Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I keep trying to imagine all these buildings standing there packed to the rooves with all this ordinance - what happens if the planes fail to get there for any of a number of reasons?

Talk about a logistical nightmare and frankly just not workable or worth the risk to whoever's concept it was.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


heh, i cant say i disagree with you. you have ONE demo block or TBE NOT go off (and the risk of that is low in normal ops, in normal ops yer not trying to coordinate a demo with a plane crash) and someone finds it who's not in on it and yer boned. end of story.

but for me there are only two possibilities with the CD theory when looked at along with the seizmic data. ive given a lot of info i feel, to have it pretty much disregarded offhand but thats another thing, that explains why but in the absolute simplest terms its this:

option A: they rigged it in the most effective way possible using linear shaped charges and those would not register on teh seizmic charts as it wouldnt take a lot (relativly speaking) of ordinance. 172lbs/floor minimum but probably less than 300lbs at the basement (i dont have accurate schematics to know how fast they got thicker as they went down so i wont guess on that)

option B: they used a single large bomb that would register on the seizmic charts as a 2 on the richter but that would take the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4. (read equivilant again) so, i dont care what they actually used, you wont get me to believe you could set off that equivilant of ordinance and people in jersey didnt have ringing ears. (ok thats a little exagerated but think of this...the OKC buiding was officially a 4ton anfo bomb so, thats like a ton and a half of C4)
is there ANYTHING on ANY video that ANY reasonable person could say was TWELVE AND A HALF TONS OF ORDINANCE GOING OFF?

theres a simple answer to that last question but ill leave it up to ya'll.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
heh, i cant say i disagree with you. you have ONE demo block or TBE NOT go off (and the risk of that is low in normal ops, in normal ops yer not trying to coordinate a demo with a plane crash) and someone finds it who's not in on it and yer boned. end of story.


Just for the sake of being realistic, I really, really doubt this would be the case. Say you were the one that found one of these things. Now what? Tell me exactly what you would do, who you would tell, who would listen. Run up to a cop and hand it over to him, and what's he going to do? Arrest George Bush? (sarcasm, I don't even think Bush had anything to do with it).

There were firefighters saying there were additional devices in the buildings. At least one said this while the buildings were still up, and it's on video somewhere, and he's walking around telling people outside of one of the lobbies this. Now I've read you post before that normal SOP for that event wasn't carried out. Well, then something should strike you as wrong, because that firefighter was nonetheless convinced of extra devices. If he found/saw/heard something, or another firefighter found/saw/heard something, and reported it, and nothing happened, then what? I'm not saying the firefighters that were actually out in the buildings were in on it, but it wouldn't take much more than 1 mole or 1 superior authority on the site to handle (control) the situation. You know what? FEMA was there on 9/10 setting up a command center in WTC7 for a terrorist exercise planned at the towers for 9/12. You can think that's a coincidence if you want, I don't give a rats ass. It's just what you would HAVE to do to control the event fully, and all this was, no matter who you think did it, was obviously a carefully coordinated mass media event. It was like a movie, and even fit within the usual length of one, to cater to our shortened attention spans.


Anyway, all I'm saying is that it'd take more than someone seeing a bomb for the media to bring you the whole story. The person who found it would much sooner be dead, than be on TV telling you about it. It would take a much bigger exposure, or a crap ton of smaller exposures, to start turning things around on such a level that the hard-headed, GOP beer-guzzlers etc. out there watching their tubes will realize what's happening. Hell, there already are a number of eyewitnesses that report consistent things (not really covered by the mainstream media, of course), that indicate lower-level explosions around the time of the impacts. I'm sure you've seen some of those testimonies.

But see, you don't really care about them or what they have to say, even when you already know about them. It astonishes me that someone can be aware of these testimonies, TOTALLY IGNORE THEM, and then say that if someone found/saw/heard something, it would all be over. Why? As if you would actually listen to them? Like I said, it would take a damned lot more than that.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ive given a lot of info i feel, to have it pretty much disregarded offhand but thats another thing, that explains why but in the absolute simplest terms its this:

I appreciate your unbiassed contributions - far from disregarded here

Those reported sounds of explosions within the building just don't suggest anything of the order of demolition charges, more likely everyday things that explode in fires and there's a lot of those (how about fire extinguishers for example)



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



i can appreciate what youre saying and i cant say i disagree with all of it. it does have a very "wag the dog" feel to it (great movie by the way)

but youre suggesting that ALL of the sop's were totally disregarded.

IF the fire dept REALLY thought that there were bombs in the building NONE of them would have entered. ALL of their radios would have been shut down and they would have set up a perimeter and waited for EOD. sorry bout the people still in the building but thats the FACTS of the matter.

ANYONE who doesnt believe me, i challenge you to do this: go to the nearest fire dept and just walk up and ask someone this question; "if you report to the scene of a fire, highrise or otherwise, and there is a report of a bomb on site, what do you do?" i think thats a pretty neutral and un-leading question. dont embellish, ask just that way. hell, ask 5 different departments and see what kind of consensus you get.

IF someone had found a device in the rubble pile during clean up then again, shut down the radios and set up a perimeter and wait for EOD. what do you think a higher ranking FD guy would have told them "naw, just throw it on that pile of crap over there, nothing to worry about"

you ask what someone would do if they found a device and suggest that they may have an accident or some such if they talked. two words: willie rodriguez. he's not dead and i bet doing pretty well on the lecture circuit.

i do NOT disregard the witnesses by any means. ive contended all along that "sounded like an explosion" doesnt mean BOMB automatically.

ive also contended all along that in ANY fire, things can explode which are not bombs.

so while i see your points i just cant believe that ALL sop's were disregarded that day. i also cant believe that everyone that heard "explosions" has a basis for comparison based in experience more than hollywood. but this is simply my opinion.

