It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What a controlled demolition really looks like.

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
When they brought down the Canberra Hospital the implosion went wrong and debris was thrown into and all the way accross Lake Burley Griffin, killing a little girl.


Let me guess -- explosives were used?


Explosives are always used smartarse, my point was about them being used correctly. Explosives used correctly in a demolition do not eject debris. Therefore it is somehwat unwise to say "surely explosives would throw out debris" when you're trying to argue that September 11 was a controlled demolition.



The point of a CONTROLLED demolition is that all the debris lands in a neat little pile because the building implodes, it falls in on itself.


If that's why you want to control the collapse, then sure. If killing people isn't something you're very concerned about, but making the demos look natural is, then there you go. And you can control it to do that.

I hope you guys understand what blowing those towers up did.


First you've got to make us believe that they were blown up, hasn't happened yet.


For someone to be so confused as to not understand why the towers would not've been conventional demos, they've obviously missed the point and have some serious reflecting on current global events to catch up on. Or history.


Or they've got more important things to do, like pay the rent, buy the food and give to charity. I'm still waiting to hear how so much explosive was planted throughout the buildings without anyone noticing. Explosive that had to be linked in sequence, carefully, throughout the entire building and hidden so that no dumb sparky would find it by accident.


It's called a psych-op.


Actually, they're called Psy-Ops.


The military does them to achieve military goals.


And with a general histlory of utter failure one wonders why they are still in use.


Sometimes, they involve civilians. It happens.


Often.


It's certainly happened before, many times...And really, the casualties on 9/11 aren't anything compared to how many people die all over the world on a regular basis because of power abuses that are largely because of Western influences. It just doesn't happen to us spoiled Westerners that often, because


We ensure the rightfully angry people remain trapped in their third-world sinkholes while we rape them of natural resources.




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
you are also 100% correct that im not immune from denial, i dont think im in denial just because i dont think the way you do.
im always willing to admit im wrong, but for all our sakes i hope im right. the implications of you beign right are pretty nasty for all of us.


Well I wasn't really referring to you personally with the denial comments, I meant the firefighters you were talking about, and other professionals...

Just like with a lot of so called experts who are quoted as saying they believe the WTC towers were not bought down by explosives, how much research have they really done?
How deep have they looked into this? People are often happy to be supplied with their thinking by those they feel are more authoritative, often selectively.
Many people are so rooted in the patriotism and the self importance of themselves and their country that...
1. They will not even allow themselves to even consider their government is anything but what it tells us it is.
2. Actually relish in having some 'enemy', real or not, to bolster there own feeling of moral righteousness and power, and are willing to except any lie thrown at them as long as it gives their patriotic addiction a fix.

I hope you are right too!! But unfortunately hoping you're right could be blinding you to the truth.

[edit on 14/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I don't post here much, I am a reader. I have a question.
Why have I not seen any mention of the 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building?
I see the argument that nothing like this has happened
history1900s.about.com...
July 28, 1945

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.


Sound familiar?


One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car.


So I guess my question is why didn't the Empire State Building fall.
Or 'were the buildings built then built to higher standards.'
Sorry for the interuption. This was somthing bothering me.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by bsbray11
I hope you guys understand what blowing those towers up did.


First you've got to make us believe that they were blown up, hasn't happened yet.


Well be hypothetical about why they would have been blown up then and things will still make more sense in terms of what these parts of our posts were originally regarding.


I'm still waiting to hear how so much explosive was planted throughout the buildings without anyone noticing. Explosive that had to be linked in sequence, carefully, throughout the entire building and hidden so that no dumb sparky would find it by accident.


Well you're not going to hear that from me, man. Not being able to tell you this does not mean there wasn't a demo. It just means there's no way for us to tell how they were set up. Just consider for a moment the *impossible* idea that these buildings were demolished. We still wouldn't be able to tell you how it happened. How could you expect us to? It's not an important issue, and it's a disinfo tactic to demand complete answers before considering any of what we're saying.



It's called a psych-op.


Actually, they're called Psy-Ops.


Yeah, I've been fumbling some words lately from sleep deprivation. You'll probably see more of it. My bad.



