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.


Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 08:39 PM
Great posts guys

I still don't think its obvious

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 09:39 PM
here is some more info on mr Forbes :
As you can see, Victor Thorn from WingTV interviewed the man in 2004.

Why don't you email him at
"Scott Forbes"

I do not understand what you ask me regarding PE and seismic events.
Do you understand and reread what I have made clear in my :
ATS: The Complete 9/11 Timeline ( interactive ) thread,
and in my posts in this thread :
ATS: Popular Mechanics Is Correct? (Seismographs) ,
namely, that all 3 collapses were prerun by exactly the same seismic events, a few seconds before VISUAL events started, which you btw only can see if you convert the scales of all 3 seismic charts to 0-10 nm/sec., and that it can't be "natural" snapping of collumns under a too big load, since in that case, the seismic events for WTC 1 and 2 should have been recording a much greater magnitude on the seismic graphs, because the columns were much thicker and longer, thus acting as much longer "tuning forks" than snapping collumns in WTC 7.
Also, the "snapping" seismic event in the WTC 7 graph recorded as having a much greater magnitude as the actual, visual collapse seismic event following it on the chart.
But had the same magnitude as the equal events prerunning the visual collapses of WTC 1 and 2 both.
Now, that's weird, ain't it.

It strongly suggests 3 the same heavy demolition charges going off, initiating the collapses.

And the soundtracks you can hear in the links I provided, are pretty convincing. You have to look up a link on a german website, very slow connection, which has the whole soundtrack of my first soundlink online to download for free, I have it, 12.5 Mb, and it's clear as crystals, those are demolition charges going off, many of them.
Google for name of the file : 911eyewitness_wtc1.wmv

[edit on 24/11/05 by LaBTop]

[edit on 24/11/05 by LaBTop]

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:45 PM

You're seeing what has been kept from the world for four years....BECAUSE THE SOUND WAS TURNED OFF.




This comes from this site :

Just read a few of the very SHOCKED reactions of listeners to this soundtrack, one of them :

""O. M. G. !!! This is the most damning piece of evidence I have seen to date. It made me break right down and cry. I am crying now.""

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:28 PM
More information on Scott Forbes?

Did you even read the article you posted?

Not only did wing TV not interview Forbes but they quote the original email.

From original Forbes email:

I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts.

From WingTV "interview"

In the end, Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, “I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts.”

They add no information and merely summarise the email.

These are the kinds of tactics that destroys the credibility of most of the pro-demolition sites.

Here is another example of deliberate obsfucation. This is what I was talking about with your seismic evidence.

Here are the pictures you posted:

Seismic energy does not directly correlate to Kinetic Energy. That whole line of thought is misleading and inaccurate.

The Potential (and Kinetic) energy of WTC 1 was 4x10^11 joules of energy.

That is over 95 tons of TNT. Way more than the misleading 2.7 tons of TNT.

The more I see these kind of tactics the more I see pro demo theories look like fake moon landing theories.

Here is another excellent example. The "squibs" on WTC 7.

I'm sure we've all seen this picture.

While it might look like evidence of "squibs" all it really proves is that resizing images causes distortion.

Here is the source pictures for the above crop and resize job:

Notice that the original stills show nowhere near the amount of smoke shooting out the windows.

So not only is the only evidence for demolition criticism of the official story, but the proponents of said theory gladly make up evidence to fit their conclusions.

They refuse to hold their own theories to the same standard of evidence that they demand from the gravity driven collapse theory.

If they did there would be a serious effort to show how they wired up these busy and gigantic buildings with no one noticing. Labtop's theory requires explosives on every floor with extreme precision.

Until Forbes story is confirmed, there is no evidence that anyone had that kind of unhindered access to every floor. Even if Forbes story is confirmed it gives a window of 36 hours in one building. Seeing as how it takes days or months to set up a controlled demolition in the best of conditions, even the pro demolition crowd should be providing or demanding evidence of what would be the largest and most unorthodox demolition ever attempted.

