The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

A reply to: tinymind

NO, certainly not the same way.
The crash site of flight 93 was at a soil-refilled open mining area with soft soil (they said.... ), while that C-130 crashed on a concrete or tarred highway.
Huge difference.

Three threads at ISF, last two of them are linked from one of that first thread's page its posts :

[1.] (Dec. 2012) TITLE : ""Rousseau's newly published study proves controlled demolitions"" (1 page, 34 posts) :
www.internationalskeptics.com...
Up to post #29 no real seismic contra arguments.
Then member "DGM" posted the summary of a Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross pro seismic research paper, and came up with another huge thread at ISF, titled :

1a. (Sept. 2006) TITLE : "Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?" (12 pages, 474 posts) :
www.internationalskeptics.com...
where we should read posts by 'quicknthedead' (who is Graig Furlong, btw).

R.Mackey points us then 6 years later, on Dec. 5, 2012, in his post #32 of the 2012 nr 1. thread to this :

It was, but make sure you go to the end of the thread (LT : 1a.). The confusion wasn't the simple one we thought (I thought, at least) that it was at first, and it took a long time for the correct answer to surface.

That correct answer is that the 9/11 Commission Report timing of aircraft impacts is not accurate to the second. Impacts in those reports -- and only those reports, not in the later NIST study, for instance -- appear to have been based on the time of last RADAR contact with the aircraft, or extrapolation from RADAR of aircraft reaching zero altitude.

Problem is that the RADAR still can give an echo from aircraft debris, and that the impacts didn't occur at zero altitude, but more like 700 to 1000 feet up. The anomaly is resolved as soon as you realize the 9/11 Commission Report is off by about ten seconds due to this mistake. All other sources of impact time, including the seismic records, are consistent.

This is that diagram that R. Mackey interpreted earlier so complete wrong :
photobucket.com...


Now, R.Mackey, who clearly can't apply basic simple seismic logic, posted earlier, on April 8 2008, this beauty of seismic dis-info in this other thread there at ISF, titled " Seismology" (of which he clearly does not understand even the basics from), it is his dis-info post #23 :
www.internationalskeptics.com...

R. Mackey : For anyone who wants to play along:
Here's the graph: Click Me (LT : defunct link to Popular Mechanics, it's the same as the above diagram I just posted, however) .

Look at the top two traces.
See if you can figure out why the correct impact times are 8:46:43 in the top trace, rather than 8:46:26; and 9:03:10 rather than 9:02:54 in the second trace. Feel free to ask for help if you need it, from anyone you like.

Then 'quicknthedead' (who is Craig T. Furlong) answers R. Mackey on May 4, 2008, at that other, nr 1a. thread its last page 12. With his post #444.
RE-READ IT, you JREF and ISF members.
SINCE he is completely and utterly RIGHT.

The correct impact times are INDEED THE CIRCLED ones : -- 8:46:26 and 9:02:54 --.
And not the 17 secs later times of the very first Rayleigh (surface) impact signals their arrivals at LDEO's Palisades seismic station. As R. Mackey interpreted totally wrong.
Fill in your pick from the list of their own preferred OS-doubters member descriptions over there at ISF that I posted above, to describe the unbelievable lack of logic exposed in that post, and by his followers, going on and on for many years already, up to now it seems.

He and his -fill in your descriptive pick- docile followers at Int. Skeptics Forum (and their just as docile, blindly following posters here at ATS) can't grasp at all, that the 8:46:26 A.M. time is in fact the original time of first plane impact registered in Manhattan,(or explosion says the Dr), of which event their resulting Rayleigh (surface)seismic waves travel then 17 seconds (over 34 km at 2 km/s) through the N.Y. State's upper crust to arrive 17 secs LATER IN TIME at LDEO's seismic Palisades station at their REGISTERED recording time of those surface traveling waves, 34 km further, at that 17 secs later moment then and there, of 8:46:43 A.M. These waves are not instantly registered at the same time as they originated in Manhattan, these waves need time to travel to Palisades station.
So all their seismologists have to do is then subtract 17 seconds from their at Palisades recorded seismic surface waves arrival time (those first, much bigger amplitudes in that seismogram), to deduct conveniently the original plane impact event time in Manhattan.
Or, explosive event, as supposed by Dr. Rousseau.