The military does them to achieve military goals.


And with a general histlory of utter failure one wonders why they are still in use.


The Reichstag Fire worked for the Nazis, and they also staged a Polish attack to justify invading Poland. The Gulf of Tonkin got us into Vietnam despite it being a bunch of bullcrap by the virtue of propoganda. Blaming the Maine on Spain got us into war just fine the same way. I could go out into more controversial territory with the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor (foreknowledge) but those are enough of a precedent that deceptions do work at getting us into war. Can you think of any deceptions that have failed to get us into war? Then you have the Operation Northwoods documents..


We ensure the rightfully angry people remain trapped in their third-world sinkholes while we rape them of natural resources.


Beautiful, man.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Why have I not seen any mention of the 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building?


No one buys the connection. Smaller plane, different building, etc., end of discussion. Usually how it goes, anyway.

What someone needs to post, is a building that's suffered 60% column failure on any given floor from fire alone. We know those towers didn't fall from the plane impacts. It's blamed on the fire, but the real lack of precedent is fire causing that much damage to a steel skyscraper, or any skyscraper.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The fire precedent-


high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.


And yet the Empire State building still stands. Hmmmmm.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
www.mediumrecords.com...

An Engineering review of this paper.

Contributions

Myself, Bsc Mechanical Engineering, 10 years electrical engineering experience and 15 years off shore as a hydraulic mechanical Engineer.




Many witnesses to the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City describe at least one "explosion" at the time of the collapses. A few eye-witness accounts specifically describe 3 explosions at the initiation of the collapse, whilst others some describe a "crackling" sound. Many people describe hearing a "pop-pop-pop-pop..." or "bang-bang-bang..." as the towers came down1


This is misleading and already starting to formulate a conclusion. There is no evidence to back up the authors claims, nor is there any credible evidence to back up the claims. Pops, or bangs are not conclusive prove of explosions and again it is very misleading drawing the reader in one direction. The sounds that were heard could be anything and this is not fully explained nor is it even offered up.
To state a few eye-witnesses accounts specify that they heard 3 explosives, again is misleading and is not in keeping with scientific methods.
There is absolutely no statements to back up the authers claim that many people heard explosives, quite the reverse.The authers fails to provide any credible evidence to back this claim. It is our opinion this claim is invalid and is not in keeping with genuine reseach and engeering practice




The reality of there being some kind of explosive events coinciding with the demise of each building, as reported by eye witnesses is well documented. However, any word of explosions essentially disappeared from mass-media reports of the attacks very quickly and to this day are not part of the official narrative. Mainstream scientific attempts to describe the collapses as unforeseen catastrophic engineering failures do not bother to take into account the widespread reports of explosions.


This is a false claim based on reverse philology. It suggests wrongly that the reason the theory that explosives could have been used was overlooked.
Well documented reports of people hearing what sounded like explosives are not the same as explosives. This is a false comparison and totally invalid.
Attempting to discredit mainstream scientific methods is naive and wishful thinking.
Widespread reports of explosions are perfectly understandable and can and have been explained though scientific and engineering practices. They are in keeping with the events of the day. Sounds of explosions are not the same as explosions; again this is a misleading statement.




Though video clips of the collapses can be found all over the internet and on video releases, most people will not really hear evidence of explosions on the available footage. What most people would describe hearing from the available media is the "roar" of the buildings coming down. The main reason for this is probably because there is not much actual audio content available of the events. Most angles of the collapse are presented without any sound other than that of news anchors, reporters, interviewees, narrators, etc. speaking over-top. It is the preferred style of news-media to constantly have human voices "giving shape" to history as it unfolds. Creating meaning rather than reporting facts


This is using reverse psychology, directing the reader down a certain path. The fact that people did not really hear explosion is because they did not exist. The author is no longer using logic, but simply playing on people’s insecurities. This allows the belief that explosions were there but were simply overlooked. This is “corny” and simply misleading.

The author uses the term “probably”. This is not a valid word when putting forward an engineering thesis and invalids this entire section of the introduction

continued below.