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 06:25 AM

404 Not Found
The requested URL /files/video/911eyewitness_wtc1.wmv does not exist.

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:01 AM
I'm quite sure this will shock you in your shoes :

Since you attack mr Forbes and me, ad hominem, and give me the impression that you will have a true change of thoughts on the whole 9/11 subject if the statements of mr Forbes turned out to be right, here you go :

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Interview with Scott Forbes.

Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.

I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.


GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.

GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?

SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.


GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?

SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.

GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?

SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?

SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?

SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.

GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?

SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.

GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?

SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.

GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?

SF: No.


GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.


GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

SF: No

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why US authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.

Postscript: Scott did not wish to speak with me concerning reports of explosions above the impact zone in the tower, perhaps because of privacy concerns for the family members of those who died in the tower. Scott told me that he was recently interviewed for a Dutch TV Documentary. So stay tuned: 2 videos of Scott should be coming out soon. .

posted by George Washington at 7:37 AM

Spooked said...

Cool interview. Thanks.

I was never sure what to make of this guy's story. But he seems real enough, and assuming it's true, it's blockbuster information.
11:37 AM .....

PS: the soundlink I posted seems to have been hacked already, when I googled for it with the name of the file I mentioned before YESTERDAY, I got hundreds of hits at Google, this morning I only got EIGHT.
"They" are really afraid of this soundfile, and the rest, I've never seen google info so fast disappearing, some guys must be doing some serious overtime.
But you can order a DVD on that site,
And that DVD is already massively sent out all over the US and abroad, they can't stop the avalange anymore.

It's all coming back at them with increasing speed.

Furthermore, I think you really did not read with an open mind what I posted about seismic events, or did not understand it, or did not want to see the truth in its ugly eyes.
I do believe you are very scared to have to start to accept that your country is not the kind, you are fed your whole live, to believe in.

I can start a very long debate with you about physics, seismic events and the way it all influenced your perception of 9/11.

Do you really want to go such a distracting road now, after having read the above ?
It will cost you and me an awfull lot of our time, and I assure you that 98% of our readers will not understand one jota of it, since they are grown up with the "Popular Mechanics" attitude, that is, know as little as necessairy about a subject, but enough so you can fill a few "monday morning coffee pause minutes" with your "knowledge. The televized american way of life...

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:12 AM

and attach good audio equipment to your box, and turn up the volume, and the bass, you will FEEL the explosions in your tummy.

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:20 AM
I found an alternative link for the New Jersey video in which you can hear the explosions going off.

You must watch this video.

Right-click the link and save it to your computer. If after you've downloaded it, you can't open the file, try dragging it into an open window in your browser and it should work.

You're seeing what has been kept from the world for four years....BECAUSE THE SOUND WAS TURNED OFF.


posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:46 AM
but I advice you all to download the video/audio page to your harddisks, since there seems to be an affull determination going on, to eradicate this as soon as can be from the Net.
Just save the whole site-page to your desktop.
It is a Macromedia Flash Player 8 presentation.

Edit: The window in wecomeinpeace's link is bigger, and works also online.
Sorry for the confusion, wcip.

[edit on 25/11/05 by LaBTop]

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:02 AM
You see it fly to the left between sound-peak 4 and 5, about 4/5th in the video length.
That is that famous heli which catrolled a man down to the roof of the tower, who dumped a package on the roof, and then got hauled in again.
See the samples pages on for the heli sample.

The 9/11 eyewitness authors believe this to have been a detonation initiation package, with some kind of trigger in it, to explode the charges waiting to blow the top to smithereens, before it could topple over on prime estate, not intended to be demolished.

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:00 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Sorry for the confusion, wcip.

No worries. So long as this is seen, and HEARD. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Spread the word.

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 10:54 AM
Labtop, did not mean to attack you personally, sorry if it came out that way.

The interview was interesting, however it contains no pictures, no sound files, and is completely anonymous. Is that the standard we should accept for sources?

Should we believe everything posted on George Washington's Blog because it was put their by George Washington "patriot and leader."