BSB you know me well enough to know that i dont believe there were bombs of any kind in those buildings but i like to think you also know im open minded enough to admit i could be wrong. i just dont see the evidence that is strong enough for me to set aside my personal experience and training and say "ok sure it was a CD"

that would be like me asking you to set aside your physics classes and trust me when i say "oh, there was nothing at all suspicious about the towers falling" youd laugh at me. i would expect that. so take no offense when i laugh when you suggest that pretty much every sop was disregarded that day.




reply to post by Pilgrum
 



thanks, yes, i have my opinions and im not shy about sharing them oft times. but, when i post info on demo stuff i try like hell to make sure to post things that can be verified by anyone who cares to go looking. i avoid "linking" to my sources as i dont ever want anyone to claim im using biased sources. i have in the past also posted info on demo that could have SUPPORTED the cd theories and have myself attempted many times to come up with a demo plan for those buildings that would do the job and fit what we saw. i cant figure it out but i have tried. ive corrected misinformation from the OCT crowd probably more times than ive corrected incorrect data from the CD crowd.

i dont really care if people want to believe it was a CD...but dammit if youre going to then at least base it in reality not hollywood. thats one reason i really admire the work labtops done on his TBE research, he's trying like hell to get accurate data and see if it fits. i disagree with his conclusions but that doesnt change the respect for his work.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
The hollywood type explosions never fool me, like the scenes where they run across the field with bombs going off between them - dust themselves off and keep going


I've been close enough, on the ground, to 500lb bombs, napalm, rockets, cannon fire etc to see, hear and feel the forces (without being harmed) to know the difference between fake and real explosions. I see no external evidence of such explosions in the shots of the WTC at all.

Mind you I'm not dedicated to any side of the argument and I'll settle for the truth of it all, whatever it is.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


well i agree there, though ive been fortunate enough that i never had to run through a field with mortar shells inbound to get a first hand comparison of it (mortar shells that is, i have set off much much bigger explosions, an M180 demo kit is 45lbs of HE and will punch a hole 17' deep and 22' across. though ive not had to duck mortar shells, i have done live agent chambers and many tell me they'd rather risk the mortars lol)

the movie scene that always typifies my contempt for hollywood was the opening to one of the lethal weapon movies (i think i linked it somewhere in this thread) where the bomb in the back of the car takes out an entire building. THAT is where i think too many people get their knowledge of HE but thats just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
IF the fire dept REALLY thought that there were bombs in the building NONE of them would have entered. ALL of their radios would have been shut down and they would have set up a perimeter and waited for EOD. sorry bout the people still in the building but thats the FACTS of the matter.


What you really mean is that SOP wasn't followed. You have no idea what the "fire dept" thought, because you don't know what all the firefighters were thinking. And all of the firefighters make up the fire department, and that's what "the fire department" is. Obviously ONE of them was VERY convinced of extra devices in the buildings at one point in time. What was REPORTED is an entirely different matter. What the CHIEF said, talking to Rudy Giuliani and FEMA in WTC7, is also a different matter. There are firefighters that have come out saying very different things that what you like thinking they all said/think. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer as to which of them is telling the truth.



you ask what someone would do if they found a device and suggest that they may have an accident or some such if they talked. two words: willie rodriguez.


Ok, so first, no one found/saw/heard a bomb/explosion, so there wasn't one. Because everything would've been exposed just like that. Now, the people that HAVE come forward that you forgot to mention earlier don't count because they're still alive?

I'm not even going to respond to this kind of crap posting, because you can say whatever the hell you want and assert whatever you'd like as to what would happen in any given scenario involving people. People are unpredictable, self-reflecting, and intelligent. Apparently you think that if something is a conspiracy is also has to be a stereotypical, cliche kind of movie conspiracy where people that would spill the beans are either killed or else everything is exposed, but of course it also doesn't even exist and the whole discussion is thus hypothetical and you don't really give a damn anyway. There are no gray lines or subtler possibilities, no real critical thinking or anything worth a damned like that. This is just a good finger exercise, or something to do to pass the time.

And no one brought up conventional demolitions, or at least I didn't, and if someone else did then save that for them. I don't say I agree with you on that point just because it sounds pretty and it makes you happy. I don't give a damn. I say it because it's OBVIOUS that they weren't conventional demolitions, and that conventional explosives weren't used. So like I said, save it for someone else, if anyone even brought it up.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What you really mean is that SOP wasn't followed. You have no idea what the "fire dept" thought, because you don't know what all the firefighters were thinking. And all of the firefighters make up the fire department, and that's what "the fire department" is. Obviously ONE of them was VERY convinced of extra devices in the buildings at one point in time. What was REPORTED is an entirely different matter. What the CHIEF said, talking to Rudy Giuliani and FEMA in WTC7, is also a different matter. There are firefighters that have come out saying very different things that what you like thinking they all said/think. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer as to which of them is telling the truth.

and ya know, i cant really disagree with any of this. youre correct there WERE many different stories theories etc of what was going on that day, while it was happening no one had clue one. youre right i wasnt there and im not in anyones head. all i know is what SHOULD happen if there was a strong suspicion that there were bombs and it didnt happen.




you ask what someone would do if they found a device and suggest that they may have an accident or some such if they talked. two words: willie rodriguez.


Ok, so first, no one found/saw/heard a bomb/explosion, so there wasn't one. Because everything would've been exposed just like that. Now, the people that HAVE come forward that you forgot to mention earlier don't count because they're still alive?

well first of all i dont think ive EVER posted that no one heard explosions nor have i contested that. what i have said is that there is NO indication said explosions came from preplaced high explosive devices intended to destroy the towers. at least do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth.

next, if youve read the thread, i have acknowledged willie. i also have trouble deciding which version of his story is the most accurate and im left with some lingering questions. i posted those a couple pages back if you care though you indicate that you dont and thats your right.

but, YOU are the one that said:

The person who found it would much sooner be dead, than be on TV telling you about it.

so im wrong for thinking its odd that willie is alive if there was a bomb in the basement? double standard or am i missing something here? its possible, we both know i could be and why so its all good.



