911 Eyewitness - A Complete Sham

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Strangely, the collapse of WTC7 had a precursor event with a larger seismic footprint than the collapse itself. note that this only becomes obvious when vertically resizing all images to the same scale, which, by default differs by a factor of ten between wtc1/2 and #7 collapses.

So, seismic charts do exist, they're just misaligned for the most part due to selective omission of propagation delays and need resizing for clear view.


Can you explain (in layman's terms) what you mean by "vertically resizing all images to the same scale" and how that provides the conclusion regarding matching precursor seismic events?

Thanks.




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not contesting the point you're trying to make, but you've posted video clips of WTC2 collapsing whereas WTC1 is the collapse in reference here. But I don't doubt that you can find similar clips of WTC1.


Can't find many clips of the second tower collapsing at the mo, there is this one however, it even has the rumbling. However one notes that they are driving at the time and the rumbling (which sounds like wind noise) stops when they stop. Nor do they remark on it which one would expect if it was part of an explosion.
On a more technicial level, it sounds like the sound is attenuated by the AGC as the sound of the wind hitting the microphone is rather loud, you can tell this by listening to the background noise which is muffled while you hear the wind noise and becomes audible once they stop the vehicle and wind no longer becomes an issue.
This would of course not be consistant with it picking up a more distant sound like explosives going off in the tower, nor does the amount of time the sound is sustained appear to bear any resemblance to what one would expect from WMDs
or any other device.

video.google.com...

Just incase anyone thinks that's some sort of cover-up by the way, please feel free to pass on the following smoking guns to whoever's making the next DVD (with the relevant copyright owner's permission of course):

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

This one's quite good, in some shots the cameraman is filming an expanse of water with buildings across the way, then you hear rumbles like on Rick's DVD that sound like explosions but the buildings stay standing?

The title says something about windy weather but does anyone think it may be a cover-up?


video.google.com...

Anyway, I would be interested in anyone pointing out where the wind is in Rick's clips if the rumblings are not it, because when you are on the edge of an expanse of water like that you always get a breeze of varying strength depending on the temperature variation between the water and land.
Now as this was fairly early in the morning the variation would be substantial enough mid morning as the land will have heated up substantially but the water will not, therefore the air being displaced by convection over the land will have caused the cooler air over the water to rush in, causing a breeze that would actually be hitting the camera head on.
Studying for a pilots license doesn't only teach you quite how easy it would have been for the hijackers to navigate, fly and operate the necessary equipment, but you also get to learn about interesting things like meteorology, I highly recommend giving it a go. Especially anyone interested in this subject ( 9/11 ) there is obviously a lot that can be learnt which helps analysis.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Can you explain (in layman's terms) what you mean by "vertically resizing all images to the same scale" and how that provides the conclusion regarding matching precursor seismic events?

Thanks.


Yes, best thing i can do is re-post the pics..

The originals for wtc1 and 2 can be found here:

www.911myths.com...

just for comparison's sake, because what they don't tell you about these neat graphs is that the scale of these first two collapses is ten times less sensitive than chart for wtc#7's...


resizing solves that problem, of course, just to explain the jagged and cut-off nature of the charts i re-did. look at the legend to the right, it says 0...100 (see website above) while the wtc#7 chart says 0...10, ten times more sensitive!




building #7 collapse




The real kicker is (thanx for LabTop for finding out in what must have been a painstaking process) that the visible collapse starts at approx 26 seconds into the graph, ie. the first series of peaks happens ~ 6 seconds before the collapse...


WTC2 - first collapse




the collapse is seen as the big peaks which go off the scale, the precurser event happens some time before and 'ramps up' resulting in a slightly triangular figure

WTC1 - second collapse



in this case it's clearer, because there's some spacing between the events yoU'll notice TWO distinct activities (although the triangular shape is washed out here) followed by a slight pause before the real collapse starts.

It does not take much imagination to see that not only are all three of these precurser events basically showing the same characteristic, but they're are also roughly the same amplitude with WTC#7 (!!!) exhibiting the largest and 'earliest' of them all. why would that be? the smallest building starting loudest ??


You be the judge.

