" tour again, with the usual, endlessly repeated lies.
Lies, because you must know far too well by then, that the truth has been shown to you. Repeatedly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

neutronflux : a reply to: LaBTop
Let’s review.
The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.
Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

And? Your point? This is so well known, so why it's remarked by you, without following conclusion to make your point.?

MY point however is, the huge horizontal-bell shape form of the first Rayleigh surface waves on the WTC collapse seismograms is indicative of a brief, very impulsive source of energy, and thus NOT the following, to be expected, multiple seconds long raining down and impacts of building debris on the thus increasingly forming and rising debris heaps, on the ground under the collapsing buildings.
Such an event would form the well known splattering of amplitudes, spread over a seconds long portion of a seismogram, like the earthquake one below.
Note the comparison between the explosive seismogram with its clear horizontal bell shaped form, and the 4 similar ones on the next, WTC seismogram :

files.abovetopsecret.com...



Note the four horizontal-bell shape forms of the two plane impacts and the two collapses in this below seismic record, filtered at 0.6 to 5 Hz :

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Another one of your poorly researched remarks :

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

Clearly untrue.
First, it were not underground explosions that initiated the three collapses. The two Twin Tower explosions were damn high up, and one, at WTC7, a huge thermobaric one, was exploded around 28 m high inside the building and took all resistance away, and 2.35 secs of free fall acceleration followed promptly. Which can only occur after explosive removal of crucial building parts, in WTC7's case, the core columns.
Its outer columns will give way directly after, since they were not designed to uphold the full dead load from above them.
Secondly, if you would ever take the time to read a link I offer, for such pesky details, you would have found this in the Rousseau paper, (its link follows below) :

In fact, the recording for WTC1 (Fig. 2a) demonstrates the three types of wave characteristic of a brief explosive source confined in a compact, solid material: a P wave with a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical value for a very consolidated crystalline or sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan), an S wave with a speed of 3500 m/s, and a surface wave with a speed of 1800 m/s (a Rayleigh wave).
These values match those registered from an earthquake or seismic prospecting (see for example Kim et al. 2001).
On the other hand, the recording linked to WTC2 (Fig. 2b) does not show the P or S body waves observed for WTC1 but only the surface Rayleigh wave, for which the spreading of the amplitudes over the duration is different from that of WTC1. The propagation speed of 2125 m/s is also markedly different from that of WTC1. Further, this wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave four seconds later.

We find the same thing for WTC7 (Fig. 2c), where the calculation of the speed of the wave according to the determined origin time indicates a Rayleigh wave with a 2200 m/s speed. Note that the amplitudes are comparable to those of the waves emitted at the time of the crashing of the airplanes into the Towers. This wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave 6 or 7 seconds later.

In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the fall of debris. The total mass and the average mass of individual building fragments were relatively small and fell to the ground over a period of more than ten seconds (which is a very long time in geophysics). Also note that the duration of a seismic signal does not tell anything about the source, in distinction from the amplitude and, particularly, the frequency.

I have advised you multiple times, that it's time to read Dr. Andre Rousseau his seismic article, the seismic links are shattered all over the AE911truth site link, below. And I gave the direct link there too.
His peer-reviewed published article has not been challenged in the scientific literature, as AE911truth remarks at the article's bottom.

Finally, we refer you to a 2012 article by Andre Rousseau, an expert in applied geophysics and the author of more than 50 published papers on progressive mechanical waves and geology. Published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, his article is titled, "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?" We find Rousseau's article to be (LT : among) the most definitive analysis of the seismic evidence to date.

I inserted the word among, because they really should read my seismic work then too, when they can find the time to do so.