I'm not even going to respond to this kind of crap posting, because you can say whatever the hell you want and assert whatever you'd like as to what would happen in any given scenario involving people. People are unpredictable, self-reflecting, and intelligent. Apparently you think that if something is a conspiracy is also has to be a stereotypical, cliche kind of movie conspiracy where people that would spill the beans are either killed or else everything is exposed, but of course it also doesn't even exist and the whole discussion is thus hypothetical and you don't really give a damn anyway. There are no gray lines or subtler possibilities, no real critical thinking or anything worth a damned like that. This is just a good finger exercise, or something to do to pass the time.

hmmm interesting. ok, so, i read through ats and i read all this grandious bs how if anyone here had PROOF of ANYTHING theyd come running forward with it and be a plucky hero regardless of threats to their lives or whatever the hell else they can come up with at 420 on any given day and thats ok, but IM wrong for giving the same credit to anyone else who doesnt post on ATS that might have gotten some form of proof while they were there on 911?

stereotypical cliche? because i think its reasonable that if a rescue worker found for example an unexploded ordinance in the rubble that they might call it in and call EOD? and i think its then reasonable that if that story didnt hit the news that they might come forward with that info?

and IM the delusional one for this?


And no one brought up conventional demolitions, or at least I didn't, and if someone else did then save that for them.

this whole thread was intended to be a discussion of the seizmic data and how that relates to explosives and what was or was not observed on 911.

so, again, i stay with that and im in the wrong here? ok fine, it was a micro nuke. whatever. it would still ahve to be an equivilant to 12.5 tons of C4 to show up on the seizmographs at the magnitude recorded and thats only if it wasnt in a vehicle when it popped. any video showing a blast of that magnitude? no? ok then isnt it possible that the seizmic data doesnt show an explosion and maybe theres another cause for it? i mean show me something ive missed and ill gladly back off this cuz im sure ive not seen every 911 video out there but none of the ones ive seen show anything near that.


I don't say I agree with you on that point just because it sounds pretty and it makes you happy. I don't give a damn. I say it because it's OBVIOUS that they weren't conventional demolitions, and that conventional explosives weren't used. So like I said, save it for someone else, if anyone even brought it up.

ok so we agree not cuz we like each other but because the facts support our opinions in the matter. and on that ONE point our opinions are fairly close. great. the difference is that you dont know or care what was used you just sure that someone put something there to destroy those buildings. doesnt seem to matter if its a hypothetical device or not. meanwhile im sure that it wasnt HE so until someone comes up with a theory that isnt rooted in fantasy or sci fi im going to continue to think that there was no device and sit here saying "but i ahve no bloody idea why they DID fall"



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but, YOU are the one that said:

The person who found it would much sooner be dead, than be on TV telling you about it.


Ah, ok. What I should have said was that he would sooner be dead than spilling the beans all over TV, as in actually exposing something (changing people's minds). Word problems.


What I was getting at in the last post, is that if he DOES go on TV and try to spill everything, and instead no one cares/he just gets a lot of flak for it (expected), then no one really has to kill him anyway. And killing him would just make it that more obvious, not to mention the work it would be. As long as no one is physically doing anything about it, no one involved really has any reason to worry.


hmmm interesting. ok, so, i read through ats and i read all this grandious bs how if anyone here had PROOF of ANYTHING theyd come running forward with it and be a plucky hero regardless of threats to their lives or whatever the hell else they can come up with at 420 on any given day and thats ok, but IM wrong for giving the same credit to anyone else who doesnt post on ATS that might have gotten some form of proof while they were there on 911?


Not sure I get what you're saying. If I had 100% absolute proof though, personally, I wouldn't feel like I would be greeted as a hero if I went around presenting it to people. The kind of proof we're talking about would probably seem kind of trivial to most people, a 'devil's in the details' thing.


stereotypical cliche? because i think its reasonable that if a rescue worker found for example an unexploded ordinance in the rubble that they might call it in and call EOD?


No, because you think SOP would then have to be followed. I don't mean after 9/11 (how do you know anything would be in the rubble pile?), I mean on 9/11, all the chiefs and relevant people are talking to the command center in Rudy's bunker in WTC7, which is being run by FEMA and OEM officials. If someone calls in saying they've found a suspected bomb, and a higher-up comes down saying to shush about it because people still need to be rescued before the area can be cleared or any reason x, then what?

It was also actually reported on MSNBC that day that police had found some suspicious device:



So what orders came down as to how to handle that? And who's to say whether or not it was actually a bomb/explosive/etc.? And the command center in WTC7 would have had something to do with the decision that was made, right? The same guys who were there a day early.



this whole thread was intended to be a discussion of the seizmic data and how that relates to explosives and what was or was not observed on 911.


What thread isn't about what was or wasn't observed in the 9/11 forums?


ok fine, it was a micro nuke. whatever. it would still ahve to be an equivilant to 12.5 tons of C4 to show up on the seizmographs at the magnitude recorded and thats only if it wasnt in a vehicle when it popped.


But you don't think the seismograph response must have been a 12.5-ton nuke detonation. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Why do the records spike enormously at the beginning, and then there's not much of anything afterwards (by comparison)?


any video showing a blast of that magnitude? no?


Have you ever seen a building like that actually collapse? These things are the only examples we can reference, and you've already made up your mind as to what they were. How do you know what you're looking at when you watch them come down, and crap is flying everywhere in arcs and pouring off "smoke" or "dust"?



ok so we agree not cuz we like each other but because the facts support our opinions in the matter. and on that ONE point our opinions are fairly close. great. the difference is that you dont know or care what was used you just sure that someone put something there to destroy those buildings. doesnt seem to matter if its a hypothetical device or not. meanwhile im sure that it wasnt HE so until someone comes up with a theory that isnt rooted in fantasy or sci fi im going to continue to think that there was no device and sit here saying "but i ahve no bloody idea why they DID fall"


Pretty much. But I bet if we thought long and hard about it, we could find better ways to pick at each other, without having to just agree to disagree.


