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.
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.
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,
post you link to a video where the first thing
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
So now I hope you understand that we are talking about MUCH smaller detonations which were the initiating events that caused all three towers
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]