PS: i posted this months ago, i have no idea where the thread is i can't find it anymore, all images taken from this source, two images rescaled, all hosted by 'theimagehositng' now.

IF someone finds this is a problem (taking charts off site, and so on, even with acknowledgement), feel free to remove the pics, afaics, it's not against the T&C.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
While it's all very interesting, I don't see how it has any direct relevance to the video in question and how it is a complete sham?
Perhaps it would be best to stick to the topic at hand rather than whitewash over it, there are plenty of threads available for discussion of other elements of 9/11, including many on the explosives theories. There is also the 'New Topic' button.

I'm sorry, but just because the end is seen as 'honourable' does not mean that the methods to get to it are allowed to be dirty and deceptive. That is the point I am particularly interested in. A lot of people mistake me for being a Government supporter that doesn't want the truth

However, my main concern as I've said before is to ensure that whatever takes it's place isn't as bent, corrupt, deceptive and selfish as it's predecessor. Saying that though, at the rate things are going there isn't going to be a situation where a 'predecessor' exists.
Things like the topic in question are a fine example of one bad trading places with another, wearing a rather poor sheep costume. How ironic how such an old saying can have such a significant secondary meaning....
One significant 'Truth Seeker' has already voiced through implication (privately - hence I will not divulge their identity - some of us having real morals) their opinion that any methods are acceptable as long as the truth 'that the Government are behind it' is what prevails. I can't disagree more, look at me as some sort of annoying watcher ensuring that evil does not prevail, because unless some of you become more vigilant that's exactly what is going to happen. Evil has many faces, some appearing as a friend... Never forget that. Don't worry, though, I don't really count.
I'm not your friend or your enemy. I am a biased neutral - amused and bemused by what I observe with a compulsion to interfere for some strange reason.... An oxymoron comprising of what makes up the human race, defining the thin line between logic and emotion.
One thing I confess though, I hate ignorance.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
..
Perhaps it would be best to stick to the topic at hand rather than whitewash over it, there are plenty of threads available for discussion of other elements of 9/11, including many on the explosives theories. There is also the 'New Topic' button.
..



While i agree that my rather expansive post doesn't seem to be very much on topic, it's only adressing a minor statement made in the opening post:


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


3) Explosions in the basements of the towers would have produced seismic signal, however no publication of seismic records to confirm such existed.


This is afaics, not the case, the seismic records are there and we struggled a lot to try to understand them, sync'ing to video data was done in another thread i can't find any longer (which i referred to earlier, btw). so, i'm sorry if this interupts the flow due to its sheer size, but it was the only way to get the info across in a useful way.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Sorry my bad, I get a bit touchy regarding this subject and this aspect of it in particular.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I fully agree with you, Long Lance. I already had that point made by WCIP quoted, and was just formulating a nice siesmic graph based response, but saw you had already gone to the trouble (and done a better job of it than I would have, I might add). Nice one.
I have a lot of respect for Wecomeinpeace, he has written many massive threads, and posts, detailing many a flaw in the Official story. He was probably the most prominent and respected 9/11 investigator on ATS for a time, and he probably still is now, so I find it slightly alarming that he would turn around and claim there was no siesmic data collected, when he knows full well there was. Just a slip, maybe? I hope so...



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Wow I am very surprised at this post from you WCIP...
...
Seems we can't trust anyone on ATS anymore.


On the contrary. The fact that WCIP is not MARRIED to one conspiracy and is open-minded, yet skeptical makes him one of THE most trustworthy people posting on this board, in my opinion.



I guess the position of moderater must entail a program of brain washing you have to go through?


Why is it when people disagree with Moderators, they immediately attack and blame their moderator status as the basis for their opinion? Brainwashing? That's just so lame... :shk:



Sry if you take this as OT or a personal attack, but I'm just dumfounded by your turn around.


Funny, WCIP's denouncing this movie came as a bit of a shock to me, too, but I read his post (and I have seen the film) and it makes sense. This particular film looks like it might have some serious problems. That doesn't change my opinion about 9/11 AT ALL. I still believe it was executed by 'terrorists' with the full knowledge, compliance and assistance of our government, but there are some things in this particular film that don't add up, now that they've been pointed out to me. Of course some things still ring as true.