[edit on 29-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

lol in the interest of this not turning into yet another page long post from me im going to just reference a few of your pionts without quoting much of it, that ok?



ok i can condnese pretty much the first half of your post as i think we're haveing semantics issues again lol. (isnt that turning into a running theme with us? lol)

OK, there were a lot of confusing reports that day and yes, people said they suspected secondary devices. BUT YET operations continued, which contradicts most SOPS for a scene like this. so, like you said, what if they werent devices. MAYBE that was actually established, what are the chances that THOSE reports made it to the news? i mean a fireman goes on tv saying that theres a bomb and then goes to do his job, cameras dont follow, he finds out that report was wrong, is he going to go hunt down that news crew again or is he going to contine his mission?

IF a device was found and the firemen are told to continue the mission regardless, dont you suppose that they may bitch about that to their union reps later? (supposing any of those particular firemen survived the day) do you then think the union is going to just forget about that detail later when they are out speaking out against all the other dangers they encountered that day? isnt the fire union currently one of the vocal groups wanting some answers about that day?

thats all im saying. if they really thought/knew there were bombs in those buildings, we'd still be hearing about it and id likely be spending my time trying to figure out how they did it covertly instaed of sure they didnt do it at all. (cd'ng the building that is)


But you don't think the seismograph response must have been a 12.5-ton nuke detonation. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Why do the records spike enormously at the beginning, and then there's not much of anything afterwards (by comparison)?

THIS quote i think pretty much sumarizes this entire thread.

no, i dont think it was a mini nuke, NOR do i think it was a HE blast. theres just no evidence to support a blast of that magnitude anywhere taht day much less 3 times. and thats what we're talking about here. the siezmic evidence shows a spike and for the same magnitude spike from a known source, there is nothing to suggest a similar event.

which brings me back to what i said a few posts back. either it was a single large blast, of which there is no evidence so that means that its likely that the seizmic evidence is from another source.
OR
if it was a cd they used smaller charges which wouldnt show up on the seizmic graphs meaning that the large spikes were from something else.


Have you ever seen a building like that actually collapse?

no, and until then neither had anyone else.


These things are the only examples we can reference,

see we dont always have to agree to disagree, sometimes we can just agree.


and you've already made up your mind as to what they were.

absolutly incorrect. ive made up my mind what they were NOT based on the evidence available to me. do i really have to say it again? i have no bleedin idea why these buildings fell.


How do you know what you're looking at when you watch them come down, and crap is flying everywhere in arcs and pouring off "smoke" or "dust"?

i dont, i also make no assumptions about them.

im sorry people dont like what im saying in this thread, i really am, but the facts are kind of on my side.

we have a known comparison in the rock quarry that the palisades station monitors and those blasts from a similar distance as the wtc complex, using 80,000lbs of anfo show the same magnitude as the wtc towers OR LESS (they register 1-2, so in theory if we went with 1, it would take MORE explosive to register the same as the WTC collapse. i went with the higher end as i thought it proved my point nicely)

now, if im wrong about them using anfo, which is what most quarries use as it is the cheapest way to do it, then they are using dynamite or tnt. do you REALLY want to see how the numbers change if i recalculate for that?

ok bsb you may be correct that the collapse of the wtc towers masked the blast. ill set aside my opinion there for a second and go with that.

but, i ask then, wheres the HUGE blast that brought down wtc7? and im asking anyone here.

marvin had it correct all along.


Pretty much. But I bet if we thought long and hard about it, we could find better ways to pick at each other, without having to just agree to disagree.

heh this actually made me laugh, i needed that. and youre right, but even when we're sniping each other we're still more civil than most 911 discussion participants who dont like each other lol



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i mean a fireman goes on tv saying that theres a bomb and then goes to do his job, cameras dont follow, he finds out that report was wrong, is he going to go hunt down that news crew again or is he going to contine his mission?


Who cares? All that matters is that it isn't far-fetched to suppose devices were reported but SOPs for them not followed, and that this really wouldn't be unexpected if it were an inside job, and considering FEMA and etc. were all right there with a bird's eye view of the complex in WTC7.



the siezmic evidence shows a spike and for the same magnitude spike from a known source, there is nothing to suggest a similar event.


What source is that? And how do you figure?



do i really have to say it again? i have no bleedin idea why these buildings fell.


No, but when you see them fall, you aren't close-minded to the chance that you're watching all that crap fly out everywhere as a result of internal explosions? If you don't then you can't discount them as evidence in themselves of massive explosions.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Who cares? All that matters is that it isn't far-fetched to suppose devices were reported but SOPs for them not followed, and that this really wouldn't be unexpected if it were an inside job, and considering FEMA and etc. were all right there with a bird's eye view of the complex in WTC7.

ONLY if you want to pretend that the firefighters themselves were NOT aware of the SOP's and KNEW they werent followed. its absolutly naieve to think that the firefighters knew there were suspected bombs in the buildings, knew they were being ordered into the buildings against SOP and were somehow ok with that and havnt thought it was odd considering how little news of bombs in the buildings was being broadcast in the days weeks months to follow OR that there wasnt an investigation of the CD angle in the months and years to follow. IF FDNY suspected bombs then why hasnt the firefighters union, OR bigger groups of firefighters spoken out on the matter? if they have spoken out they arent doing so very loudly.




the siezmic evidence shows a spike and for the same magnitude spike from a known source, there is nothing to suggest a similar event.


What source is that? And how do you figure?

thats a joke yeah? you have read the thread in its entirety...or at least the first page? at the very least the first post? no?
lemme help you then:


One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2.


source

or does that quote somehow not consititute a source? or does the comparison between a known event to the seizmic data not count somehow? do i need to show my math more? maybe a post explaining how to convert HE yeilds by RE factor? no, i did that all in the first post. my bad...

because to me, and mayabe it is just me, but a similar seizmic event with a known source compared to the seizmic events at the wtc which are claimed by many to be from explosives is as about as fair of a comparison as i think one could make.

the CD theorists will say that the ~2 magnitude siezmic events are as the result of explosives. im saying that for them to be explosives it would take the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4 (please read equivilant. could have been anything as its a pretty simple conversion from a known known. i can provide ya'll the data so you can do the math yourself if you dont believe me but i DID post my math in the OP, along with the above quote....)

so where exactly is my logic flawed here? i dont care if it was anfo, tnt, C4, a thermobaric or a mini nuke. there was a release of energy that if it was an explosive device, it had to be the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4. nukes are rated as equivilant of tnt rated in thousands of tons. (or millions for the big ones) so everything in the explosives world can be equated to TNT, if it can be equated to tnt it can be equated to anything else. you dont even need calculus for it. would you like the formulas? or would you prefer to look them up so that i cant be said to be handing out biased source materials? if you dont have some of the exact data you can extrapolate and be pretty close.

but thats not an issue here. we have a seizmic chart that if we compare it to another one from a different yet known event, and we know the circumstances behind the other event we can easily compare the two and see if the events causing chart A have the charicataristics of chart B.

