It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Secondary Explosions" on 9/11: Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DOcean
Common sense doesn't tell us that there were planted bombs in the buildings, holographic jets, widespread government conspiracy or anything of the like.


And my point is confirmed not even 3 posts away.




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
How, exactly is the seismogram such brilliant proof of explosion?



The first added lines indicate very small increases to background noise. Explosions they probably are not, as they seem to be too small for one thing and also seem too long lived, in that explosions die down a lot faster. For example, here is a nuclear test (compared with the Sichuan quake), which reduces very quickly. It could also be background noise, such as distant larger earthquakes. Then the main event. Granted I'm not sure what a collapsing building should llook like, but it does look like an event that has a duration rather than an explosion which is literally there and then gone.


In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independant vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

source

So where exactly is the 'proof' in the seismic records?

Edit:


Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
NOW theres an authority on explosives and construction..an ECONOMIST.


About as much as a vehicle autonomy specialist and integrated health manager.


Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft.



At least the vehicle autonomy scientist might at some point have studied a mechanics course in part of his degree. An economist? Unlikely, I think. Could at least get someone who works in some sort of structural engineering sort of work.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by apex]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by apex]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


What exactly was your point, genius? Look around the board. This is the kind of outlandish stuff people have come up with. Holographic jets take the cake...but someone lending creedence to civilians saying they heard explosions, meanwhile, they're in the middle of a maelstrom is right up there too.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 






So, it's ok for you guys to bring in "no-planes", space based weapons etc. to debunk us when nothing has been even remotely said about them.


Us guys? Sorry, but I stick to facts. Dont confuse me with others. To answer your last...nope, not a day off. More of a waiting day.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

At least the vehicle autonomy scientist might at some point have studied a mechanics course in part of his degree. An economist? Unlikely, I think. Could at least get someone who works in some sort of structural engineering sort of work.



Really, it doesn't matter if an economist has an opinion or not. If he can do the maths required, and educates himself a little about structural engineering terms, etc, that would be fine, IMHO. And I'd listen to what he had to say.

Rather, what we see are arguments from incredulity, almost across the board, even from qualified engineers. Just go read the ae9/11 truth member board and their comments under their bios. Nearly all make their points from incredulity, which is a pathetic appeal to authority because they have some letters after their name.

The only work from anyone on the doubter's side that I'm aware of is from Gordon Ross - a real engineer for a change. He did WTC 1, and demonstrated that it would have arrested around the 40th floor. That's great!! Some real work for a change!! But when you apply his formulas and info to 2, it collapses to the ground. He refuses to comment on this.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Okay, you have three office buildings, 267 stories tall. I do not know about what you have seen, but every office building I have ever been in, gets cleaned on a regular basis, and most have first aid rooms/closets every few floors.

Now, you may ask, what does this mean? Well to clean an office, you need things like glass cleaner, furniture polish, floor stripper, floor wax, air fresheners etc.. And in most first aid rooms nowadays, you tend to find emergency oxygen bottles.

guess these cans and sprays and oxygen bottles also made the fire so hot that it can melt steel,eh?
Come off it, you cant seriously claim anymore that this was not a set-up. Most officials have admitted as much,but, just as most other news totally eludes the american people, this will be ignored and rapidly forgotten.
People who still believe that muslem-terrists have done this are very, very disturbed and probably disturbing too.
If I would be on trial and there would be one tenth of the evidence as there is about 9/11, I would be hung straightaway, no matter how many bullpoo stories I would spout about spraycans and other silly little excuses.
I really wonder how many barrels of cleaning fluid there must have been on every floor of the WTC. Or maybe they had like ten bottles of oxygen pointed at the fires; to feed them.
If you can accept the official version of 9/11, I guess you can also accept Bush as a leader. Or maybe even MCCain, haha.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


It is funny, you guys never debunk the stories in America, you only try to discrecit the one who brought them. Never any proof, just trying to throw doubt on the story you dont wish to accept.
That is weak argument, if you did not know this already.