PS : could anyone also posting at Int. Skeptics Forum, bring this subject to their attention, please ?

I do understand at last why all these geniuses at JREF, now renamed Int. Skeptics Forum, and their docile champions over here at ATS, can't ever, for gods sake, even grasp the basics of seismology. They all lack logic skills.
AND that's WHY they all don't understand at all my first diagram in my "WTC7 MYSTERIES solved" diagram. They are totally confused by their idols over there, who can't grasp even simple logic when studying seismograms.

This is MY o.p. diagram, in my ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"" thread.
GET IT AT LAST, that you stare at THE MAIN false flag EVIDENCE for 9/11 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A. I was responding to a poster who believes the lies that removing the asbestos was going to be so expensive that demolition was a better deal.

B. Herbert Levine, the gentleman who developed the spray on asbestos fireproofing that was used up until the 70s, was on record as stating that the fireproofing they switched to while building the Towers, was not up to standard and that a large fire.. and just the fire...above the 60th floor would likely cause the building to collapse.

C. After 17 years of looking at the actual evidence and facts in play, there is only one conclusion that fits. Osama and his merry band of murderers attacked us that day.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: tinymind

NO, certainly not the same way.
The crash site of flight 93 was at a soil-refilled open mining area with soft soil (they said.... ), while that C-130 crashed on a concrete or tarred highway.
Huge difference.

Yes, I understand your position. Its very much like saying " hitting water from a great height or at high speed is like hitting concrete".
Some would say, flight 93 hit the ground so hard, you can find the same hole where it hit on google earth from 1994.

Dr. Rousseau's reasoning is in his chapter ""TIMING DISCREPANCIES"" on his pages 5 and 6. (see the times diagram there)
He gives in there the radar times as given in the 9/11 Commission report. But relies mostly on the revised LDEO timetable (LDEO [2]) . Which gave the real WTC1 seismic event time based on seismic arguments instead of radar times. The NIST time for the WTC1 plane impact (or explosion says the Dr) however, comes close to that LDEO [2] revised time.
Thus, he concludes that the 9/11 Commission impact time was at least 10 to 14 seconds OFF. While they were basing their times on ground radar recorded times. Which normally have a 1 sec fault time maximum.
R. Mackey reasons to doubt the 9/11 Commission figures I have to look into further, when time allows me.


2. (June 2010) TITLE : ""WTC Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC, according to geophysicist"" (1page, 36 posts) :
www.internationalskeptics.com...
Many posters who seem to rely on words like morons, moronic, idiots, stupid, delusional and so on. Quite the civic bunch there.
Not one iota of real argumentation against the Dr. Rousseau paper.
The Dr. argues f.ex. at the top of his paper its page 6 that the atomic clocked ground radar data from tracking the impacting planes, prove that the also atomic clocked seismic data show a hiatus of about 15 seconds between an earlier underground explosion, expressed by a HUGE spike on the seismograms, BEFORE those two planes impacted 15 secs later, high up in the two towers.

And he argues this :
The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and
the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the
waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body
waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves. The placement of the source of the four
other explosions is sub-aerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves.

Post #7 in there links to this third ISF thread :

3. (Sept. 2009) TITLE : ""Scientific Publications"" (1 page, 13 posts) :
www.internationalskeptics.com...
You have to go to some university library to ask for these publications, and then read them.
Nothing obviously seismic related there.

Or this one study perhaps gets into it, it's not that sure from its title alone, since why did they use the phrase collapSED then, instead of collapSING ? :
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center", The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

A reply to: tinymind

Some would say, flight 93 hit the ground so hard, you can find the same hole where it hit on google earth from 1994.

Sadly enough for those few, it's again a NO.
I have posted quite a few photos from the Flight 93 crash site in its early years, and the scars you see there, are at different places and of different proportions. Use ATS Search if you want to check it. (search terms LaBTop 93 scar )

A reply to: cardinalfan0596

B. Herbert Levine, the gentleman who developed the spray on asbestos fireproofing that was used up until the 70s, was on record as stating that the fireproofing they switched to while building the Towers, was not up to standard and that a large fire.. and just the fire...above the 60th floor would likely cause the building to collapse.