For all the info on that blog, you could have just written that and we would never know. I'm sorry but an anonymous blog is not a good source. If the interview is real we shall see if the video ever comes out. It is much like the email provided earlier,

This guy supposedly works in IT but uses a hotmail account? A free account that anyone can create and call scottforbes2002.

But lets pretend for a second that Mr. Forbes is real. He still only accounts for one tower. How did the bombs get in the second one, if it required a 36 hour power down of the first.

Are you seriously trying to sell that each tower had 2.7 tons of tnt or less worth of energy?

Does that make sense to anyone?

The potential energy of the tower was "more than 4 × 1011 J = 110 000 kWh" in relation to the ground level, says FEMA. I think that "more" may only mean a little more, not much more.

However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

4x10^11 joules is roughly equivalent to 95 tons of tnt.

Please show me where seismic energy directly translates into kinetic energy of the entire building.

That is not how PE or KE is calculated. Those numbers of 2.7 or less are inaccurate and misleading.

Originally posted by Labtop:Furthermore, I think you really did not read with an open mind what I posted about seismic events, or did not understand it, or did not want to see the truth in its ugly eyes.
I do believe you are very scared to have to start to accept that your country is not the kind, you are fed your whole live, to believe in.

What was that you said about ad hominem attacks?

The truth is that you have posted information that is false. Seismic energy does not directly correlate to KE or PE.

Show me where that works. Show me someone other that the misleading site you got it from, who agrees that the PE for those buildings was so small.

I think you are the one having trouble understanding these concepts, or else you would see how ridiculous it is to say that one tower had 2.7 tons of TNT worth of energy.

You say that you don't want to lay down some proof because others wouldn't be interested?

Well I am.

Show me the direct correlation from seismic energy recorded to PE for the entire building. Either that or retract those images and admit that they are false and misleading.

Edit:BTW has it occured to you that the reason they keep taking down that sound bite has more to do with bandwidth than with a conspiracy? With the amount of people on this board we can easily kill a small websites bandwidth. It has happened before, no need for tinfoil hats.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:29 AM
The intensity of the sound in that video made me a little wary (my subwoofer was vibrating and dancing around the room). I started looking around for other videos and after some hard searching I found what I think is the original.

It appears the video is a NOT a fake, however the sound has been played with to enhance the volume of the pulses. Here is the original:

Watch that one and you will hear the same bursts, BUT, not as loud as they are in the first video I linked to earlier.

The distance from the WTC site to the camera is cited as 1.8 miles. That makes for an 8.5 second delay before the sound would reach the camera. The first, loud pulse occurs at the 28 second mark in the video, which means the event which created the pulse at the WTC site occurred at the 19.5 second mark. The collapse begins at the 36 second mark, 16.5 seconds after the first large pulse. These pulses are not associated with the collapse. If you turn up the volume, you can hear all of the pulses before the collapse and the ensuing constant signal of the collapse and debris striking the ground.

It seems that the pulses ARE genuine. My guess is that whoever did the post-production on the video did some EQ work to increase the intensity of the pulses to make them more obvious, however this does not mean that they are not there - the sound has been enhanced, not added. Whoever did the enhancement may have done it with good intentions, or may have done it as a deliberate disinformation tactic to undermine the credibility of the original.

I also found this video:

This video is taken from the same location, and appears to be the very same camera, but the footage is of the first collapse (WTC2). There are no large pulses audible before the collapse, however the sound of the collapse itself and the debris striking the ground can be heard, with the 8.5 second delay.

[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:10 PM
You got carried away because I did not react fast enough, and editted some vinegar in. Don't worry, I'm not your enemy.
In fact, there's a blizzard going on here, and I had multiple power outs, and my satellite dish is full of snow all the time. That's the reason.
Ever had 6 powerdowns, all your open links suddenly gone, the post text you were typing gone, and you can restart your box multiple times?