[edit on 14-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
“Creating meaning” again is a non valid statement and is misleading. This is leading the reader down a certain path. It is used as a form of patronisation whereby the reader has no option but to accept what the author goes on to explain later.




Some examples of video footage which includes audio can be found and this audio does include evidence of explosions, though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal.


This is invalid and not within keeping with how audio and visual recorders work. Cameras, whether they be SIT ( Sicilian Intensive) Zoom , colour, CCTV,Low Light or LCD cameras work on the same principle they do not “overload” nor do they record different things. They record whatever they are pointing at. The same applies to audio recording devices.
Very loud noises do not over load camera circuits, this is incorrect and invalid.
Complete saturation of circuits is incorrect, circuits do not overload due too input signals, they overload due to Power. Input signals to any recording device are buffered and will not allow a circuit to be overloaded.
Saturation of input signals is not possible and is not in keeping with how these devices work




Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event.


Incorrect, these variables are not a factor at all. Two recording devices will record exactly the same event irrespective of their distance, settings, microphone type. The only difference being the level of the recording.




Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations.


“Juicy bits” are not an engineering term and is not recognised as such. The author offers up no presentations as to illustrate what he is writing about.
“Perhaps because” is not a valid argument and is not in keeping with engineering practices




Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture.


This is correct but again is misleading. The author is implying that the data was lost due to transfer.




From listening to audio with evidence of explosions, it seem that the intense "roar" associated with the towers coming down actually begins before any signs of typical explosions occur. This would raise many more questions about the nature of the building collapses and what actually caused them to come down. The initial "roar"/"rumble" might have masked the initial sounds of explosions in audio recordings and even to the ears of witnesses to varying degrees


Here the author uses the words “might have”. This is speculation and not proven fact. It is speculation
Here the author contradicts his earlier statement than many people heard explosions. Here he states that these explosions were masked by the collapse. Total
Contradiction.

again below.


[edit on 14-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
In this statement the author states clearly that the roar of the buildings collapsing was designed to mask the explosives. This is not in keeping with a controlled demolition. This statement by its very nature implies the collapse started before any explosive devices went of. This is outside what a controlled demolition does. Explosions start demolitions. The sound of a building collapsing, to mask the explosions is wild speculation and not in keeping with logic, common sense and scientific facts.




The power of suggestion can have a very strong influence on what we think we are hearing and on what we remember hearing. Interpreting what we hear through audio playback equipment (and even in reality) will rely heavily on what our eyes see at the time and how the audio has been contextualized, pre-interpreted, and packaged for us. A dramatic example of this is how we can be made to hear hidden messages in songs which are played backwards; we will generally just hear nonsense in a backwards passage until someone points out to us what they want us to listen for, at which point we will hear what we are supposed to, clear as day, even though it may a vague, chance similarity. With this in mind, it is important to approach the evidence of audio recordings with very careful listening and analysis to try and be clear about what is actually there.


The power of suggestion is used extensively in the introduction to this paper.
The author is using false comparisons, by comparing subliminal messages in songs to audio recording of the Towers
“With this in mind” is misleading and guiding the reader towards seeing what is not there. It is a play on insecurity, rather than scientific and engineering analysis of the event.




With all the available eyewitness testimonies and the fact that clear signs of explosions can be observed on the limited amount of available material, it should be apparent that some type of explosions did occur. Whether caused by bombs or not, these explosions would certainly seem to have something to do with the collapses of the towers


“Clear signs of explosions” were not heard and again this is misleading.
The author as already drawn his conclusions by stating the sounds of explosions had something to do with the cause of the collapse. He does not explore the possibility that the collapse caused the sound of explosions. Nor does he offer up any other explanation to these sounds.
This statement is invalid, misleading and not in keeping with engineering practices.





What follows is a basic analysis of some audio clips of the collapses, taken from video clips which are available on the internet and video release. Reasonable full-range speakers or full-range headphones should be preferred for listening as computer speakers tend to have quite a limited frequency range


I will continue my analyses of this author’ claims but at the moment it is looking pretty grim.
Stateofgrace.

Nice to be back.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
This is misleading and already starting to formulate a conclusion. There is no evidence to back up the authors claims, nor is there any credible evidence to back up the claims.