WTC-7 Mysteries Finally solved thread at the ATS 9/11 forum.
My above linked to work is about the WTC7 seismic collapse evidence, compared to the by NIST held photographic evidence; the by NIST (atomic clock) time stamped Cianca photo of the first denting of the east penthouse roof on top of WTC7, compared to the (also atomic clock stamped) arrival time of that event at LDEO's Palisades seismic station, minus the, for over 100 years well known detention time of 17 seconds for seismic signals in the 34 km long upper earth crust between Manhattan and LDEO's Palisades seismic station at Columbia University.
And then suddenly we are able to pinpoint on the WTC7 seismogram, the arrival of the first seismic signal coupled to that Cianca photo on LDEO's seismographs. And that is clearly shortly AFTER the arrival and spread of the by far biggest, explosion-sourced peak on that WTC7 collapse seismogram.

That peak indicates the huge explosion that caused both penthouses to topple into the roof of WTC7. Which explosion is probably thermobaric of nature, because of the deep low detonation signature, which we hear 2 seconds before Cianca took his photo, in that FOIA freed NIST video of the collapse of WTC7, held several years back on their shelf by NIST. None of the other sounds, coming from the direction of WTC7 in that video, even come near to that enormous deep low sound. See that video in my opening posts in my online work, linked to above.

Thus, especially the last part you wrote there, neutronflux, made me smile.
How on earth did you dare to come to this conclusion :

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?
You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.
There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

Ridiculed ? Debunked ? Abandoned ? ..... Evidence please. And A>S>A>P. Don't post lies if you can't stand up for them.

You seem to read and wrongly interprete the AE911truth site, quite different than me.
This is their seismic article :

AE911truth.org : FAQ #4: Do the seismic data from the events at the World Trade Center corroborate the eyewitness, video, and forensic evidence of controlled demolition?

And this their conclusion, so tell me, why you feel the need to lie about it ?

We concur with the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s conclusion and recommend reading its article, reprinted below, as the most efficient way to understand the significance of the seismic activity at the World Trade Center. For ardent students of the subject, we advise reading all the references provided below.

Thus, read that 9/11 Consensus Panel's Conclusion :

Dr. Andre Rousseau November 1, 2012
Abstract: The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. 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 witnesses and video observation confirm our conclusions of subaerial explosions close to the times of aircraft impacts on WTC1 and WTC2, a strong subterranean explosion closely correlated with the WTC1 collapse, and subaerial explosions closely correlated with the WTC2 and WTC7 collapses, WTC7 not having been hit by a plane. As a consequence, we draw the conclusion that the three buildings were demolished by a controlled process.

Read his full texts and drawings at The Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Page 2 /23 : 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.

See also :
www.consensus911.org...
www.consensus911.org...
Read both these above two links their conclusions too.

Neutronflux, regarding your incorrect remarks about "no P waves at the WTC" :
Page 7, Dr Andre Rousseau paper. Definitions for seismic waves, so the reader has some help in understanding the 2 types of body waves, and 2 types of surface waves :

Subterranean explosions are similar to earthquakes in that mechanical energy is transmitted to the earth in the form of body waves of two types, P and S (for "primary" and "secondary," or "pressure" and "shear"), and surface waves (either Rayleigh or transverse L) when the signal reaches a solid-fluid interface (for example, the atmosphere at the surface). Another name for Rayleigh waves is ground roll.
Aerial explosions release all of their energy in the air (as P waves, which in the atmosphere are simply sound waves), and what remains upon hitting the ground is thus too weak to create body waves in the solid earth (although there can be surface waves over a small distance).
Subaerial explosions give off energy that splits into sound waves, mainly in the air, and surface waves in the ground.

EXPLOSIONS THE SOURCE OF 9/11 SEISMIC WAVEFORMS

A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface waves could be generated. The seismic wave data provided by Palisades prove the occurrence of surface waves radiating outward from the World Trade Center. In addition,
witnesses reported hearing explosions very close to the times at which planes struck the Towers and when they collapsed (see particularly MacQueen, 2006). (LT : look him up in the References)

Given these two types of evidence we can affirm that subaerial explosions occurred close to the base of the Towers almost or quite simultaneously with the crashes into the Towers by the planes. The sound coming from these explosions would have been mixed with the sounds generated by the impacts of the planes. The explosion at the base of WTC1 was heard and reported by William Rodriquez (Spingola, 2005).