And it doesn't strike you as peculiar, that precisely the guy who sold us that cancerous asbestos spray-on, felt the need to smear his newly arrived competitor's material...? He was going bankrupt now that his asbestos was declared dangerous. What else do you expect him to do?
And which credentials had Levine, to launch such a prophetic idea.? Had he studied his competitors material that well, that he conclusively came up with such a prophetic claim.?
And you really do think that Kevin Ryan's former employer (forgot the name of that institute) would not have been tasked with intensive testing of this new insulation spray-on...? Before applying it in such a world famous object...?

Come on, use some logic. The Cardington and Newcastle fire tests showed no deformation of a three stories steel building they erected just for testing these kind of implementations, under much longer and much intenser fire loads then at the WTC towers. Even without any insulation it did not collapse...and they loaded it with extra weights to be able to compare it honestly to the 9/11 fires.

a reply to: LaBTop

Holy cow?

Just answer two simple questions.

What type of waves are present in the WTC seismic data that are indicative of demolitions charges setting off? Compared to historic seismic data collected by LDEO of known explosions?

Two, there is no decisive video/audio evidence from the WTC of explosions you claim were picked up 21 miles away by a seismic station across a river?

You cannot point to one window broken out out in Manhattan from claimed explosions picked up by seismic readings 21 miles away? Not any evidence of ejected shrapnel? Not one set of ear drums ruptured? Cases of damaged hearing?

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion
www.canberratimes.com.au...

Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

What secret preparation did the WTC undergo to keep bystanders from being killed by your mythical detentions at the WTC?

a reply to: LaBTop

Sigh.....I am going to regret doing this...

Peculiar that you inject falsehoods. He was, by no means going bankrupt because of the hysteria around asbestos. It is also peculiar that you attack the man rather than the facts. Then you mention UL. Who did not test the flawed fireproofing system...and by flawed, I mean the fact that a large quantity of fireproofing in the Towers, had crumbled away from the steel it was supposed to protect....steel that was considered to be at risk for failure if subjected to fire for three hours with no fireproofing. (We will skip over the huge holes in both buildings that added extreme stress into the equation)

And, I will point out that your post is flinging crap at a wall and hoping that something in it will stick.

a reply to: LaBTop

There is no seismic data of explosives from detonations cutting steel columns at the WTC. Why do you think AE911TRUTH, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones was forced change from conventional CD to mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Forced to write fraudulent thermite papers? Because of seismic data?

Why do you think it was easy for Dr Wood to show there is no seismic evidence indicative of CD at the WTC to make room for her fantasy Dustification?

Your seismic theories for the WTC are debunked, were abandoned by those pushing CD at the WTC long ago, and holds many holes. Sorry.

originally posted by: LaBTop
""and claiming only one did"". HuH?

Yup

Two steel framed construction collapses there

No, you intently left out a few pesky details. Or, you're just a sloppy researcher.
Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet. When the partial collapse reached the floor where it WAS attached everywhere, the collapse sequence immediately got halted by the still intact, unbend or weakened steel.

And Lo and Behold, the breaking away steel columns and beams from that upper part collapse of that Windsor Tower fire did not get catapulted away, over hundred meters away from its sides, like at the WTC towers collapses, NO, they just fell as is usual behavior in a natural collapse, close to its sides facades, down on the pavement.

And that's what should have happened at the Twin Towers too, if they really would have been natural, gravitational collapses. See Charles M. Beck's mathematical and engineering laws included calculations.
Use ATS Search, fill in : LaBTop Beck
Lots of my posts will be returned on the Beck subject.

a reply to: LaBTop

No, you intently left out a few pesky details. Or, you're just a sloppy researcher.
Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet.

.

How does insulation physically stop failed and collapsed steel from falling?

The 17th mechanical floor part of a traditional concrete core that was absent in the WTC is what prevented total collapse. Is that a false statement.

These false flag deniers keep acting as if they never ever even take the time to look at all my posts.