ALSO if labtops right about when the spikes occured, then it was PRIOR to the building collapse initiation and you cant even claim that it was covered by the sounds of the fall. IF labtops right, THEN it was not all that loud, comparitivly speaking, before the initiation of the collapse. and i dont care how many sirens were going off, you would have heard pretty loud and clear the type of blast required for the seizmic spikes. and if that doesnt satisfy you, wtc7. nothing remotely resembling a massive explosion at the outset of that collapse.

talk to any returning vet and ask how far away you can hear/feel 500lb-2000lb bombs going off. also keep in mind that about half the gross weight of those is the iron casing.

i mean those of you that think it was a cd, please put in even a cursory effort into researching HE and what they can or cant do and THEN see if what you witnessed was indicitive of a CD.





do i really have to say it again? i have no bleedin idea why these buildings fell.


No, but when you see them fall, you aren't close-minded to the chance that you're watching all that crap fly out everywhere as a result of internal explosions? If you don't then you can't discount them as evidence in themselves of massive explosions.


oh thats a load of crap and you know it. the reason i look at the crap flying around adn dont think it was driven by explosives is that the ONLY evidence of something happening is the crap flying. so until someone can come up with a way to send THAT MUCH mass flying the way it did using explosives and not have it be more obvious that it as an explosion, im going to go with what i know and is known.

so im as open minded as anyone here is but i guess what separates me from some is im not willing to jump to any conclusions without more proof. theres no proof that there was anything in those buildings that was placed there by anyone with the intent of destroying those buildings.

IF there were any planted devices, they were most likely smaller shaped cutting charges that wouldnt have been responsible for the seizmic spikes that people are using as proof of explosives. ive said before and if you say i didnt youre a liar, that its POSSIBLE that there were cutting charges and that its POSSIBLE that the sound of the collapse covered the sound. i then have said that i find it UNLIKELY and IMPROBABLE as we should have heard at least the first one if nothing else (of course then the thermate argumetn comes up and theres no proof of that either)

so speaking of open minded there bsb, how much of your research has ever involved in trying to figure out how it could have happened using theories that dont involve explosvies, mini nukes or whatever else you want to think did it? i mean at this point is it even an outside possibility to YOU that the government was NOT behind the collapse's of the towers and that maybe the reason the physics doesnt make sense to you is that you simply havnt learned enough physics yet? i mean its not like we're talking about freshman in highschool physics here. i mean, is that at all a possibility to you at this point in the game? it wont suprise me if you say yes it is a possibility as youre a sharp guy, but dont insult me by calling me closed minded when you know thats crap.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Boys and girls, I have been sitting here for days in a row at my screen, looking at the bickering, and waiting for ANYBODY to come up with the IMMENSE flaw in Damocles's reasoning.
Nobody does.
That says something for the logical reasoning of the bulk of the readers of this thread. You all disappoint me.


Damocles : or does that quote somehow not consititute a source? or does the comparison between a known event to the seizmic data not count somehow? do i need to show my math more? maybe a post explaining how to convert HE yeilds by RE factor? no, i did that all in the first post. my bad...

because to me, and mayabe it is just me, but a similar seizmic event with a known source compared to the seizmic events at the wtc which are claimed by many to be from explosives is as about as fair of a comparison as i think one could make.

the CD theorists will say that the ~2 magnitude siezmic events are as the result of explosives. im saying that for them to be explosives it would take the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4 (please read equivilant. could have been anything as its a pretty simple conversion from a known known. i can provide ya'll the data so you can do the math yourself if you dont believe me but i DID post my math in the OP, along with the above quote....)

so where exactly is my logic flawed here? i dont care if it was anfo, tnt, C4, a thermobaric or a mini nuke. there was a release of energy that if it was an explosive device, it had to be the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4. nukes are rated as equivilant of tnt rated in thousands of tons. (or millions for the big ones) so everything in the explosives world can be equated to TNT, if it can be equated to tnt it can be equated to anything else. you dont even need calculus for it. would you like the formulas? or would you prefer to look them up so that i cant be said to be handing out biased source materials? if you dont have some of the exact data you can extrapolate and be pretty close.

but thats not an issue here. we have a seizmic chart that if we compare it to another one from a different yet known event, and we know the circumstances behind the other event we can easily compare the two and see if the events causing chart A have the charicataristics of chart B.


Your logic is flawed at the very base of the argument.
You compare the WHOLE event, namely the GLOBAL collapse of both South and North towers. to a quarry detonation.
All three registered a 2 magnitude earthquake.

Then you calculate from the data of the quarry explosion, the comparable amount of C4 and arrive at 12.5 tons of C4 exploding, to cause a magnitude 2 earthquake.

First mistake : they first drill deep holes and then fill them with Anfo.
So basically you get an underground explosion, in a very small confinement.
Which is meant to shatter MASSIVE rock.
You can't compare that AT ALL to standard operation cutter charges, which are hung around columns in a free air surrounding.
But that mistake doesn't interest me so much.

It is the main mistake you are making which worries me.

I proved to you, that a SMALL seismic event; small, compared to both the first tower's GLOBAL collapses, RAN IN FRONT of all three of those global collapses on the seismic charts.
All three events however, were comparable to the massive plane impacts in the twin towers!

Thus, the source of those two "small" events, must have been logically a much SMALLER event, and NOT TE DAMN 12.5 tons of C4 you calculated for both the whole GLOBAL collapses events.

So now I hope you understand that we are talking about MUCH smaller detonations which were the initiating events that caused all three towers to collapse!