And as to who I mean with the 'you guys', weeeeell, I let you figure that out for yourself; some self-evaluation is in order here, I think.




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler
reply to post by apex
 


It is funny, you guys never debunk the stories in America, you only try to discrecit the one who brought them. Never any proof, just trying to throw doubt on the story you dont wish to accept.
That is weak argument, if you did not know this already.


I'm confused. What part of my post are you talking about? If its about the seismograms, post some evidence that says I'm wrong.

For the rest of my post (about the 'experts'), it was meant mainly as humour, rather than a serious point.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Us guys? Sorry, but I stick to facts. Dont confuse me with others. To answer your last...nope, not a day off. More of a waiting day.


True, I haven't seen you do this sort of tactic.

As I've said before, I wish you all the best over in Iraq.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DOcean
 


1. So because none of these people has ever been in a skyscraper blowing up they don't know what bombs sound and FEEL like. Ha, fine. Explain this mans story (was in the video) who was in the basement and heard explosions below him. The whole article is damning, and it mentions that at least 14 people can back it up.

www.williambowles.info...

How would the tower collapsing from the top down cause explosions in the basement?

2. I'll answer this more with my next post, but the fact that there were spikes before the large tremor indicate that it was an explosion.

3. So your claim is that our highly trained firefighters and law enforcement officials cracked under pressure, and thought everything was a suspicious package? Maybe at first, but to further investigate and be so sure it was a bomb that you radio all of the firefighters and tell them to evacuate because its a bomb? These folks are trained to be in these types of situations. Also, this goes to answer the first point, firefighters are in infernos all of the time (maybe not of this magnitude, but none the less). I think they would know the difference between sounds of regular stuff burning and crumbling, and a bomb. But I know, you would rather trust our government who wasn't there and who has lied to us time and time again than to trust eye witnesses.

4. Answered in point 1. Honestly, you think office supplies would blow people down? Watch the video again to see the people talk about the force of which they were thrown.

5. Perhaps you're not with the government, but your not a witness either. You believe the governments side of the story, who by the way withholds all of the relevant evidence. Lets assume for a minute that unaffiliated experts have seen the videos and have mixed opinions. Then why not give them access to the evidence to end the argument. The fact that its witheld is what diminishes the credibility of the government.

As for the end of your post, I'm not attacking your common sense. Why resort to personal attacks. Even if you are "winning" (which by no means do I think you are) this argument, I am certainly making reasonable points. Then you bring up holograms. Fine, if you can lump everyone into that group, then I can do the same. I've seen many people that say that if the government did set this up, then its good, because more control over us means they can better protect us from the real enemies. That proves the absurdity of your side.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Wow, you have a very convincing way of argument; you bully!
That is all the evidence we need to at least debunk the story of your being knowledgable about this.
How come bullies dont see that they are easily exposed?
You can call any opposing opinion childish, stupid, or whatnot, but you cant bully away the truth. And the truth is that there is more eveidence confirming the explosions than denying them.
I understand that you do not wish to believe that at least half of your government and police system is as corrupt as any political system, nobody wishes to think their government is against them, but how overwhelming should evidence be for people in denial?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Really, it doesn't matter if an economist has an opinion or not. If he can do the maths required, and educates himself a little about structural engineering terms, etc, that would be fine, IMHO. And I'd listen to what he had to say.


Now, this is a true statement if there ever was one. Kudos to you.

You're gaining more respect from me day by day. I know it probably doesn't matter to you or anyone else if you have gained my respect or not, but it does to me.



which is a pathetic appeal to authority because they have some letters after their name.


Not to argue with you, but do you understand what we go through to get those letters behind our name? It's not easy being cheesey.


The only work from anyone on the doubter's side that I'm aware of is from Gordon Ross - a real engineer for a change. He did WTC 1, and demonstrated that it would have arrested around the 40th floor. That's great!! Some real work for a change!! But when you apply his formulas and info to 2, it collapses to the ground. He refuses to comment on this.