I posted these two diagrams for all those 9/11 false flag deniers, so they could see the huge difference between a normal earthquake diagram, which is btw nearly the same as for a NATURAL GRAVITATIONAL collapse of a damaged building, and between three huge explosions during three building collapses, like we witnessed on 9/11.
This first one shows the two first collapse initiation explosion spikes. WTC-7 showed several. :





The atomic explosion diagram is CLEARLY characterized by a really huge spike at the onset.
Can you even try to acknowledge those two HUGE spikes in the above 911 diagram ???
It's the only honestly showing amplitudes diagram for all 4 first events, ever given by LDEO.

The rest of their online time, LDEO used 2 seismograms that were not readily compatible to the other 2, and that led to put the impression in many, not so saffy in seismology, readers their minds, that the first two impact diagrams were reasonably compatible in energy to the last two, collapse diagrams. Which they BY FAR, were not.

You had to change the two tower collapse diagrams their 100 nm/s scales back to the two plane impacts diagrams their 10 nm/s scales, (the WTC-7 collapse too btw), to be able to see at last, how HUGE those starting amplitude spikes were in the 2 Twins collapse diagrams, compared to the 2 plane impacts and WTC 7 their amplitudes in their collapse diagrams.
Which huge spikes are a SURE sign of the use of explosive charges.

While an earthquake-alike natural gravitational building collapse shows the sequence of naturally occurring events during such a natural gravity-aided collapse. Compare it to the Indian earthquake diagram above.

Namely, first you see a slow and low build up of amplitudes :
The buckling and then breakage of essential columns and beams (in the case of the Twin Towers, high up instead of a bottom up demolition, to imprint a natural collapse), which then start to impact still massive, intact parts of the building (which is always a chaotic event ! ). This event is not so undisturbed sent down to the soil, since those waves get dampened by the whole still intact steel and concrete structures below the collapse fronts.

Then you see a slow increase of the build-up of the next amplitudes, because of the additional weights of steel that's participating in the collapse development. Up to the moment that the first steel and concrete parts start to impact the surrounding soil.
That's when extra energy pulses show up and enlarge the amplitudes at that spot in the diagram.
And then the build off of all those amplitudes up until all debris has come to rest on the soil.

The two Twins collapses should have shown the Indian earthquake characteristics, were they gravitational collapses.
But you can't erase those two HUGE spikes at the beginning, indicative of human hands aiding in the ONSET of the collapses. And that's all that was needed after those plane impacts.

After that, the normal gravitational collapse indications show up again. So we may assume that no further explosions were needed in the 9/11 planners their calculations.
(Not for WTC-7, that was rapid improvising, and be sure that the damn thing would go down totally, so more smaller T.B. charges were placed and exploded during that morning and afternoon. Lots of proof of that)

They only had to be sure for the Twins, that one huge thermobaric device would obliterate at least 2 or 3 floors high up. That's all that was needed.
So forget your billions of dollars needed for prep work. It was a bargain level, false flag.
Just a few sophisticated steel cutter thermobarics. The discus cloud type.

And forget the crap about the welds between the floors and the Vierendeel facade triplets, breaking loose. TOTAL BULLOCKS.
Because you clearly see the walls on two sides of that corner where the orange fluid metal streamed out, caving IN. That can only happen when all the floors were still firmly attached to those two corner facade parts, and pulled them inwards, when the center cores were blown up by a thermobaric device, and started to sink down, and pulled those floors downwards with them.
And those were the HUGE spikes, you see at both collapse onsets, in that one honest seismogram from LDEO posted above.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop
LT : No, you intently left out a few pesky details. Or, you're just a sloppy researcher.
Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet.

1. How does insulation physically stop failed and collapsed steel from falling?

2. The 17th mechanical floor part of a traditional concrete core that was absent in the WTC is what prevented total collapse. Is that a false statement.

1. By taking care that the steel IT INSULATES does not heat up to its buckling temperatures threshold boundaries, and thus is as cool and strong as needed. It was nice free publicity for well insulated steel.

2. Yep. Two times.
It was only the OUTER FACADE steel that collapsed, not that inner concrete elevator core structure, that one still stood the next morning.