NOTE first, that it took every single seismic signal to arrive at Palisades, 17 secs later than their real originating events times, which were causing those seismic signals, happening in Manhattan, and relayed in and through the WTC area its rocky grounds.

On the below seismogram of the collapse of WTC1N, the explosive event that started the visual North Tower collapse, got first registered on the LDEO Palisades seismic station's seismogram at 10:28:36, and was thus happening in Manhattan 17 secs earlier, at the -11s position on that seismogram, and that's at 10:28:19 in Manhattan and also in Palisades, because the first, fastests P wave arrival (left side of red oval) at Palisades, was written on that seismogram, 17 secs later than its originating event happened in Manhattan at 10:28:36 ( the 6s position).

That explosive event produced 3 main seismic signals AT ONCE, which 3 signals then subsequently SPREAD OUT over the 34 km distance to the Palisades seismic station, due to their difference in propagation speeds in the upper earth its crust, as follows :

The explosive event at the North Tower produced AT ONCE, its fastests P waves, its somewhat slower S waves, and also the bulk of its signals, the Rayleigh waves; which 3 signals arrived 17 seconds later on the below shown seismogram.
By then however, quite distinguishedly separated from eachother by the difference in travelling speeds per seismic signal type, over the 34 km distance they had to pass, on their way to the seismic station at Palisades.

files.abovetopsecret.com...



files.abovetopsecret.com...




And there you have, at the 6s position, the first arrivals of these small P waves, then at 10s the somewhat higher S waves arrivals, and then at 18s the arrivals of those HUGE Rayleigh waves, on that 10 times more sensitive, at 10 nm/s re-calculated and re-written above by me, LDEO seismogram , instead of the upper, original LDEO seismogram of the WTC1N tower collapse, that was written at 100 nm/s , received at LDEO's Palisades seismic station, 34 km up north from Manhattan.
Thus it took for the first P, S and Rayleigh surface waves their amplitudes an average 17 seconds (+/- 1 - 2 secs said LDEO) to arrive at Pallisades.
At a well known average speed of 2 km/sec.

Individually, the speeds per wave were :
For the P waves a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical value for a very consolidated crystalline or sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan), for the S waves a speed of 3500 m/s, and for the bulk of the surface waves, a speed of 1800 m/s (the Rayleigh waves).
It comes down to an average speed of 2 km/second for all three waves their amplitudes combined.

Written with a +/- 1 to 2 seconds error margin, said LDEO, which is a really really HUGE error margin in geological circles, normally we get times at the atomic clock scales on such seismograms from regions, well known for more than 100 years to the seismologists in that region, who were recording such seismic events for that long already. So they had a plethora of seismograms to calculate the speed from, of waves through the regions its well known upper crust.

CONCLUSION : as proven above, there were indeed also P waves recorded for the WTC collapses.

Neutronflux, did you ever take a serious good look at your own posted videos, where you keep trying to tell us for more than a year by now, that core column spires kept standing a long time after the surrounding floors had collapsed?

That's incorrect.
Those spires were NOT core column parts, but a corner perimeter column with still Vierendeel parts attached, and these still erect parts then suddenly slid down in itself, they did not topple over, as you should expect from a natural collapse.

You OS Trusters are like ostriches, keeping their head in the mystification sands of US Institutions like FEMA, The 9/11 Commission and NIST, and OS Truster websites like JREF/ISF, Megabunk and all these other obscure websites, highly tolerated by Mainstream media and US Administrations.

You Trusters are all in for a very very rude awakening by the end of this year, or for the latest, the very beginning of 2019.