It still begs the question of what fell WTC 1 to the ground then doesn't it?

I've always said that the tower's collapses could have been from plane damage and fire as reported. Especially WTC 2. As I've not done any kind of analysis, I won't knock it totally.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dervishmadwhirler
 


Except, there wasnt any melted steel. Melted aluminum maybe, but not steel. Now, to break out the Crayolas for you, I did not say that cleaning fluids etc.. caused the towers to fall. I said that those items would account for the "explosions" that were heard.

The rest of your post stinks of typically European arrogance.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


About this seismic data. First, lets talk a little bit about the report you cite. As an opening, he states his organization "took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris". He goes on to say they took video of the cleanup process. Well, seeing as how they have no government affiliation, why haven't these been released to the public? On to your points.

Background noise? Like what, a car driving by cause the tremors? You claim separate eartquakes could have cause it. What do think the chances of an earth quake occuring at that second would have been. And you can clearly two distinct spike before the major tremor. Geologists Steve Davis:

"The seismographs for the WTC change with distance and geologic conditions, but the analysis of the P and S waves of many of them show such sharp and close arrival times that they are most closely matched with explosions rather than smaller amplitude dispersed waves of the collapses seen after these spikes. Some of the graphs closely match those of some of the largest chemical explosions and the smallest nuclear explosions, mini nuclear explosions. Years of monitoring nuclear test ban treaty events has refined this analysis, but so far the most sophisticated seismic modelling of 911 has not been done. Nevertheless, the graphs which show any extreme spiking are very suspect and the burden of proof is on those who claim that they were not explosions to show how anything can mimic major explosions and also that all the other evidence can be explained away to make the timing fit the initial simpler speculations. More exact seismic matches may lie hidden in the vast CTBT archives to which we do not have access, and researchers should attempt to obtain more data there. Also, the gov't. nuclear labs, LANL & LLNL, have sophisticated nuclear test modelling softwares that can be used to do complete analysis and make quite accurate and precise comparisons."
www.rense.com...

Read the entire article. It proves that when witness acounts, video, seismic account, and history are all used to look at the collapse, it looks like a detonation. He goes on to say that he and other geologist can confirm the findings if they have access to the evidence, and that they have requested it, but for some reason, he wasn't given access to it.

Now Blanchard claims to have seen no spikes on any seismograph before the collapse, but a simple look at your graph by any layman can prove that untrue. This site shows a seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory which clearly show the spikes. As this site mentions, the public does not have access to the supposed readings protec is using.

911research.wtc7.net...
(Also a good read as it line by line refute the claims of Blanchards report)

Also is the fact that despite detonations being blown in the basement creating the spikes, the reason that only S waves were recorded is because the building was blown from the top down, which only a demolition could have accomplished.

"Furthermore, contrary to a conventional controlled demolition, the WTC was blown top-down. Explosions between the 70th and 90th floors would not result in sufficient energy transference traveling down to the sub-basement structure. Had the WTC been blown from the base as per the case of a conventional demolition, this would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves upon initiation. The fact that only S waves were recorded is consistent with the WTC being blown top-down, which is clearly possible depending upon the order in which the charges are detonated."

z9.invisionfree.com...

Again, the important thing to remember here is that all of the cites I'm using clearly show the data, yours won't release the evidence they use



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Except, there wasnt any melted steel. Melted aluminum maybe, but not steel.


Care to back up this statement? I see your "no melted steel" and raise you the FEMA report where they explicitely say melted steel.


2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.



It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7.


www.fema.gov...

So, are you still going to say that the steel didn't melt? Or are you going to play semantic games and say it was in the intergranular regions and call it errosion/corrosion?

Side note: I find it quite interesting that I wasn't able to find this study on Google, but was able to find it on Yahoo. Using the same search words I might add.