Well of course we can leave it to you to be totally unbiased, and of course we can leave it to you to be totally unbiased.



To state a few eye-witnesses accounts specify that they heard 3 explosives, again is misleading and is not in keeping with scientific methods.


This is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure no one was conducting a scientific experiment on the sounds coming from the towers as they fell.

Why do you think eyewitness testimony is allowed in court cases?


There is absolutely no statements to back up the authers claim that many people heard explosives, quite the reverse.The authers fails to provide any credible evidence to back this claim. It is our opinion this claim is invalid and is not in keeping with genuine reseach and engeering practice




Do you know what footnotes are?


[1]

The New York Times released the 9/11 "oral histories" in August of 2005. Within these first-hand accounts from FDNY fire-fighters and EMS personnel are many accounts of explosions during and prior to the collapse of the North and South Towers. Excerpts from 40 different eyewitness accounts accounts can be found here.

Another collection of excerpts can be found here: 911research.wtc7.net


Source (it even takes you to the footnote).


This is a false claim based on reverse philology.


Reverse philology? Philology is the study of language. I've never heard of "reverse philology," and neither has Google, apparently.


It suggests wrongly that the reason the theory that explosives could have been used was overlooked.


This is a sentence fragment.


Well documented reports of people hearing what sounded like explosives are not the same as explosives. This is a false comparison and totally invalid.


It's also wrong to assume that they weren't explosives. In fact, to hear someone say that they've just heard something that sounded like an explosive, and then conclude that that person therefore did not hear an explosive, is dense.


Attempting to discredit mainstream scientific methods is naive and wishful thinking.


Do you have any scientific evidence for this?


Widespread reports of explosions are perfectly understandable and can and have been explained though scientific and engineering practices. They are in keeping with the events of the day. Sounds of explosions are not the same as explosions; again this is a misleading statement.


Please provide some additional information on the studies you're referencing here.


This is using reverse psychology, directing the reader down a certain path. The fact that people did not really hear explosion is because they did not exist.


So you've already concluded that no explosives were in the building? And you're saying this without bias?

Can I see what evidence specifically led you to this conclusion?


The author is no longer using logic, but simply playing on people’s insecurities. This allows the belief that explosions were there but were simply overlooked. This is “corny” and simply misleading.


Is this supposed to be part of your scientific rebuttal?



The author uses the term “probably”. This is not a valid word when putting forward an engineering thesis and invalids this entire section of the introduction


Coming from someone who's already made up his mind, uses sentence fragments in pseudo-scientific rebuttals and makes detours to call things "corny," this must mean a lot.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
This is invalid and not within keeping with how audio and visual recorders work. Cameras, whether they be SIT ( Sicilian Intensive) Zoom , colour, CCTV,Low Light or LCD cameras work on the same principle they do not “overload” nor do they record different things. They record whatever they are pointing at. The same applies to audio recording devices.
Very loud noises do not over load camera circuits, this is incorrect and invalid.
Complete saturation of circuits is incorrect, circuits do not overload due too input signals, they overload due to Power. Input signals to any recording device are buffered and will not allow a circuit to be overloaded.
Saturation of input signals is not possible and is not in keeping with how these devices work


Since you're having trouble, let me help.

I'm sure these guys didn't literally mean the things you're interpreting here. They're not talking about electrically overloading a circuit. They're talking about what happens when you surround a cheap mic with a lot of loud noise and, when playing it back, can't hear anything but a vague, fuzzy static sound.

I'm sure we've all experienced something like this before. It's not something foreign that we need an expert of such a high degree as yourself telling us is impossible, because that is what the author of the page was talking about.


“Juicy bits” are not an engineering term and is not recognised as such.


You mean "juicy bits" is not an engineering term. You don't say "such and such are [plural] not an [singular] engineering term [singular]," especially in a pseudo-scientific paper that you're posting on an internet forum, man! What are you thinking!



The author offers up no presentations as to illustrate what he is writing about.
“Perhaps because” is not a valid argument and is not in keeping with engineering practices


God forbid someone use plain language in a paper where they're trying to explain something, and to not go off on tangents trying to prove every single thing suggested to the reader for hypothetical consideration.