And the Twins had three enormously reinforced concrete maintenance double floors, which held f.ex. the heavy cooling units and lots of other heavy machinery. You can't show any distinctive delay in collapse speed that you should expect from three such stronger, double floors. They also had extra thick steel crossbeams in those floors.

a reply to: LaBTop

These false flag deniers keep acting as if they never ever even take the time to look at all my posts.

Because your posts are too long.
And they are based on YOUR speculation.

We are sliding in on 17 years and there hasn't been any "court worthy" evidence to change the basic OS.
Your 'seismic' evidence is evidence of nothing.
You are not an expert on analyzing seismic data.
If you were you would have published a paper by now and had it peer reviewed.

That is why I just page down through your posts.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

1. There is no seismic data of explosives from detonations cutting steel columns at the WTC. Why do you think AE911TRUTH, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones was forced change from conventional CD to mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Forced to write fraudulent thermite papers? Because of seismic data?

2.Why do you think it was easy for Dr Wood to show there is no seismic evidence indicative of CD at the WTC to make room for her fantasy Dustification?

3.Your seismic theories for the WTC are debunked, were abandoned by those pushing CD at the WTC long ago, and holds many holes. Sorry.

1. Just re-read my last post, and let it sink in DEEP.
Then read all my posts regarding the day long recording on 9/11 by the guy that filmed from a pier across the Hudson river. He recorded lots of loud and deep explosions.
And if you know a tad bit about sound propagation, you will realize that an explosion that high up, will not be heard by onlookers close by. But the sound wave "bell shape" will spread out gradually to the ground and the river (that rebounds it).

2. Could you provide me with her credentials regarding seismology ? No you can't.

3.Now you're really getting too cocky. And on my nerves.
I challenge you to show up, or shut up.
And don't come up with that quasi seismic science from ISF I just debunked. What a load of crap.
It's sadly pathetic. These kinds of logical errors I do expect from toddlers, not some one that says he works at NASA. I keep my bets on Elon Tusk's enterprise.

a reply to: LaBTop

The atomic explosion diagram is CLEARLY characterized by a really huge spike at the onset.
Can you even try to acknowledge those two HUGE spikes in the above 911 diagram ???
It's the only honestly showing amplitudes diagram for all 4 first events, ever given by LDEO.

But what type of wave is that spike? P waves? S waves? Surface waves? Love waves? Rayleigh waves?

Is it true the detonation of explosives historically create specific types of seismic waves? And LDEO has a seismic history of previous detentions. And is it false a building collapse without the aid of explosives will not create seismic waves associated with the detention of explosives?

Does your seismic evidence show waves associated with the detention of explosives. It has nothing to do with the amplitude of the wave’s spike if that wave is not solely associated with the detention of explosives.

If there was seismic evidence of conventional CD, why did AE, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones abandon conventional CD for fizzle no flash / thermite heat based cutting? Are they false flag deniers?

Dr Wood has repeatedly debunked seismic evidence of CD at the WTC? Is she a false flag denier?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop

These false flag deniers keep acting as if they never ever even take the time to look at all my posts.

Because your posts are too long.
And they are based on YOUR speculation.

We are sliding in on 17 years and there hasn't been any "court worthy" evidence to change the basic OS.
Your 'seismic' evidence is evidence of nothing.
You are not an expert on analyzing seismic data.
If you were you would have published a paper by now and had it peer reviewed.

That is why I just page down through your posts.

Hahaha. The evidence was too long to read so you went back to your picture-book.

classic

A reply to: samkent


You're starting to sound quite desperate Sam :

LC DOJ GRAND JURY PETITION
lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org...
Let's wait and see if there are still trustworthy Judges and/or a functional judicial union in New York.

As usual, we miss any substantial argumentation.

""You are not an expert on analyzing seismic data. ""
How do you know if I'm not gonna tell you?

Since I live a quiet life, and I want to keep it that way. You can't trick me out for my credentials. I've seen what some real lunatics can do with that to others.
Conservative, by design somewhat rusted characters, have a disturbing tendency for violence when they can't win a debate.

Sam, your posts always let me smile.
Since they are indicative that I am for sure on the winning side.
Desparate sounding, those posts of yours, you should realize by now...no body, no arguments, not convincing any more than before.