Now, to break out the Crayolas for you,


Funny how you arrogantly say this and then in the next sentence say:


The rest of your post stinks of typically European arrogance.


Guess what pot, you're black also.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
Now Blanchard claims to have seen no spikes on any seismograph before the collapse,


I wouldn't take anything Blanchard has to say at all. Some expert doesn't even know what the hell he's talking about.


every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first


www.implosionworld.com...

Really Mr. expert?



Then explain that Mr. expert. Obviously, he's lying through his teeth. Or he's no expert. Take which ever one you want.


Again, the important thing to remember here is that all of the cites I'm using clearly show the data, yours won't release the evidence they use


I wonder why this is?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
Background noise? Like what, a car driving by cause the tremors? You claim separate eartquakes could have cause it. What do think the chances of an earth quake occuring at that second would have been. And you can clearly two distinct spike before the major tremor.


I did say there were spikes before the tremor. And did I say they definitely are not explosions? And in all fairness it's not impossible for other signals to get there around that time, just unlikely.


Geologists Steve Davis:


Interesting. An actual expert on Rense? That must be a first. Can't argue with what he says, if that is legitimately what he said.


Now Blanchard claims to have seen no spikes on any seismograph before the collapse, but a simple look at your graph by any layman can prove that untrue.


But they aren't really spikes, more increases over background.

This site shows a seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory which clearly show the spikes.


Found this link from those sites.
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

No really large spikes except one just after the second impact. Interesting, could be something in it. Has more noise unfortunately.


Again, the important thing to remember here is that all of the cites I'm using clearly show the data, yours won't release the evidence they use


Off on a tangent here, but that description sounds like Microsoft. Unfortunatley 85% of people use their stuff though.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by apex]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


But the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory seismograph clearly shows the spikes, (link on my previous post). Also the first graph posted on your post show them. Blanchard claims to have never seen these spikes. Hence if they exist, his testimony goes out the window. Of course, we have no way of knowing what graphs Blanchard used, because he won't release the evidence that only his organization was privy to. As to Steve Davis's credibility, he has a PhD from Stanford in Geology, has several peer reviewed articles, and is a member of the Geological Society of America.
www.stanford.edu...

You the assert that these aren't spikes, but they are background effects. Well, being as how neither of us are experts at reading seismographs, I say we go to the experts. Your expert see no spike or blip whatsoever, mine claims they are consistent with an detonation. We can see the graph my expert used, if only there was some way of seeing the evidence Blanchard used, oh thats right he won't release it.

Seriously, I just don't understand the blind faith to the government. I hear conspiracy claims, and I then look into the evidence they cite to back up these claims. The government REFUSES to give their evidence. How can you blindly believe them?

I read in a recent post a poll that said as many as 60% of people don't believe the official story (note that doesn't mean they think its an inside job). Why oh why won't the government release any of their evidence? Do they not think the American people deserve it? Shouldn't the families of the victims be entitled to viewing it? How about our soldiers that were forced to go to Afganistan as a direct result of this? Truthers and debunkers can argue till the end of time, and without being able to see the evidence, it will never truly be settled. So the next time you are frustrated with the apparent stupidity of truthers, blame the government!



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Really Mr. expert?



Then explain that Mr. expert. Obviously, he's lying through his teeth. Or he's no expert. Take which ever one you want.



Wait a minute here, even though this is just a still, am I mistaking in seeing an *entire* floor being blown out to start the collapse??

This was not observed in either tower , nor building 7, as I recall. All the claims of "squibs" were small ejections, after the collapse started and certainly were not an entire floor.

Surely one could not mistake the enormous sounds of the demolition charges required to blow an entire floor in the second or two preceding the start of collapse.

Does anyone have evidence of this happening?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Since that still has nothing to do with 9/11 other than to refute what Mr. Blanchard says about CD always starting from the bottom, I have no idea what you mean.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join