For the excellent job of 'critical thinking' WCIP! That's what we're here to do. Not hold on to our 'theory' in the face of evidence, but to use that evidence to find the TRUTH, whether it's what we originally thought was truth or not.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply properly. Work has been simply crazy. This is a long rambling post, so if you're interested, get a coffee and sit back. If not, about four mouse-scrolls should do the trick.

I remember about 6 months ago I was home in Oz for a spell, and a friend called me up and said, "Quick, switch on the TV. There's a 9/11 conspiracy doco playing with all that stuff you've talked about." I couldn't believe it, a major Australian TV network was broadcasting a 9/11 conspiracy expose on the tail end of prime time. I switched on the telly and, to my horror, it was David Von Kleist's "In Plane Site". I quickly called my friend back and said, "Do NOT watch this film. It is disinformation through and through." Do a google search for "von kleist film 9/11" and you'll see that every respectable 9/11 research website agrees with me. Missile pods, exploding WTC6, no plane at the Pentagon, no windows on the planes, everything in that video is BS (IMHO). The really important and unanswered things about 9/11 were completely glossed over, or simply not addressed at all. Von Kleist has been confronted about these issues and he completely avoids them. The only one he did address was WTC6 when it was conclusively shown that the "explosion" dust cloud was from the collapse of WTC2, and that the footage he used had been doctored and edited down to a still frame in order to give a false impression. It seems the reason he addressed this is because his (or their) hand was forced, i.e. damage control.

The Von Kleist case seems to support the frightening possibility that there is indeed an organized, concerted effort to poison the well in regards to 9/11 information. The damage that videos like Kleist's produce is immeasurable. When the average couch potato who has never heard anything other than the official story comes across something like that, there is a moment of shocking revelation: "The world is not the safe, simple place I thought it was". But later, when that same person discovers that all of the information which induced that revelation is completely false, there is a complete and total psychological reversal, and that person will become one of the most hard-line skeptics in relation to 9/11 conspiracy theory that you could imagine. This is the ultimate purpose of poisoning the well. It also has the added bonus of hiding the golden nuggets of truth inside a huge mound of excrement, leaving even the committed researcher bewildered and impotent due to the sheer volume of information; too large for any one person to sift through. (BTW, it was mainly Von Kleist who set up the pins for PopularMechanics to knock down).

Now, in response to some of the reactions in this thread, I'm forced to digress on my least favorite topic: Me. Firstly, I don't know what all the fuss is about! Nowhere is it written that I am the final determiner of 9/11 truth. I am simply one man with an opinion, and if I turned around tomorrow and started Roarking my way around ATS, what difference would it make to the ultimate truths of 9/11? None. I'm surprised and a little embarrassed by all the declarations of respect for me (which seem to have been destroyed by one post), but I think the reactions here perhaps stem from some misunderstanding. There have always been many facets of 911 conspiracy which I have considered to be bollocks. For example, I believe that a passenger jet did indeed hit the Pentagon. But I don't wast my time arguing against it because I think such efforts are counter-productive; I'd rather spend my time investigating what I believe may be true. I think that having us argue endlessly things like the no-plane theory is a phenomenon that is engineered by design. What I DO believe to be a possibility is that Hani Hanjour was not in control of that plane. He may have been on it, but I seriously doubt he - or anyone else on the plane for that matter - was piloting it.

But unfortunately more realistic (IMO) theories like that one, which seem to fit with observations, are all squashed under that huge pile of dung I talked about. And the no-plane theory is one of the bigger, smellier pieces. However my guess is that some folks here have taken my silence on the matter to equal agreement with the no-plane theory. They'd be wrong. So tomorrow, if I make a post attempting to debunk the no-plane theory, what would happen? The same as has happened here. In the end, I'm only after the truth, and if that means abandoning theories that appear to be false, even though they support my opinion, then so be it - booing and heckling be-damned.

