Dr. Jones' MUST READ new article.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
What is this a picture of?

The truck

The bombing

Brig. Gen. Partin's report



[edit on 2006-7-25 by wecomeinpeace]

by Slap Nuts:

IS this the BIBLE to you guys? IT is NOT PEER REVIEWED... HENCE IT CANNOT BE CITED OR TRUSTED FOR INFORMATION.

REPLY: Hmmmm, excessive bolding perhaps? The Jones tripe hasn't been peer reviewed as far as can determined, whereas over 50 scientists were involved in the Pop. Mech. article. And no, this isn't "The Bible" as far as refutations to your CT. It is but one source of information for those looking to make a rational decision, or have a rational discussion on the matter.

On the other hand, it is NOT where one would look if his/her only goal was to justify their pre-drawn conclusions, or to provide validity to something they want so desperately to be true.

Originally posted by zappafan1

On the other hand, it is NOT where one would look if his/her only goal was to justify their pre-drawn conclusions, or to provide validity to something they want so desperately to be true.

The Popular Mechanics article IS BASED ON A PRE DRAWN CONCLUSION.

Please cite the 50 scientists.

You are not good at arguing today.

PM explained that it had consulted "more than 300 experts and organizations", but the references have been analyzed here, at the bottom of the page.

Of everyone listed, the only person that refuted any legitimate conspiracy claim regarding the WTC, was Shyam Sunder of NIST. BIG SURPRISE!

The rest were not cited in the article, or else just debunkings of straw men issues that PM set up, such as that the steel must have been melted by the fires. As the above article points out, 9/11 conspiracy theorists were not the ones to say the steel would've had to have been melted -- structural engineers did, as presented by the BBC.

Funny to look back at how wrong those structural engineers were, when it's accepted as common sense now that the jet fuel fires most definitely would not have melted the steel. It's taking longer now that just slightly more plausible explanations are being retreated to, but I can imagine NIST's Report, in years to come, being looked back upon in the same way by everyone but the Howard's of the world.

This is an exerpt from Michael Rivero's webpage, about the Oklahoma City bombings effects.
Michael is an 27 year veteran of film effects. He's won 5 Cleos, a Hugo, gold medals at the New York Film Festival, a Bronze Lion at Cannes and been nominated once each for an Emmy and an Oscar.

Things that go BOOM in the night!

Before proceeding to the acoustical data, let me explain a little something about explosives and how people perceive them.

I work in special effects. In films, great use is made of low velocity explosives such as untamped black powder and ANFO because they are low velocity explosives. With a great whoosh and roar they belch forth with fire and smoke in a manner that has caused folks to drop their popcorn in matinees ever since sound came in.

Movies have conditioned people to expect a certain look and sound to explosions, all based on very low velocity explosives. In a stunning ironic twist, moviegoers seem to perceive the slower explosions as more powerful.

Demolition experts will tell you that high brissive or high velocity explosives actually are more powerful, as they build up a powerful shock wave. However, except for actually collapsing a structure, such explosives are unsuitable for film. The blast is over so quickly it can be missed while the film is moving between one frame and the next. There is very little visible smoke and flash, and the "crack" of a C-4 cutter charge is downright disappointing to hear.

Thus, the average person's awareness of what an explosion is supposed to look and sound like is based on the movies and low velocity explosives only. In not knowing what high velocity explosives sound like or feel like (as the shock wave moves through the earth), many people might not understand what they have heard or felt on April 19th.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

I hope we can start a discussion here at last about the true sound effects of cutter charges, be it C-4 or Thermite/Thermate cutter charges.

I'm convinced you could not hear them in the roar of the collapsing WTC buildings.
But you could feel them passing by in the soil. As was registered by the movements of a camera on a tripod I once posted here. Which can be heard and seen in the 9/11 Eyewitness video at the same time.

Let the online bloodbath begin.
And remember, we'll only be impressed by the facts, pictures, commends and links to such, which will be presented by self proclaimed professionals.
I am not impressed by any professional, until I can check his professionalism.

Wrong thread.


[edit on 2006-7-27 by wecomeinpeace]

I reposted it here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this thread, page 16 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I added a bit more.

I still strongly feel that you must keep looking for compatible events, people, agencies and companies involved in the Oklahoma City bombing from 1995 and the first and second WTC bombings.
Lots of the same keep turning up in all events.

Links about your Rider truck photo :
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
members.aol.com...
members.aol.com...
members.aol.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.apfn.net...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

And here are the more recent interesting ones :
www.stopcovertwar.com...
www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
www.cyberspaceorbit.com...

It's at first glance perhaps off topic, but OKC and WTC are intertwined at so many levels, it is undeniable.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I hope we can start a discussion here at last about the true sound effects of cutter charges, be it C-4 or Thermite/Thermate cutter charges.

I'm convinced you could not hear them in the roar of the collapsing WTC buildings.
But you could feel them passing by in the soil. As was registered by the movements of a camera on a tripod I once posted here. Which can be heard and seen in the 9/11 Eyewitness video at the same time.

From my own first hand experience in witnessing 7 buildings demolished by “implosion.” I can tell you that you can definitely hear – and feel – the charges going off.

In one case I witnessed the demolition of five buildings at once. The former CHA highrises were located along Chicago’s lake front with two clusters of buildings about a quarter mile apart. I was about 400 yards from the cluster of three buildings. They set them off sequentially, first the three on the south side, then the two on the north side about a quarter mile off. I definitely remember hearing the charges for the north buildings going off, even over the sound of the south buildings coming down. There was a distinct lag between the charges going off and the starts of the building collapses.

When the charges went off, you not only heard them, but you felt them as well when the shock wave hit your chest cavity.

There were plenty of people who survived that were that close to the buildings when they collapsed, that didn’t hear any “charges.”

Originally posted by LaBTop
More appropriate thread, agreed :

I reposted it here :

No, I meant I deleted my post because I accidentally posted to the wrong thread, lol.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
From my own first hand experience in witnessing 7 buildings demolished by “implosion.” I can tell you that you can definitely hear – and feel – the charges going off.

"Conventional CDs" with nothing to hide. Sure, I believe you saw what you saw... I also believe that the WTC CDs had differetn goals thatn your experience. Different systems and compounds would have been used to mask the very telltale signatures that you point out.

I saw the Hudsons building go BOOM.... but again, they had no goal of reducing the noise or hiding the signatures.

So please explain to us exactly how the sounds of the cutting charges were "hidden."

Here's a simple illustration of how multiple explosions going off in close intervals will mask each other effectively:

www.abovetopsecret.com...