You really wanna know, what's gonna happen then ?
Then listen at last (because NONE of you OS Trusters did comment even one yota on this VERY important revelation about the progress of the Hulsley et al investigation), beginning at the 25:00 minutes into this audio link, to a RECENTLY aired interview by a FreeFall Radio reporter with Professor Hulsley from Fairbanks University, who has nearly concluded his extensive research into the real possible causes of the collapse of WTC7.
Which JesusHere posted already as his second post on top of page 48 from this thread, thank you very very much :

soundcloud.com...

Be prepared for a few really groundbreaking revelations about the really impossible NIST collapse animations, and their idiotic beam slip-off proposal at column 79 in WTC7, as their numbnuts explanation for WTC7's collapse initiation.
Expect it to be revealed around New Year 2019.
Prof. Hulsley et al will around this time offer their European peers their honest calculations in their SIX new papers.
Mathematical ones, fire based ones, construction based ones, and collapse initiation animations based on all the other papers, which undoubtedly will prove that NIST worked towards the by the US Administrations so badly wanted outcome.
That's why they opted for peer review of their now 6 academic papers about the real reasons why WTC7 fell, in well known neutral European scientific Journals, and following after the peer review process, publication of their papers, just after Christmas.
Because US peers can not be trusted to review their work, for obvious political and huge US Administrations grants endangering reasons regarding this touchy, FIRST really neutral 9/11 review subject.

I really hope Prof. Hulsley will not get suicided before he and his team can bring out their really closely fitting animation of WTC7's actual collapse videos, which is certainly not based on NIST's crazy proposals and hidden source code for their WTC7 collapse initiation animation.
I advice him to deposit as soon as possible, copies of his group's latest work and outcomes, NOW first at legal notaries in the European countries, in which Journals he's gonna publicize. That way he will protect himself and his co-workers for the nowadays well-known poisonous attacks all these murderous secret services are so fond of.

They also will nail down NIST's really crazy fixing of the WTC7 perimeter wall as a solid point in their calculations regarding steel expansion, which in their eyes, caused that hilariously-impossible girder/beam fall off at column 79.
I posted about that long ago already, about the well known Tyndall steel expansion experiment for high school teachers, where the to be heated steel bar is fixed solidly at one end, then heated and then fixed on the other end with a sharp sided screw, cooled down, and then that steel will snap when that sharp screw will cut through that steel bar, when the steel contracts.

Compared to the situation in WTC7, when parts of its horizontal steel beams were heated by simple office fires (and certainly not over their full lengths), that steel is going to expand at that side, in reality about 1.5 inch instead of the ludicrously over-estimated 5 to 6 inch on the column 79 side by NIST (since these guys at NIST fixed the perimeter side as a stiff point, (hehheh, cough cough, arghhhhh, numbnuts ) and that same heated but now cooling steel later contracted again, OF COURSE towards BOTH sides, and not as NIST comically constructed, only to the column 79 side.

It's such a damn numbnuts explanation, a 12 year old first grader at any high school could explain that to them, so, the only viable conclusion :

NIST scientists got forced by their totally crooked (since politically appointed), top brass, to bring that numbnuts idea up.
Only a really physics-stupid politician, with no education what so ever on the technical side of the academic spectrum, can come up with such a really childish con job.

NIST their many thorough scientists are not crazy, they must have been threatened and very afraid...physically, or career-wise.

And by the way, democracydemo gave the OS Trusters at page 36 already, the video/audio recording of the onset of the first collapse, the WTC2S one, where you unbiased viewers, will hear a damn good example of how a huge thermobaric bomb, going off, sounds, that high up (+/- 300 m) and deep inside the central core of that, on that moment, still intact building.
It's not the high pitched very short sound of a HE cutter charge going off that high up and that deep inside, such a HE cutter charge detonation wouldn't even get picked up at ground level, by those crappy 2001 camera microphones.