Here's what I was trying to post for more than an hour or 2 now :

LeftBehind, I must have been distracted by your avatar Location and mood (I'm smiling now)

You however hinted on something important, both tumbling WTC 1 and 2 "tops" were distinctively different in size, since the planes hit WTC 1 at the 94th-98th floors, and WTC 2 at the 77th-85th floors.
This makes the weight of the tops quite different.

It will not have any influence on the seismic anomalies I found in the 3 collapse seismic charts from LDEO, but it will hopefully help me to find the exact topling points for both WTC 1 and 2 in those charts, so thanks for the hint.

Now let's address your worry :

Are you seriously trying to sell that each tower had 2.7 tons of tnt or less worth of energy?

Of course not.
First, I am not telling that, it's the guys from that 9/11eyewitness site telling that. And what they meant to say, I suppose, is that the effective seismic energy of a colapse is comparable to an explosion of so much TNT in a quarry near Pallisades New York, where dr Kim from that LDEO report on the WTC collapses hinted at. He compared known explosions from that quarry to the seismic effects recorded on the WTC collapse charts.

Funny that you posted that Finnish link, since I had that one open already 3 days.
How it could have been done?
The Bombs in the WTC
The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the 9/11 Operation
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed

I will post it now quickly, before the waterhose I let run on my satellite dish is frozen, hehhe.
No need for excuses, since there are no hard feelings, you are a nice debater.

Trial 2, had to climb up again and de-ice the dish and hose. Not so heheh anymore, am getting a bit pissed on the weather. Enter?

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:27 PM
Good link and good catch there WCIP

Whether the first link was for disinfo or an attempt to back up the demo argument, we all need to look beyond our biases to find the truth.

I find similar discrepancies when I see the seismic records posted.

Here is what we usually see on the seismic record.

The data has been compressed to the point that it loses any worth that it had.

Here are are the originals.

First collapse:

Second collapse:

The anomolies in the the collapses only appear on the compressed data. So the spikes did not happen early on but progressed normally as seen in the unadultered data.

Here's what a geophysicist has to say about it.

"How can geologists catch a terrorist? With their instruments, explains Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona. There are about 16,000 seismometers installed around the world, many of which offer data on freely accessible Web sites. Seismometers detect motion in the Earth, which can be triggered by an earthquake, or possibly explosions.

By learning how to read these signals, Wallace hopes scientists might catch on to suspicious activity.

"We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions," says Wallace. "It will be like have a set of fingerprints."

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".

Labtop, it's all good it's pretty early here, was attempting sarcasm but it came out venomous. My mistake.

Thank you for clarifying that 2.7 tons of TNT problem. The logic presented earlier was very misleading.

Hope the snow clears up a little for ya labtop. Losing access has gotta suck when you cant go anywhere.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:20 PM
Oh, my!

You did not read and understand the seismic texts in my threads?
Because you obviously failed to also include the WTC 7 collapse chart. (which all of them from LDEO I posted in those links already months ago btw).

If you convert the 2 charts of WTC 1 and 2 to the same sensitivity of 0-10 nm/s, instead of the offered by LDEO sensitivity of 10-100 nm/s, you will see that suddenly these 2 charts have collapse-preceeding peaks exactly as high as in the WTC 7 chart. And all three of them are identical, meaning they used the same type and power of charges for the first hard blow to all three structures.

Do not get detoriated by the wicked way they presented those graphs, the 23 second point in that WTC 7 chart is the actual, REAL time event in New York when the roof of the penthouse dented, the first visual sign of collapse there. Then it took 17 seconds for the accompanying seismic signal to reach the LDEO station. (and they threw in another trick, their chart starting point is 7 seconds off ! They really tried everything to mud the picture)

And what do you see?
There is a huge set of magnitude-peaks in front of that 23 seconds signal, and it is even 1/3 bigger as the actual collapse signals after the 23 seconds point on that WTC 7 chart.

And those peaks are also suddenly showing up on those 2 other charts from WTC 1 and 2, preceeding the actual collapse signals.
All you have to do is blow up those 2 charts with a factor 10. (Then they are converted to the same 0-10 nm/s sensitivity as the chart from WTC 7)

Hope you now do get the picture.

