1- and 2-can't be addressed, since there is no question embedded.
I'll only remark, that I have provided an extensive body of links and explanations, and I haven't seen you do the same.
You act as if you are talking to your friends in the local bar.
That kind of argumentation doesn't convince us here.
3- you construct distortion upon distortion in order to prove your "thesis". There's so many blended instances of first stating that NIST's
times are inconclusive, then using those times as your basis for the start of events, then denying the said use, that it's pathetic.
Be a man, and show us the links to that behavior.
NIST has used the same times for years, so did I, and then suddenly added 5 seconds to all video and photo evidence in their possession, in January of
2006, and then sticked to that. And they and LDEO have published their fault margins, which I also have both included in my explanatory color diagram
4- demo waves. what a joke. i've seen your response to challenges about there not being any audio recordings. "that's not important, the proof
is in my thesis, you must not have read it, blah blah blah, drivel drivel drivel.." no, it's important.
That's another big fat LIE packed in an insult, you just made up those words, and you can find my real answers here at page 9:
And this here is the same provocative remark from you as above, in that same thread :
which I answered extensively in all my following posts at that page 9, and first in this post :
Then read all my other posts on that page 9, and show me where you bravely re-entered to prove me wrong? You didn't.
Instead you come here and repeat the same old garbage, and hook me up with a lot of additional lost time for a lost case for true history, like
Why I answer posts from people like you, who's behavior I have learned to know very well in the last 10 years, has only one reason :
I hope I can educate more civil silent readers, who may struggle with the same questions, and could not fill the answers in without my help.
Like we see now happen again with OrionStars. He also thought, just as Damocles and herds of others, that those huge peaks in the graphs were
explosives. No they were the crashing down buildings, helped a bit with some relatively small explosives. And the first explosives going off, we can
see when we compact these graphs back to the 10 nm/s scale, they pre-run the big peaks.
5- the 50-100 ton column sections are minor occurances and would result in tiny additions to the seismic activity? the absudity of that statement
confirms it - you're ready to ignore logic in order to stick to your ridiculous story.
Let me educate you: most educated readers here will and have backed me up on this, you're pretty much alone with your opinion.
6- and the hits just keep on coming... the initiation of the global collapse resulted in similar seismic energy as the plane strikes, since both
events would have transmitted that energy into the bedrock through the steel columns. This can be plainly seen when comparing your expanded chart of
the collapse and the ldeo provided scale of the plane strikes. You even state yourself that the strikes and the area prior to the jumping are similar
Here you are reaching into the realm of the absurd.
This is exactly what I am saying all the time, you only stubbornly forget to add that in the case of my thesis subject, the collapse of WTC 7, it is
clear as crystal, that the initiating event is a magnitude bigger than the ensuing global collapse. And you also constantly forget that the Richter
scale is a logarithmic scale, you can't simply double the value when you see a double so high peak. The value becomes much bigger than that.
And THEN, and only THEN I address the other collapses, and tell you that those same pre-running peaks thus logically spoken, also depict an energy
pulse made by men.
7- timing, you yourself have stated that the NIST has changed time of the events and you are unsure what to believe or take as the truth, other
than ldeo. But then you use NIST's times as "proofs" of your ideas. LOL....
No, I said that I have my doubts that the latest NIST adjustment of 5 added seconds is correct. I do believe that not the whole bunch of NIST
researchers is corrupt. But I'm quite sure the top echelons are. Thus I believe their basic time scales, but not the politically affected last
adjustment, to get their timeline in pace with LDEO's timeline, the top thought. They were wrong, and their personnel didn't dare or wanted to
8- the pre collapse shows a higher spike, we agree. but the the global collapse, while showing a lower max energy, is spread over a longer time
horizon. add up the TOTAL seismic energy, and one can plainly and logically see that the total energy transmitted is higher than for the pre collapse.
But logic plainly isn't in use for the basis of your joke of a "thesis", so I can understand how that would escape you...
So tell me, what on earth has that to do with my 1:47 column comparison?
That's where my argument is based on.
One WTC 7 column breaking can NEVER EVER force more energy magnitude in the earth than all WTC 7 columns and more beams breaking.
So, to be able to explain that huge WTC 7 peak, we must introduce an external energy packet.
You know how we do that? EXPLOSIVES, man.
Be a real man, admit you are wrong, or come up with a SOLID reason for that huge WTC 7 pack of peaks, which reason is not explosives.
I can't, and a true researcher wants to find any proof-negatives first.
Your lack of logic but abundance of insults is the only fact obvious here.
You conveniently forget that everybody involved said this was a BOTTOM first collapse. And NIST thinks it originated at floor 5.
That's a damn short distance to fall for the first debris. The WHOLE DAMN tower man.
So of course this seismic chart looks different than the two Twin Tower collapse charts, which were TOP first collapses.
Contemplate on it a bit, and see where you can come up with.
I gave my answer already, but as usual you haven't grasped it.
One hint : 1:47.