The sounds of conventional cutter charges is right out disappointing for laymens ears, its by far not that huge explosion sound at the onset of WTC2S its global collapse, which you clearly hear at 15:07 minutes into that Jim Huibregtse video, especially from that far up, where its full sound level will spread out like a cone, and thus the periphery of that sound waves cone did reach that camera microphone.
He did not record the onset of the second collapse, WTC1N, nor that from WTC7, we see only the aftermath of those two, so you can skip the rest.
When you just want to hear their onset explosions, I have provided enough other videos plus explosion sounds of those other two collapse onsets, earlier on in this thread :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

democracydemo : What is it with this "silent detonation/explosion" conundrum when

NIST FOIA 09-42: R14-UC -- Jim Huibregtse 1A-25 (WTC1 Burning/WTC2 Collapse/WTC 1 and 7 Plumes)

has audible evidence; minute marker 14:48 to 15:15

www.youtube.com...

youtu.be... Click this link to directly start at the 15:04 / 25:53 position, near to that 15:07 explosion sound, notice the thunderclap explosion that starts WTC2S its global collapse.

In my post with all these video links to explosions sounds, on page 2 of this thread : www.abovetopsecret.com... , these 3 tiny url links are defunct because they all 3 redirected to one video at google.video.com. Which is for some years now defunct.
Nowadays, you can go to www.google.com...
But a search there with solely those numbers turns up nothing :

The destination page for the TinyURL you visited appears to have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. It seems you are attempting to visit: video.google.com...

Does anybody know, how to convert into links, on the recent www.google.com... site. those 3 old video time-jump links out of one single video (or find back that video on YouTube), I then posted, which video came from the now long defunct video.google.com website. These three below :

== StevenM818 :
This Google Video captured the explosions: 27minutes, 45seconds in :

www.tinyurl.com...

Then at 29:07, Reporter Al Jones gives his eyewitness account, saying that it looked like WTC-7 was brought down by a demo crew. He then goes on to explain that it was brought down by an "explosion" :

www.tinyurl.com...

And then at 31:09, a witness who's interviewed, says he heard a loud noise that sounded like "a clap of thunder", & then WTC-7 started to fall :

www.tinyurl.com...

Steve Spak, that 9/11 photographer, has terminated his 9/11 account at You Tube. A pity. He had some authentic material there; he seemed to me to be a vehement defender of the OS. Also a pity, since the crucial parts from the OS is a pack of lies.
It's difficult for any US citizen, infected with a surplus of patriotism, to get over those feelings, and admit that some top brass US terrorists in powerful positions and god knows who more around them, were compliant to the deeds of a bunch of mass murderers of innocent US and global citizens. Deeds, intertwined with the events around and on 9/11/2001.

One more video of the WTC2S collapse :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: LaBTop

Neutronflux, did you ever take a serious good look at your own posted videos, where you keep trying to tell us for more than a year by now, that core column spires kept standing a long time after the surrounding floors had collapsed?

That's incorrect.
Those spires were NOT core column parts, but a corner perimeter column with still Vierendeel parts attached, and these still erect parts then suddenly slid down in itself, they did not topple over, as you should expect from a natural collapse.

Really?

www.skeptic.com...

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Still waiting on you provide video and audio evidence of detonations from the WTC with the force to cut steel.

a reply to: LaBTop

Remember this?

You never answered to

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let’s review.

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

a reply to: LaBTop

And there is no proof of detonations at the WTC that had the power to cut columns. None.

Fireballs do not cut columns. Or the jet impacts would have had the same effect.

There is no fireballs being ejected on the north face of WTC 7? Was the same explosives used? Where is the seismic evidence WTC 7 was brought down by demolitions?

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A thermobaric weapon is a type of explosive that uses oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion, and in practice the blast wave typically produced by such a weapon is of a significantly longer duration than that produced by a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel-air bomb is one of the best-known types of thermobaric weapons.

