posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 02:58 PM
Whodunnit : So are you saying that since explosives are more efficient..... that this proves that there were no explosives used to bring down the
towers, since in your "proofs" the part of the seismographs that you have indicated point to the use of explosives have SMALLER excursions?
This would be correct, if this is what you're saying....
LT : My thesis starts with proof of a lot of extra energy introduced before the collapse of WTC 7, you talk up there ONLY about WTC 1 and
And that WTC 7 seismic chart has a bigger pre-collapse spike than the following global collapse.
You are correct in observing that WTC 1 and 2 have smaller pre-collapse spikes than the following global collapses. There's a reason for that.
Look at it this way for the reasons :
WTC 7 was a bottom-down demolition, where we saw all 4 building facades gliding down, essentially, without any big clouds spitting out sideways, most
of the clouds spat out from the roof portion in the first few seconds.
Charges were obviously placed in the core columns, at the bottom of the cantilever construction above the ConEd station at floor 5, where most of them
ended and leaned on.
That's why we saw nearly no clouds being expelled sideways, and the facades leaning inward while falling.
Classic bottom-down demolition, just one big group of explosives fired at once, perhaps a few cutter charges high up, and gravity does the rest.
Just like the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
That's why we see one bigger pre-global collapse spike, followed by a smaller global collapse spike.
Because there was no need for more explosions, those were explicitly NOT wanted by the planners, or it would have been too damn obviously that WTC 7
was an artificial demolition, and not a gravity driven one !
Now it's just obvious, and a bit of rhetoric and lies still have some 30% of US citizens convinced that that smoothly sliding down of all 4 facades
was a coincident by chance.
(Since this is the part of a populace which will f.ex. look at massive nuking of Iran, and then ask : Did we win? OK, let's go plant the flag in the
front garden and pop a beer.)
WTC 1 and 2 were top-down demolitions, as planned following too quickly after the plane impacts.
Where we saw rolling clouds being expelled from all 4 building facades at impact floors, in a very fast downward movement.
Floors and adjacent facade parts were literally blown out in the first few seconds.
The planners obviously didn't have a lot of trust in a gravity driven further collapse, after first initiative explosions, so they created a rolling
thunder of downward explosions, and told us that this is the normal collapse behaviour for such a high building. Pancaking. Bullocks!
And that's the main reason that we see in both WTC 1 and 2 demolitions, smaller spikes pre-run the global collapses spikes (but equally high as the
WTC 7 pre-spikes).
Because the rest of their global collapses were one big EXPLOSIVE firework, which imprinted a much bigger spike on their collapse seismographs.
The WTC 1 and 2 pre-collapse bottom charges were tiny compared to the following freight train of top-down charges blowing up the rest of the
If WTC 7 obviously was, and proved to be an artificial demolition, what more do I have to say?