This is correct but again is misleading. The author is implying that the data was lost due to transfer.


So data would not be lost? It's also misleading for you to suggest that this is the only way that the author is suggesting that certain data is not present in certain video clips. All that time you were rambling on sound not being able to overload electrical circuits, you were missing out on the main thing the author was pointing out because of your failure to accurately interpret his meaning.


Here the author uses the words “might have”. This is speculation and not proven fact.


That didn't stop Darwin from publishing The Origin of Species, or Einstein from publishing his work on theoretical general relativity.

You know why? Because there is room in science for theories. Not everything is yet concrete, black and white, right and wrong, believe it or not. Look at how many times the official story on the WTC collapses has changed.


Here he states that these explosions were masked by the collapse. Total
Contradiction.


Actually, he says that the initial explosions may have been masked on audio devices, and possibly even to the ears of witnesses. Who's being misleading now? You're quoting the page and telling us it says things that it does not.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

So I guess my question is why didn't the Empire State Building fall.
Or 'were the buildings built then built to higher standards.'
Sorry for the interuption. This was somthing bothering me.


As far as the fireproofing goes? The empire state building was built to totally different standards.

The structure was overbuilt and protected by masonry and concrete.

The WTC towers were not.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
In this statement the author states clearly that the roar of the buildings collapsing was designed to mask the explosives. This is not in keeping with a controlled demolition.


Here you make the unbelievably asinine assumption that any demolish engineers considering a WTC demolition would prefer distinct explosions over a masked roar that would help to deceive the public.


This statement by its very nature implies the collapse started before any explosive devices went of. This is outside what a controlled demolition does. Explosions start demolitions.


One word man: thermite. Thermite for the initiation.


The sound of a building collapsing, to mask the explosions is wild speculation and not in keeping with logic, common sense and scientific facts.


It is totally in keeping with logic and common sense unless you think the conspirators would have wanted you to freaking hear explosions. Do you even really understand what you're addressing? What are you thinking?


The power of suggestion is used extensively in the introduction to this paper. The author is using false comparisons, by comparing subliminal messages in songs to audio recording of the Towers
“With this in mind” is misleading and guiding the reader towards seeing what is not there. It is a play on insecurity, rather than scientific and engineering analysis of the event.


With this comment you completely divert an issue.

I've studied psychology, unfortunately for yourself, and what the author of this page says here is totally legitimate. You didn't really address what he said, though, so much as taking a detour to ad hominem the author, so I'm going to assume that you didn't take issue with what he said there anyway.



With all the available eyewitness testimonies and the fact that clear signs of explosions can be observed on the limited amount of available material, it should be apparent that some type of explosions did occur. Whether caused by bombs or not, these explosions would certainly seem to have something to do with the collapses of the towers



“Clear signs of explosions” were not heard and again this is misleading.


Really this is just a difference of opinion that you have with what exactly is a "clear sign" of an explosion. For you, in this case, it's obviously going to be much harder for you to accept a clear sign because you're already working under the conclusion that there were no explosions. So this comment of yours can be ignored.


The author as already drawn his conclusions by stating the sounds of explosions had something to do with the cause of the collapse.


Then you two would have something in common with prematurely drawing conclusions.


He does not explore the possibility that the collapse caused the sound of explosions.


Technically he wouldn't have to, even if this was a scientific paper. You certainly haven't explored the possibility of the sounds being caused by explosives, so I suggest you call it even.



What follows is a basic analysis of some audio clips of the collapses, taken from video clips which are available on the internet and video release. Reasonable full-range speakers or full-range headphones should be preferred for listening as computer speakers tend to have quite a limited frequency range


I will continue my analyses of this author’ claims but at the moment it is looking pretty grim.


It's going to be interesting to see what you manage to come up with beyond this point.


Nice to be back.


As long as you're having a good time.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I could quote you sentence for sentence again but won’t simply because it would make my post far too long and the point of what I was trying to put to you will simply get lost in all.

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors and my spelling mistakes. Anyway I promise you will continue to look at these guys’ claims. You know and I know I will not agree with them. It is my understanding that these claims have already been rejected by geologists. But I will look at the graphs and recording he has put forward.