You

And when thermobaric explosives, the disc shaped versions, were used, as I highly suspect they did, you and the video camera microphones would only hear a thunderclap sound if you were near enough

One didn’t you start this thread it had to be underground explosions?

Two, the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve the witnessed collapse rates of WTC 7.

9/11: WTC 7 Collapse (NIST FOIA, CBS video)
m.youtube.com...

Three, there is no audio of “thunderclaps” cutting te resistance floor by floor.

Four, still no high speed pressure waves leaving the building floor by floor.

Five, no flashing of detonations setting off.

Six, no evidence of steel columns worked on by explosives.

You are full of BS

Note : NN or nn or Nn or nN can from now on be used by all ATS members to insert any kind word(s), or even brute word(s) like the above. Because then, no ATS member can feel offended anymore.
Poster and reader can have different interpretations, both are happy.
Used over this whole website in its forums, it will make the work of moderators a whole lot easier.
Since there will be no violations of the heap of ATS regulations anymore.

Use and fill in the term NN at will, some will use f.ex. those friendly words used by neutronflux in his last sentence up there.
Or, far better, think as you read "NN", of terms like : "my Dear", or "Honey", or "my Love", "my Friend", and so on.
I personally opt here in this forum, for the NN term "Dearest member".

LT : And when thermobaric explosives, the disc shaped versions, were used, as I highly suspect they did, you and the video camera microphones would only hear a thunderclap sound if you were near enough -snip-

NN quotes me, but snipped off all the following descriptive words and sentences, so I advice the reader to reread my full text here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

neutronflux : One, didn’t you start this thread it had to be underground explosions?
No, NN. If you reread my whole opening posts its first page here, you will not find anything about that, written by me.
Obviously this is again one of your unsubstantiated, clearly Trumpesque remarks, thrown at will at various members here, in about everyone of your overwhelming obsessive amounts of posts.
So, where's your evidence for such a mis-quote? A.S.A.P. please.!

neutronflux : Two, the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve the witnessed collapse rates of WTC 7.
No, NN. From which nn OS-Truster forum did you ever get such a nn idea from? So, where's your evidence.
A.S.A.P. please.!
Perhaps you heard Shyam Sunder say it, the director and lead investigator for the NIST Reports research?
Look it up, what exactly he said on their first questionary meeting with the press,... and David Chandler...Yep, he said that all underlying floor resistance had to be equal to zero, to achieve 2.3 seconds of FFacc, as proven by David and shown to Shunder and his assistants, right there at his own meeting.

neutronflux : Three, there is no audio of “thunderclaps” cutting the resistance floor by floor.
Well, NN, then you are clearly impervious for certain You Tube sound bits. And stop that obnoxious posting of "floor by floor". It's based on your own illusions. After the man made collapse initiation, the floors will then fail naturally. Like in every other well planned demolition job.

neutronflux : Four, still no high speed pressure waves leaving the building floor by floor.
No, NN, they certainly were seen, ask former NYPD Craig Bartmer, if he is still alive. At least listen to his interviews I posted in this thread too on page 53 or 54. Since everybody with a video camera was EXTRACTED from the perimeters of WTC7, there are no You Tube videos with them waves, in it.
And stop that obnoxious posting of "floor by floor". It's based solely on your own illusions

neutronflux : Five, no flashing of detonations setting off.
No, NN. Of course not, since there were no cameras present that near to WTC7 to film them flashes in the lower floors, which then were bursting out "as an umbrella of crap", after those flashes, as Craig Bartmer told us. And there are enough eyewitness accounts from the Twin Towers regions, about visuals of flashes that traveled around those two buildings their outer walls. Reminds me of the two officials, who both didn't know for sure if the other had also seen them traveling around one floor, a bit higher up in a Twin Tower.
And even one from a woman, an ambulance health worker, she saw a ring of flashes go round inside the first floor hallway in WTC5, when she tried to seek cover there for debris raining down from the towers, and since a few serious looking guys were shielding its entrance, she decided it was safer to walk on, back to her ambulance, parked on Vesey street.