And you can see in the excellent 9/11 Eyewitness videos, and in BBC footage and lots of others, that both tower bases were emanating whitish smoke just before their collapses.
I tried to inform you, that I suspect them to have used underwater explosions for those initiating events.
Whitish smoke = steam from an explosion.
And NO, that was not 12.5 ton C4, but a SMACK less.

And those steam ejects running in front of the downward collapse fronts, they were steam explosions too. To cut a set of core columns, one set per floor, 6 to 8 sets to cut all 47 core columns at a total of 6 to 8 floors.
They did that only at the mechanical floors and below, to break the backs of those buildings.

WTC 7 is a totally different picture. That was panic in play.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Originally posted by LaBTop
Boys and girls, I have been sitting here for days in a row at my screen, looking at the bickering, and waiting for ANYBODY to come up with the IMMENSE flaw in Damocles's reasoning.
Nobody does.

could that be because maybe they read the OP?


That says something for the logical reasoning of the bulk of the readers of this thread. You all disappoint me.

interesting way to set the tone for your post...insult us all, but thats ok we all have bad days. just hope you accord me the same latitude.


Damocles :

the CD theorists will say that the ~2 magnitude siezmic events are as the result of explosives.


IF you read NOTHING else in this ENTIRE thread, that would be the line to pay attention to. i hate to break this to you, you may want to sit down, but you are not the embodiement of all CD conspiracy theorists, nor do i imagine you are even the embodiment of the majority of them.


READ the first post. i thought i was pretty clear.

MOST (read all but you and a few other guys at studyof) cd theorists look at this massive spike and say "OMG EXPLOVIES" and what i illustrated in my OP was that there was really no way possible for THAT spike, the ~2 on the richter scale spike, which you and i seem to agree was in fact the collapse of the buildings, to be caused by explosives. now, if you get that much, the rest should have been pretty elementary.


Your logic is flawed at the very base of the argument.
You compare the WHOLE event, namely the GLOBAL collapse of both South and North towers. to a quarry detonation.
All three registered a 2 magnitude earthquake.

yes i do compare the two and no, to illustrate the point ive been trying make for 9 pages now, my logic is right on.


Then you calculate from the data of the quarry explosion, the comparable amount of C4 and arrive at 12.5 tons of C4 exploding, to cause a magnitude 2 earthquake.

yes, and i explained why in my OP, you did read it right?


First mistake : they first drill deep holes and then fill them with Anfo.

not a mistake at all, im well aware of that and looked past it so that i wouldnt have to deal with a lot of BS about how it wasnt the same thing. want me to be accurate about it? fine, if it took 80k/lbs of anfo underground, then it would take MORE of it strapped to columns of a building. cuz you know everything attatched to the column is going to absorb vibrations right?


So basically you get an underground explosion, in a very small confinement.

if you call an area the size of a football field a small confinment. you dont REALLY think that they put 80,000lbs of anfo in ONE HOLE do you? i say this with respect, and im trying to say it with a straight face, but if you DO think they put it all in one hole, then i cant really take anything you say about explosives seriously. video (and no crap about it being an open pit mine, same techniques used in most quarries)


Which is meant to shatter MASSIVE rock.

yes, which is why they use anfo. its cheap and since it has less than half the det velocity of tnt it doesnt throw all the small rocks into the next county. anfo doesnt blast so much as it pushes real hard real fast.


But that mistake doesn't interest me so much.

whew! i was worried for a minute.


It is the main mistake you are making which worries me.

uh oh, should i sit down? sorry man didnt mean to worry you.


I proved to you, that a SMALL seismic event; small, compared to both the first tower's GLOBAL collapses, RAN IN FRONT of all three of those global collapses on the seismic charts.
All three events however, were comparable to the massive plane impacts in the twin towers!

no, youve proved to me that eitehr by intent or incompetance NIST is giving us a timeline that may not be right.

but you see, again, in the bleedin first post i talked about how so many people cite the BIG PEAKS as proof of explosives.

you spent most of this thread talking about the time line but NOW you say that youre always talking about these itty bitty spikes and yet....labtop, in this post you link to a video where the first thing the narrator does is say

the siezmic record from palisades new york as published in the fema report indicates massive peak signals of short duration typical of high velocity military grade explosives that register 2.1 and 2.3 on the richter scale
those are his EXACT WORDS (so long as i didnt screw up the transcription) along with a picture of THE BIG SPIKES! i mean, should i repost your video for you? this is the same video you say later in your post above is "excellent". so, is the narrator pointing out the spikes and saying that "hey this is what we usually see in HE blasts but thats got nothing to do with the wtc towers" OR was he saying that those massive spikes were the result of HE?

if he's saying they are the result of HE he IS WRONG!!!


Thus, the source of those two "small" events, must have been logically a much SMALLER event, and NOT TE DAMN 12.5 tons of C4 you calculated for both the whole GLOBAL collapses events.
no, like i said in the OP, you did read it yeah? im saying that the MASSIVE SPIKES REGISTERING 2.1 AND 2.3 ARE NOT FROM HIGH EXPLOSIVES. was that clear? if im not being clear please feel free to ask waht i meant. ill be happy to explain it.


So now I hope you understand that we are talking about MUCH smaller detonations which were the initiating events that caused all three towers to collapse!

no, you seem to be the ONLY one talking about smaller events which you assume are HE.


And you can see in the excellent 9/11 Eyewitness videos,

yeah, how excellent was that video again? it seems to totally contradict what YOU are saying yet, you use it as supportive evidence and say its excellent....im really confused man.


and in BBC footage and lots of others, that both tower bases were emanating whitish smoke just before their collapses.

which means that there was white smoke coming from the tower. doesnt prove explosives. ALL it proves is that there was white smoke, or ill grant, steam. but its hard to imagine that steam could come out under a building with a subway entrance in NYC isnt it? oh, wait, waht was that explosion a while back? oh yeah, steam pipe. not saying or implying it was the source of the white smoke, just saying that its happened before.