Now in regards to 911Eyewitness, I made it very clear from the start when I first posted the thing that the only, repeat the ONLY thing that interested me about that video was the explosion sounds. The rest of it I clearly stated was IMO either a) old news (e.g. WTC7 collapse time), b) wild speculation (helicopter flashes), or c) factually incorrect (positive trajectories of debris ejection). Since the video came out, I have had some interaction with the producer of the video, Rick, on the www, watched others do the same, and watched his behavior from a lurker's standpoint, and there's always been a niggling in the back of my mind. But there were still those explosion sounds, so I just chalked his behavior up to the "passion of perceived injustice". I remember a long time ago I found the original video but didn't listen to it carefully. I told Rick about it on the LetsRoll forums, and basically his reaction was, "Well done, guy...now back to talking about my DVD." Again, I didn't think much of it at the time.

But recently, with Rick's new film coming out, the claims seem to be even more spurious: dissolving spires and thermonuclear devices are just a couple of examples. Now I'm not saying that these are definitely wrong, but the wild nature of these claims, coupled with the fact that Professor Jones and Jim Hoffman do not support these theories, nor indeed the theories of bombs in the basement, spurred me to approach the 911Eyewitness material again. I dug out that original, unaltered video and had a good listen, and to my ears it sounds exactly like wind blowing across the microphone. Here's the link again for reference:

www.terrorize.dk...

You can hear the wind playing lightly across the microphone for the entire time, and then what sounds like smaller gusts of wind and one larger one. Now Rick claimed that they did not alter the sound for the DVD in any way apart from removing hiss, but if you go back to the 911Eyewitness video to compare, you can hear that the constant wind noise has been completely equalized out, and that the purported "explosion" sound peaks have been enhanced off their heads. The rumbling you hear in the build-up to and decay of the explosion sounds appears to be the constant wind sound being equalized back in, and then out. I've listened to them both a hundred times, with headphones and speakers, with my subwoofer on and off, with equalization neutral and not, and I just can't hear anything but wind effect; the same wind effect I've heard a thousand times from video recordings made outside, from blowing across a microphone back in my wannabe-Jimmy Page guitar-playing days, and from reporters with hand held microphones in the field. Is this a scientific sound analysis? No, of course not, but my ears are telling me that's what it is. I'll be very interested to see what Billybob comes back with. Furthermore, fast forward to 1:02:32, 1:03:20, and 1:03:40 on the 911Eyewitness video and you will hear the same sounds after WTCs 1, 2 & 7 have all collapsed. I have come across Rick and his alter-ego "911 Eyewitness" on yet another forum and asked him innocently about it. And the answer, even when pressed? "Buy the DVD and all will be clear, man."

Now with this personal change in my opinion, suddenly the rest of the Rick "buy my DVD" saga fit into place, as did all the distractions in his video. When he was on the hard sell for the DVD, he constantly said, "We're going to court with this! Buy it and tell your friends to buy it! Spread the word!" Six months later: no court case. Instead we get 911Eyewitness II - The Thermonuclear, Melting Spire Edition, coming to a cinema near you for the low entry fee of $15.95.

To my mind:

The spurious positive trajectory claim is disinformation, distorting the fact that great lengths of the perimeter simply fell away from the structure like rotten branches, with the pivot or fulcrum of those sections being many, many floors below the collapse zone, as if the structures were simply removed of all their connections at once. This fits with the demolition waves racing down the sides of the buildings way ahead of the collapse, which Billybob, bsbray11, and I have always emphasized. What happens when the average mildly interested observer sees that the positive trajectory claim is bogus? They stop looking at the debris ejection, period.

The ridiculous pyroclastic flow claim mutes the less exciting but more important fact that the near-complete pulverization of the concrete and everything else into micro-dust is impossible through gravitational collapse.

The comparison of the seismic energy from the collapses and the inconclusive claim that this implies twice the tonnage of TNT equivalent was used to destroy WTC1 as WTC2 ignores the fact that a larger amount of debris striking the ground at once will produce a greater signal than smaller, more time-distributed amounts. As the towers collapsed in slightly different ways, random differences in debris patterns striking the ground could easily explain this.

The helicopter flashes I'd put in with the mini-nuke red herring category.