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"


www.globalsecurity.org...




"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


www.popularmechanics.com...

Source.

www.911myths.com...

This paper is not peer reviewed. It is simply an opinion put forward. The introduction alone is misleading and full of speculation. He speculates the cameras were wrong, were overloaded, and used the wrong microphones. He continues to go down this road with references to hidden lyric in songs. This is in the introduction alone. These are simply opinions and they have been rejected by the majority of the scientific community if favour of the reports from NIST.

The harsh reality, whether you believe me or not is that the reports from NIST have been approved by the entire scientific community and are no longer seen as claims they are seen as fact. Their draft reports were subject to peer review and are now accepted. This is the reason papers of this nature and similar are simply invalid. They are not peer reviewed and are not accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

This investigation is over, with regards the Towers anyway. The final report is accepted and the other harsh reality is that papers like this will never get the investigation reopened. Because they not peer reviewed and have simply been rejected.

To offer up any claim that questions NIST, this claim has to be subject to the closet of scrutiny, be reviewed and accepted. This will never happen because they have already been looked at and rejected. If a report was put forward that held up under this type of minute examination, it would be splatted all over by the world’s media. This as not happened. And this is not because the world’s media are involved. Scientific journals will not publish or touch non peer reviewed reports. I will wager my next years salary they never will because no such report exists. (Please don’t direct me to Prof Jones “peer reviewed paper”, I have seen it and it is not peer reviewed).

There are hundreds, if not thousands of papers floating around the net making similar claims. The ones I have seen ranging from an atomic bomb being placed in the basement to the Devil himself being involved.

They have all been rejected, as is this one because ultimately they are flawed. Whether by a single flaw or a multitude of flaws is not the point, it is simply incidental.

If you truly wish my opinion on his claims I will offer one up when I have had time to review and take note of what he is claiming but as I have said this paper as already been rejected.

Edit Please read this.

www.geocities.com...

Of course you could also try to comment on this article.






[edit on 15-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
If the building power ran up the building in bus ducts, then shorting and arcing of those ducts would have been guaranteed at some point.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but this brings us back to those 'fuzzy physics' parts of the discussion on either side.
can we all agree that the speed of sound is constant under static conditions?

if we can agree can anyone tell me how a how a sound, once propegated, is then drowned out by follow-on sounds?


It doesn't really have anything to do with physics. It has to do with either psychology, in how you process the sound that's coming at you, or audio electronics in how those devices are recording the sounds.

If you look at that site, they point out things in the audio that you can't really hear, but are nonetheless there (the waves that are reduced to squares and become clear, steady blips -- you can also see these visually in the waves).


so which is it, it got really hot in there or it didnt?


I was referring to the fires. You're referring to the thermite. The thermite wouldn't have been set off by hydrocarbon fires; they're not hot enough. Two separate issues. Thermite can be initiated by igniting magnesium strips and putting them to the thermite mixture (traditional way I suppose), but I'm sure there are other ways to ignite it. Something equivalent to a detonator cap, I guess, except for a mixture of aluminum and rust, that just has to produce some heat.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors and my spelling mistakes.


The reason I threw those in is because you're being entirely too serious, especially about yourself. It's silly enough to be posting on an internet forum as if you're presenting a peer-reviewed work, but even sillier when you can't even use English properly as you try to come across so professionally and conclusively.





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"


www.globalsecurity.org...




"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


www.popularmechanics.com...

Source.

www.911myths.com...


These are simply opinions and they have been rejected by the majority of the scientific community if favour of the reports from NIST.


This doesn't at all surprise me, that most people would follow NIST, but what I'm really wondering is why. NIST doesn't offer any conclusive evidence of what it's saying in its reports. I've outlined what they say before, with the evidence they present.