I tried to inform you, that I suspect them to have used underwater explosions for those initiating events.

youve tried to inform me of a lot of things, some of which, the 911 eyewitness video for example, seems to contradict you or you it so...yeah. you did in fact say you suspect there was an underwater explosion. you also said TBE devices doing things that werent necessarily supported by facts when you really look at them either but hey, im the one with the faulty logic so w/e.


Whitish smoke = steam from an explosion.
And NO, that was not 12.5 ton C4, but a SMACK less.

wow, even compared to some of your other posts that one is a leap of faith. smack less huh? that a metric term im not familiar with? ok, so just how much HE would it take to generate that kind of steam? said before i never did UDT so i dont know. seems if you want to try to prove a theory you may want to know things like that to see if it even makes sense yeah? so, care to share how much it would take to generate enough steam to "eminate" from teh building like that? as someone always looking to learn more about demo id love to read your source materials.


And those steam ejects running in front of the downward collapse fronts, they were steam explosions too.
so, now TBE's give off steam? wow, demo tech really has come a long way in 5 years...



To cut a set of core columns, one set per floor, 6 to 8 sets to cut all 47 core columns at a total of 6 to 8 floors.
They did that only at the mechanical floors and below, to break the backs of those buildings.

but then, why were there "ejections" going off on non mechanical floors? just curious.

so in closing, it looks like we've both been discussing different things this whole time, which just confuses me as i laid it all out in the OP in what i thought was pretty basic english. but honestly when i see that the same post by you was cut and pasted in two separate threads, i have to ask myself if youre more interested in discussion and research or in being right? if youre more interested in being right then everything makes sense from the numerous times youve BOLDED "prove me wrong" to the fact that your entire last post seems to be nothing more than an attempt to discredit me for some reason.

funniest part of all is that the 911eyewitness video you posted a page or two back is EXACTLY what i was talking about in my OP. thats why i keep asking if you read it. did you? or did you see someone posting about seizmic data and felt that you were being challenged somehow? cuz guess what? its not always about you....


[edit on 30-12-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ONLY if you want to pretend that the firefighters themselves were NOT aware of the SOP's and KNEW they werent followed.


Yeah, and the firefighters are going to rebelliously congregate to decide that their leaders are lying to them about there being no need to worry about the sounds they hear or things they see that suggest explosives.



One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2.


source

or does that quote somehow not consititute a source?


I thought you were saying that the PE from the towers somehow related to the biggest seismic event. You know I don't give a damn about HEs.




so until someone can come up with a way to send THAT MUCH mass flying the way it did using explosives and not have it be more obvious that it as an explosion, im going to go with what i know and is known.


First you say you are open minded to it, then you say you're "going to go with what [you] know". I thought the whole point in keeping an open mind, is that you don't really know? And that you could be wrong? So why are you forming an opinion without knowing what you're talking about? I'm not sure how you can contradict yourself with less than two sentences in between and not see it. What do you mean when you say you're going to go with something? Is that supposed to be meaningless or something? Are you not suggesting some kind of decision in your head, forming an opinion when you just admitted that information is missing and you don't really know?


ive said before and if you say i didnt youre a liar, that its POSSIBLE that there were cutting charges and that its POSSIBLE that the sound of the collapse covered the sound.


It's also possible that the rumbles were so low-frequency that they weren't picked up well or much amplified. I've watched the collapses on the History Channel on documentaries and heard/felt tons of distinct "rumble" events. The sound of the collapse covering itself or whatever is just an idea that occurred to me once, and I don't necessarily believe it. The sounds produced would be a part of the over-all sound of the collapse, though, obviously, whether it would be more or less.


how much of your research has ever involved in trying to figure out how it could have happened using theories that dont involve explosvies, mini nukes or whatever else you want to think did it? i mean at this point is it even an outside possibility to YOU that the government was NOT behind the collapse's of the towers and that maybe the reason the physics doesnt make sense to you is that you simply havnt learned enough physics yet?


Who has learned all the right physics, and where is it?

The better question is, how in the hell will you even be able to tell if the problems I point out are legitimate are not? You wouldn't. You would just keep asking me questions like the ones above. The only advice I can give you is learn physics yourself, and correct me whenever you see my thinking is flawed.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
pretty soon im going to start thinking that what i read as english really isnt....i seem to be making no sense to anyone of late. ill try again, ill be more concise. (lol i promise)


Originally posted by bsbray11
First you say you are open minded to it, then you say you're "going to go with what [you] know". I thought the whole point in keeping an open mind, is that you don't really know? And that you could be wrong? So why are you forming an opinion without knowing what you're talking about? I'm not sure how you can contradict yourself with less than two sentences in between and not see it. What do you mean when you say you're going to go with something? Is that supposed to be meaningless or something? Are you not suggesting some kind of decision in your head, forming an opinion when you just admitted that information is missing and you don't really know?

i do not know why the wtc towers fell down. ive heard many theories. some are interesting and some are sci fi. i do know know enough structural engineering or physics to tell anyone why they should have stood or why its ok they fell.

i do however have enough knowledge and technical hands on experience with explosives to make an informed opinion about any controlled demo theories. i think my posting history supports that. (involving conventional explosives. in my military career the "nuke" part of my job was always my weakest and so i only kept up the bare minimum knowledge of it most of which ive forgotten since)

however, having said that, i am open minded to the possibility that i could be very very wrong. ive said this any number of times. but, that doesnt mean that whenever someone comes along and starts posting how it had to be a cd and their theory doesnt at least answer the basic questions for me personally that im going to disregard everything i know and accept their theory as fact. as of yet, no one has proven to me that there were any conventional explosives in the world trade centers.

now, in your opinion, is it at all possible to be both open minded and skeptical? if you say no id like you to contact Dr Brady Phelps, ill even find his email address for you, and tell him i want that semester of my life back. thanks.



It's also possible that the rumbles were so low-frequency that they weren't picked up well or much amplified.

ok then, lets discuss that shall we? what kind of device or material would do that and still have the energy to damage a fairly robust building? you may think im sniping you but i find it a fair question otherwise i have to just sit here and think "ok. dropped the building but we dont know anything about its characteristics or properties." im sorry if i find that to be just a little Deus ex Machina to me.