So, have I made a "180 degree turn" and become a hardline 911 debunker? Do I no longer believe that anything needs to be investigated in regards to 911? Does my thread here mean that I no longer believe everything I have claimed in the past in regards to 911 conspiracy? Can what I've posted in this thread be taken as gospel and the final answer on any of this? Does this mean that the claims in 911 Eyewitness which do have substance are now also bogus? Since I suspect that no explosions were recorded from kilometers away in Hobokken, does that mean I now believe all the witnesses who heard explosions were mistaken? A big, fat NO. I just call it as I see it, and what I think I see is another well-poisoner just like Von Kleist. My apologies, Billybob is correct, the title of this thread is inflammatory, and if it weren't too late I would change it to, "911 Eyewitness. A sham? You decide."

Sorry to bore you with this crap, but the reactions really surprised me and I felt some folks whom I consider friends deserved an explanation. To those who accused me of being brainwashed or altering my opinion because I'm a moderator, I understand your reactions are based on a misinterpretation and stem from a feeling of betrayal or something like that, so no worries. And thanks to those who have sent me some nice U2Us.


Let the debate continue.






[edit on 2006-6-22 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
resizing solves that problem, of course, just to explain the jagged and cut-off nature of the charts i re-did. look at the legend to the right, it says 0...100 (see website above) while the wtc#7 chart says 0...10, ten times more sensitive!

My knowledge of seismology is less than zero, so I don't understand why 0-10 is more sensitive than 0-100. What is the unit of measurement?

A larger signal for WTC7 would fit with that building apparently being demolished by conventional technique, i.e explosives destroying the columns at the base first. The WTC towers appear to have been destroyed from the top down, and huge explosions in the basements of those buildings would be too obvious. Thermite, possibly combined with small shaped charges is a different matter.


building #7 collapse



That is interesting, but placing the events on the timeline, it seems that the 911eyewitness sound event does not reconcile with the seismograph.

911Eyewitness sound event, 9.5 seconds before the penthouse collapse.



Penthouse collapse, 6-7 seconds before global collapse.



Global collapse.









[edit on 2006-6-22 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
all of your 1-4 allegation seem to me like your speakers are crapo or you didnt torrent the better quality version. becaus eu can clearly here the explosions on that one



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
My knowledge of seismology is less than zero, so I don't understand why 0-10 is more sensitive than 0-100. What is the unit of measurement?


decibels? i don't know, all i do know is that, to get the same Y-axis deviation in one graph, it takes 100 units in the case of the big ones and 10 for wtc7 - as can be easily seen by comparing the visible background noise amplitude.




A larger signal for WTC7 would fit with that building apparently being demolished by conventional technique, i.e explosives destroying the columns at the base first. The WTC towers appear to have been destroyed from the top down, and huge explosions in the basements of those buildings would be too obvious. Thermite, possibly combined with small shaped charges is a different matter.


The problems with wtc7's graph is that there's a huge gap in between where nothing happens, and that the first event's max peak is larger than the 2nd. i still believe that the second series denotes collapse and the first something else, though and synching with time-stamped videos should give the answer. a few months ago, the answer seemed clear, although one might have to take the propagation delay into account, but then again it may be factored in.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
decibels? i don't know, all i do know is that, to get the same Y-axis deviation in one graph, it takes 100 units in the case of the big ones and 10 for wtc7 - as can be easily seen by comparing the visible background noise amplitude.

If the 0-10 and 0-100 is in straight units of magnitude, then that means the tower collapses are off the scale compared to WTC7. Even assuming there were explosives detonated in WTC7, I can't see them producing ten times the energy of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of falling towers striking the ground. That amount of explosives would blow the building to kingdom come.

But you raise the most interesting point. Why does the WTC7 penthouse collapse produce a larger amplitude signal than the global collapse of the building? This, when reconciled with the fact that the columns under the east penthouse (columns 79, 80, and 81) were the most massive columns in the entire building, would seem to suggest that those columns were perhaps destroyed by larger explosives as the first stage in the demolition. Also of note, the hottest thermal readings of the entire WTC site were recorded in that same spot under WTC7's east penthouse.


i still believe that the second series denotes collapse and the first something else, though and synching with time-stamped videos should give the answer.

