Damocles, let's try to keep it as simple as can be for the readers with less, or no specific training in the fields we are now talking about.
There is no need for your explosives calculations, when you really understand what my thesis undoubtedly proves.
And I repeat :
I will defend my thesis against ANYONE, and again challenge all of you to proof me wrong, within the rules of reasonable debating and without childish
remarks.
I will not answer to persons who obviously haven't read, or understood my reasoning in my thesis. (which btw does not mean you have to agree, after
the first thorough reading. I will however help you to agree at second sight, if wanted.)
All these mathematical calculations or understanding of complicated professional jargon aren't needed, when you start to understand what my
interpretation of the LDEO seismic chart of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates.
It boils down to simple basic-school calculus skills: adding, subtracting, multiplication and dividing.
Which all of you, our forum readers, have mastered, otherwise you weren't posting or reading here.
This is the most important conclusion of my thesis :
The WTC 7 global collapse magnitudes are substantially smaller than the unknown events magnitudes PRECLUDING that global collapse.
Please take a lot of time to try to understand the implications of this graph I made, and its included notes, especially the last note at the center
bottom :
Big thesis graph with readable notes!
This big graph is not allowed to be posted here, because of the forums posting boundaries rules here at ATS, a real pity in this case.
That's why I outsourced it to a more exceptions-rich forum.
Last note part on my graph :
You need a
LOT of extra energy input to be able to explain this part of the graph.
Thus, Damocles, no need for complicated calculations, just come up with a reasonable explanation for those anomalies, and we can all go to sleep at
ease again.
Or try to proof me wrong on my notes.
I'll counter now already all the less gifted posters in the logics-department, in advance :
-- No, it's NOT reasonable to come up with snapping columns causing those huge precluding seismic events, don't try to fool your colleagues in your
department with such a comparison of a tiny event to a total global collapse of a massive 47 floors WTC 7 building, slamming into the ground. --
And it was a BOTTOM down collapse in this case, so the biggest bang of the global building collapse was circa 1 or 2 seconds after initiation of the
global collapse, since the whole pack of 42 floors slammed down to the ground, through the first 5 floors, according to the officially promoted LIES.
The most massive mass, banged to the ground, at first.
And still the precluding events caused seismic signals with bigger magnitudes .
In fact, it looks as if the whole WTC 7 seismic collapse chart is a falsification, whether fabricated by feeding the seismographs with false data, by
outside or inside sources, or by altering part or parts of the graph.
Somebody in the planning stages, seemed to have forgotten about the 17 seconds retention time in the upper crust, for seismic signals travelling from
New York 9/11 events to the needles of the seismic recorders at Palisades, NY state.
It was also the only graph which took up till Friday after Tuesday 9/11, to be processed and published on the LDEO website. All other graphs were
processed the next day already.
This, perhaps, indicates, that some people realized their 17 seconds mistake, but were not able to re-falsify their initial seismic graph of the WTC 7
collapse. It is very difficult to convince old-school scientists, that their apparatus was functioning correct in the cases of the twin towers plane
impacts, and their collapses, but was suddenly incorrect in the case of a much later collapse of another building.
Of course, if we proof falsification, or offer strong doubt to the sincerity of this WTC 7 seismic chart, any logical thinking individual will agree
with me, that in that case, it is clear that a LOT of US officials were involved in High Treason.
I am convinced that I offered both proofs already many years ago, but nobody in the official believers camp EVER came up with any substantial or vague
contradictorily proof of me being wrong.
They can't, because
it simply is so damn Simple.
You can't refute simple facts with complicated nonsense, simplicity always rules.
And you can't retract, as a government which lied already too much, the so triumphantly published seismic data, after so many years.
That would do much more damage to their propaganda pile, than my, hidden to the mainstream public eyes, thesis, in-casu proof of High Treason.
jk 