I've watched the collapses on the History Channel on documentaries and heard/felt tons of distinct "rumble" events. The sound of the collapse covering itself or whatever is just an idea that occurred to me once, and I don't necessarily believe it. The sounds produced would be a part of the over-all sound of the collapse, though, obviously, whether it would be more or less.

and ive said that i cant as a FACT say that its not possible as i wasnt there to get a first hand comparison for the sound levels. ive said that to YOU. i have always then asked, which i think is fair....what about the first detonation? i usually get (not from you per se) "well they used thermate to start it" sorry, again, a little too deus ex to me.

does it really make me closed minded to want just a LITTLE proof? and when i get a piece of evidence to then try to "put it through its paces" so to speak to make sure that there arent any other possible explainations? cuz guess what...if you do that, and you run out of possible explainations, whats left?



Who has learned all the right physics, and where is it?

THAT my friend, is an excellent question and id love to know myself.


The better question is, how in the hell will you even be able to tell if the problems I point out are legitimate are not? You wouldn't.

youre right, i wouldnt. ive admitted i havnt had the physics or structural engineering to be an expert in this. but, save when we used to talk demo back in the day, when do i question what you point out other than to try to actually understand what youre talking about? i dont seem to recall a single time, but i also have trouble remembering something that happened last week so take it for what its worth.


You would just keep asking me questions like the ones above. The only advice I can give you is learn physics yourself, and correct me whenever you see my thinking is flawed.

the last question i have for you bsb is: when did this get to be about me telling you your physics theories and opinions are wrong? did i miss something in a post above? cuz if i did then please accept my apology man.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
that doesnt mean that whenever someone comes along and starts posting how it had to be a cd and their theory doesnt at least answer the basic questions for me personally


Why do your questions, the specific technical "how", have to be answered? If there was a way to figure something out without having to resort to specifying exactly what was used and where it was placed, would you feel the need to force yourself or somebody else to try to figure out the specific devices and locations anyway?


otherwise i have to just sit here and think "ok. dropped the building but we dont know anything about its characteristics or properties."


Then stop thinking that. Do you really think it's impossible to conclude that the buildings came down in a coordinated effort without first figuring out what specific technology was used and the exact methods used to set it up?


i have always then asked, which i think is fair....what about the first detonation?


Give me a recording that features any of them and we'll look at the waveform.


does it really make me closed minded to want just a LITTLE proof?


You ask for only a very narrow kind of proof, that isn't necessary, and that doesn't interest me, because it's unnecessary.


did i miss something in a post above? cuz if i did then please accept my apology man.


I was only trying to encourage you to actually take the onus instead of always talking about other experts besides yourself.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why do your questions, the specific technical "how", have to be answered?

seriously?



If there was a way to figure something out without having to resort to specifying exactly what was used and where it was placed, would you feel the need to force yourself or somebody else to try to figure out the specific devices and locations anyway?

id probably put myself through it to better understand it. i may be old but i still like to learn.



Then stop thinking that. Do you really think it's impossible to conclude that the buildings came down in a coordinated effort without first figuring out what specific technology was used and the exact methods used to set it up?

impossible? no, not impossible. but i also think its possible that there are aliens, i think its possible that humans can levitate, and sometimes i even think its possible that everything in startrek may come to pass.

but possible and probable are not always they same thing.



i have always then asked, which i think is fair....what about the first detonation?


Give me a recording that features any of them and we'll look at the waveform.

yes but we both know neither of us would be happy unless it was raw data. honestly id love to see the results of such a thing but im not going to trust just any jackoff out there to do it and say it supports his/her claims either. so, if either of us can find a raw source ill get it to you or if u find it let me know the results.



You ask for only a very narrow kind of proof, that isn't necessary, and that doesn't interest me, because it's unnecessary.

narrow kind of proof? how many kinds of proof are there. its either proof or evidence. i want proof.

til i was 4 or 5 i believed in santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny cucz my mom said so. that was proof enough for me. well, now my standards are a little higher....and thats a bad thing?



I was only trying to encourage you to actually take the onus instead of always talking about other experts besides yourself.

well not sure which other experts i talk about...ever. but as to the rest, you know.

see heres what i dont get bsb. NIST gives their explaination for what happened up until the start of the collapse. they offer their proof. you dont buy it do you? do you finally think nist is being honest and has it all right? cuz if you do then i missed something.

beyond that, they say that once the collapse initiated that what followed was just the logical outcome.

you dont believe them do you? THEY say thats the way it is and YOU say no, i dont think so.

you question it becuase it violates what you know. same as many others here some of whom are structural engineers. they all do research to try to reconsile what they saw with what they were told with what they know.

and that seems to be OK.

but my backround is in blowing things up among other things and someone tells me nist is wrong and that its "obvious" that it was a CD but they cant explain how and im supposed to just take it on faith when it doesnt reconsile with what i know? and im being maligned for wanting some proof? ANY proof? (and "well it looks like a cd" just isnt proof)

i see all the time "well CD is the only thing that explains it all" to which i want to say "no, it doesnt, keep looking" but im the bad guy?

cmon bsb yer starting to sound like a hipocryt here. if yer allowed to want more proof from nist then im allowed to want more proof from the CD theorists.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 



First mistake : they first drill deep holes and then fill them with Anfo.


not a mistake at all, im well aware of that and looked past it so that i wouldnt have to deal with a lot of BS about how it wasnt the same thing. want me to be accurate about it? fine, if it took 80k/lbs of anfo underground, then it would take MORE of it strapped to columns of a building. cuz you know everything attatched to the column is going to absorb vibrations right?



I'm glad to see you address this. As a layman, I read that last night and thought that "he has it backwards."

I mean really, if the HE is in the rock vs HE strapped to columns - which would absorb SOME of the energy - then more would need to be used in the towers to fit his theory and still have similar seismic energy.

Then combine this with videos of the cores still standing for a short time near the end of the collapse, and I have no idea how he could come up with the conclusion that the cores were blown in the basement. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.





top topics
 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join