neutronflux : Six, no evidence of steel columns worked on by explosives.
No, NN. Since all evidential CRUCIAL vertical and horizontal steel from the plane impacted and burning floors, disappeared to melting furnaces in China, India and South Korea, 60,000 tons of the 200,000 total tons. The rest, 140,000 tons, stayed in the USA, and that's where those crucial vertical core columns from impacted and burning floors turned up, for sure as the first ones, to be melted into other steel things. Only 3 crucial core columns were preserved....
You could btw have easily concluded that from the last NIST-link (ws680.nist.gov...) its last sentences, in your own post HERE.

Are you really that nn, or are you just acting like that, to try to lure good posters here into a severe violation trap.?
Since I posted huge posts recently, a few days ago, on page 53 and 54, with all the links to how "they" let that crucial steel disappear, NN.
So how could you have missed that, being our local forum's speed reader and speed poster.

neutronflux : You are full of BS
Sure, NN. Watch your own back in the future. BS can stick there quite badly.
One erotic adventure in a cow and bulls infected meadow will easily do that job.

originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Look at me. I am LapTop. I going to post page after page of trash to avoid honest debate. Push everyone’s reasonable response and questions into the background.

My dear compulsive obsessive poster.
Take a good look in the mirror of your personality, that is effectively your own mind, for once in your life.
IT"S YOU, my dear, who's online behavior fits like a glove your own above description.

You are not going to lure me into a site-ban with your teasing.

It's effectively you and only you who demonstrable lives his life the last few years in this forum, day and night.
You have become a nuisance for every reader, because you wreck and overwhelm every single thread in this forum with your provable constantly repeated misinformation, up to straight out lies. Lies, because even when we, at multiple times, gave you hard evidence that you are wrong about a specific 9/11 subject, you keep posting the same, from then on, straight out lies. Since you know by then, the by evidence offered truth.
Don't you realize that completely? Nor partly? Seek help from friends.
There's no reasoning in your debates, it's one long repeat of one liners.

By the way, you increasingly throw really bad insults to all OS Doubters in this forum, without getting corrected.
I have filed a complaint 3 days ago, about your "You are full of BS" remark at page 54. It's still there....
I hope it's because of mod-job overloads...

Thus, I will be extra careful, and I advice all other OS Doubters, to avoid this obsessive poster.
There is some weird agenda at play.
Just ignore these type of OS defenders.
Post your info and questions, and hope that the really informed ones are coming soon online and react.

A reply to: neutronflux

You really could not have given better evidence in that post NN, that you don't even take the time to read other members their posts.
You just bluntly ignore everything I offered you in all the preceding posts on this page 56....including solid proof that you waffle on, without even understanding what proof is...when its offered to you on a silver plate.

A reply to: neutronflux

In fact so nn, it's hardly worth a reply.

Thus you don't even take the time, while I advised you to do so, to inspect your own posted videos, if those spires are a core part, or a perimeter part that you see standing there, after the floors were already further down.?

A reply to: neutronflux

It's getting crazier by the minute.
Of course there is no proof of detonations, because your beloved US Administration has facilitated that all that nn crucial evidence steel has disappeared, NN.

Second sentence too nn to spend more words on than these few.

What the nn are you now waffling about in your third sentence? Do you even understand where your beloved NIST said that the collapse initiation took place? Column 79, guess which floor(s) ?
And NN, do you then also not understand, that not one video exists of those lower floors at WTC7 around the time of WTC7's collapse at 17:21 p.m. on 9/11/2001 ?
Because the nns had taken care of that, far in advance, and cleared 3 blocks around WTC7 from any cameras and reporters.
Those cameramen were all herded at least 3 blocks north, NN.
And none was left to the South of WTC7...