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 12:11 PM
ok, let's see, resized x10 in the vertical:

first collapse


third (wtc #7) resized, so this time my link


collapse of wtc7 in the last pic starts (if i'm not mistaken) with the second series of spikes (follow the arrow), which can be seen by comparing signal proliferation times, like LabTop has already done

strange stuff outside the boundaries is distorted text, which i left in on purpose

personal comments: wtc7's precursor events appear to be even stronger than the other two, i'd really like to know what was in the basement, especially considering that bldg.7's remains were alledgedly on fire for ~3 months.

PS: d'uh if you tell me to i will use thumbnails, otherwise, i'll keep them fullsize

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

resized images

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 03:09 PM
So you only see the spikes when you enlarge the image?

Those tactics are the ones I have been talking about. If you only see something when you modify the image, then it really has no worth.

If I magnify it 1000 times it looks like the biggest earthquake ever reported. But that doesn't make it said earthquake.

I left out the wtc-7 picture, does that somehow invalidate the fact that there was no preceding seismic event for the first two? The source pictures show exactly what we expect from a large building collapsing. Geophysicists agree that the seismic record shows no evidence for bombs.

Now WTC-7 is different and I think that the seismic record proves the "official" story on WTC-7. That it was collapsing inside before it globally collapsed. That is why the penthouse on the roof collapses some 6 seconds before the rest of the building. Trusses failed near the base and caused the kink in the roof and the penthouse collapse. This was followed by the global collapse, and the whole sequence is in fact proved by the seismic record.

How does the demo theory account for the collapse of the penthouse?

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So you only see the spikes when you enlarge the image?

i dunno wether to laugh or cry..

i am NOT the one who changed the scale without explicitly mentioning it. i am not the one who deliberately set starting points in the middle of nowhere so that next to noone ever gets to know what they're actually seeing.

see these small brackets with the numbers 0..10 and 0..100 next to graphs, on the right? WTC1&2 were shown with 10 times less sensitivity, i blew them up to the scale of their WTC7 chart, that is all, that's why i said i left the distorted legent in there, so everyone can see that this is actually the real pic with a different vertical scale.

i think i'll cry, not laugh, since people are so quick to attack minor issues like seismic energy given in tons of TNT - just to avoid that fricken logarithmic scale - when it's not really unclear what they meant and after pages of requests for a blown up seismic chart, this time, reiterated many times, in very clear terms i think, i read that.

at the same time, any glaring inconsitency like core columns still standing - seconds (!) after the exterior is long gone, will be ignored. i wish i could say 'dunno what to make of it'
for completeness' sake, this was posted on the last page..showing the core columns intact, then they collapse, after all that weight is gone... by damage to the top? nooo, by damage to their feet, guess where the 767 struck?!

now, i'm suddenly one of 'these' people, who dare to *** alter the image to show what's in there more clearly. of course, having the audacity to clearly describe the ideas behind it cannot be counted in favour of the defendant either, it seems.

discard the graphs all you like, i hope it's clear to the rest of you.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How does the demo theory account for the collapse of the penthouse?

welding through the pillars (with thermo charges) will do that unless you switch gravity off.

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Long Lance]

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 04:36 PM
Wow, Longlance way to vent some steam there.

If you actually had read the thread you will see that I was questioning the amount of energy in tons of tnt. Or do you believe that the KE of WTC2 is 2.7 tons of tnt?

So do you have any proof of said "thermo charges" or are you just speculating. I thought that WTC 7 was brought down with regular demo charges. How would "thermo charges" operating quietly show up on the seismic record?

I was pointing out that the collapse is happening inside the building before it collapsed completely. While the building fell in less than 7 seconds, the actual collapse was taking place for longer than 7 seconds. That's why you see the penthouse collapse first.

And altering images will change how they look. When you alter data to fit your case you are being dishonest.

[edit on 26-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in