I agree, the first spike seems to coincide with the collapse of the penthouse, and as stated above, it is curiously large compared to the global collapse itself. But unless I got the timing wrong, it appears that Rick's sound event does not coincide with the seismic spikes.



[edit on 2006-6-22 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Long Lance
decibels? i don't know, all i do know is that, to get the same Y-axis deviation in one graph, it takes 100 units in the case of the big ones and 10 for wtc7 - as can be easily seen by comparing the visible background noise amplitude.

If the 0-10 and 0-100 is in straight units of magnitude, then that means the tower collapses are off the scale compared to WTC7. Even assuming there were explosives detonated in WTC7, I can't see them producing ten times the energy of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of falling towers striking the ground. That amount of explosives would blow the building to kingdom come.


These 0-10 and 0-100 graphs remind me of logerithmic scales. Could it be that? I haven't used logerithmic scales for over 10 years so someone would have to help me on this. Anyone out there have knowledge of log scales and be able to show us the light on these graphs?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
At a glance it seems that the magnitude is a measure of a particular form of ground motion (called "Wood-Anderson", or "WA" amplitude). The unit of measurement is nanometers (nm).

www.eas.slu.edu...

hrcweb.nevada.edu...

This would imply that the signal from the collapses of the towers was much greater than that from WTC7, as would be expected.

Am I the only one who finds it intriguing that the east penthouse collapse was marked by a stronger seismic signal than the collapse of the entire building??




[edit on 2006-6-22 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
i won't apologise for respecting you, wcip.
nor will i change my stance that there are positive trajectories, or alternaticely, that the DEGREE of lateral ejection could not be caused by any 'plunger'.

remember, everyone, that the speed of sound is not the same through the earth as it is through the ground. when things don't sync between recordings of vibrating air, and vibrating earth, it is not obvious what has transpired.

i know that the seismic traces for the big collapses were 8 and 10 seconds in duration, respectively. and for tower seven, it's like 20 seconds.

that right there, is an obvious red flag. the building which fell quickest had the longest trace, and the traces for events which were on the order of twenty seconds(when including the 'spire' and 'core' collapses) are less than half the time in duration.

it is my contention that ONLY BOMBS are making the earth shake, signifigantly, and the tons of material hitting the earth are relatively insignifigant as seimic-creating events.

i still haven't had time to analyse the sound again, but, you cannot filter out wind sounds without also 'dulling' the rest of the sound. wind noise is full spectrum, and in order to 'filter out the hiss', you have to also 'filter out the treble'.

you are certainly right about the concerted effort to 'poison the well', and i have personally argued with MYSELF over every aspect of the day that i 'know' about.

do i know christophera is wrong about a concrete core? no.
do i know there were any planes AT ALL(as per nico haupt)? no.
do i know there was a MASSIVE MEDIA BLITZ? yes.
do i know that the intent of the blitz was to decieve? most certainly.
do i know that this blitz is ongoing, and a LEARNING MACHINE? oh, yeah.

will any of this change the truth? no.

explosives were OBVIOUSLY used to bring down the towers. i would need to be able to reproduce a 'fine element analysis' in my mind (logically, not mathematically) of the THREE collapses in order to be swayed to believing otherwise.

i have had no time to analyse the audio/video, yet. busy, busy.

beware strawmen, no doubt. there are so many it looks like a wizard of oz convention.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Am I the only one who finds it intriguing that the east penthouse collapse was marked by a stronger seismic signal than the collapse of the entire building??


Not at all. Actually, I'm glad you guys brought this up. I'd like to hear Howard's excuse for that. Very damning if you ask me.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I'll take his place
Wasn't it supposed to be full of heavy machinary and such like?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Unless this heavy machinery hit the ground at that moment, I'd say that doesn't count. Fourty some stories would dampen that affect IMO.....could be wrong.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I think you are reaching well beyond the standards of reliable scientific method, if you are trying to assign a 1 to 1 relationship between a specific portion of the collapse event and a specific portion of the seismic signal.

But if you have to go that route, consider that the penthouse collapse was the topmost indication of a failure that started on the 6th or 7th floors or so, and probably involved the weight of a significant portion of the building plunging through the substation vaults.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join