The only evidence they provide is indirect, and not conclusive, and that is the photos of a handful of bent perimeter columns. One of the pics was even taken after WTC2 was leaning and perimeter columns would have obviously been bent by that point. This is really all they offer to support the truss failure theory, aside from all of the hypothetical and theoretical stuff that you yourself seem to be very opposed to, based on your critique of the audio page.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You know something, you are right. Since I started this thread I have been accused of being dense, thick, childish, juvenile, sarcastic, obtrusive, and rude.
I have been told I am not welcome in an intellectual debate.
Now I am accused of being too serious, pompous even.
You offered up a piece and I spent a little bit of my time, offering up a simple breakdown of the opening to it. I am not in a position to give peer review, I simply pointed out the flaws in this statement.
This is not my problem; this is not something I wish to concern myself with any longer. I simply wash my hands of it.
I apologies for being an arse and making a fool of myself.

The saddest part and most annoying is that you are actually rejecting the very real conspiracy; you are allowing the very real inside job to go unnoticed.
What? I agree, see there is a very real injustice in 9/11 and it is simply staring you in the face. It is now buried deep on your websites and obscured by bombs in the Towers, missiles fired at the Pentagon and bombs bringing down WTC7.
The real injustice is the massive failure prior to 9/11. The massive breakdown of the Intelligence services who were warned and warned but did nothing. They even had one of them in custody.
This is what you and you web sites are burying by making your claims. It simply lies there and is becoming part of the entire conspiracy culture.
I don’t know, I really don’t, and why you simply want to bury this in favour of the quite frankly ludicrous claims is beyond me. But Hey, I’m just a simple Jock who as tried continually to point this out to you.
If you and your fellow truth seekers would simply drop you unsubstantiated claims and concentrate in this area, you would actually be surprised at the support you would get. But why worry about support and public opinion after all it doesn’t seem to have bothered you before.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
actually, it has all to do with physics. the sounds of the actual blast SHOULD be the first sound we hear, but i personally dont.


Sure, if the first events were HE's or etc. instead of thermite.


and the problem i have with the sonograms is that first they say that audio equipment can be 'overloaded' and then use a computer program to process the sounds that come from the same recordings they say are overloaded.


Well I guess you have to either agree with one or the other then, don't you?


plus, whats the credibility of that particular software. using digitized audio through the filters they talk about can produce bout anything, my buddy last night used his sound card to see what he'd sound like as a girl.


There are tons of video clips online, that've been hosted for years. You should be able to reproduce what they've done.


no, im talking the overall temp exerted anywehre in the impact/fire damaged areas. many contend that NOTHING in there got over around 650 degrees yet thermite burns around 3000 degrees. wheres the evidence that ANYTHING got over 3000 degrees.


There isn't. I'm not saying that the fires ignited the thermite! Hydrocarbon fires don't get that hot man, but you can still set thermite off by igniting another substance onto it beforehand.

Go back and reread what I've been saying and you'll realize I've been saying this the whole time.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i could take any of the audio streams and make it sound like almost anything whether its accurate or not. you and i could each take the same sound clip, "filter" it anyway we wanted and we could both use the SAME sound clip to prove our individual points.


That's why I asked earlier if there was an audio engineer on the board or something. I'd like to be able to reproduce what this guy did myself, and know exactly what I'm doing, and that I'm not cheating myself. But just looking at the original waveform sonograms, I can see little box-looking waves overlapping one another in a consistent pattern. I assume this is what reduced to the blips with the square reduction, but I wouldn't know without actually trying some of this stuff out.

Another thing I'm wondering is if those things are natural to other recorded sounds. I wouldn't know this either, but could easily find out if I were to download an appropriate program I suppose, since it's just a matter of looking at the waveforms on that one.



There's a sonogram from audio of the WTC collapsing that that side offers. You see the rectangular shapes in there? They're each popping up at the same intervals the WTC floors collapsed, coincidentally. I wonder how natural those waves are, ie if they can be shown to be something besides explosives. They appear very steady and consistent, and match with a known demolition that's used as a comparison:



You can see the rectangular shapes are much more defined this known demolition of a smaller building.

Admittedly, they don't offer anything else, like bird calls, or people talking, or etc., for comparisons, but I somehow doubt you would see the same feature in those waves. This is all without any kind of filtering, according to the site's author (we would be able to check this anyway).

A research project, maybe?

[edit on 15-5-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join