Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
i'd like to point out to the 'new' member, that many posters here are aware of propaganda techniques.

one of them is to lump everything together.

like, for example, saying 'the truth movement believes _________'. the truth movement is very diverse, and not all twoofers(LOL) believe the same thing. some believe there were no planes. in turn, some believe no-planers are government shills "poisoning the well".
some are hard-wired into their own pet theory. others just know something is rotten in denmark, and will follow any and all theories to see which of the various theories is strongest(i count myself in this group).

some believe the government made it happen on purpose, and some believe they let it happen on purpose. (referred to as MIHOP, and LIHOP)

showing images of knife victims while running dialogue about plastic knives reported by rumsfeld is an example of a slightly different kind of "persuasion" technique.

i watched a little of the first movie you posted, and it was mostly appealing to emotion, not logic.
i got as far as the angry pro-official story radio personality saying "i want to believe", and the cop saying the building was leaning, because the bottom was missing.
the building would have fallen like a tree if this were remotely true. it totally ignores the FACT that people were walking around warning others that the building was about to "BLOW UP", and it completely ignores the rate of descent of the building, and more importantly, the GEOMETRY of the descent. it also ignores the report of a BLOODY COUNTDOWN to implosion.

"i want to believe" that i'm safe from a runaway totalitarian police state, but, that ain't the case.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by billybob]




posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 
To everyone! I would like to point out that the evidence of all three buildings being brought down by controlled demolition is right in front of us. I explain- in the most immediate footage shown after the collapse, the main steel support columns of the WTC 1&2,which were made of a strong formulation of structural steel are clearly visible. Also clearly visible are the diagonal cut marks where these were cut with Thermate prior to the collapse. Look closely at the old footage,BEFORE the cleanup effort was underway, you will see it too. Also, to the naysayers out there who say that thousands of feet of cable and wire had to be present to link all of the explosive packages together, I say that radio frequency remote control is not only possible, its likely and its easy to do. Pre-assembled explosive packages could be made months before the incidents occured and then set in place by a very small number of people in a very short time. Free fall speeds during the collapse are not physically possible without explosive augmentation.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by spookjr
 

You are right about the evidences I see it, You see it, most people see it, but the Debunkers dont. they just cant handle the truth.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

Your right, I will not watch your garbage!


How do you make an informed decision based on one side of the story? You are not looking for evidence, you are looking for anything that proves your narrow world view.


You have not proveing anything here,


How would you know, you don't even take the time to look?


You are only parrroting the Government version of lies. Nothing new here.


No I look at the evidence from both sides when you won't even give the same courtesy.


We already know about your lies that doesnt stand up to Science.

Show me one claim of yours that is backed up by science


Please save your sarcasm for people like minded like you!





We dont believe what our Government says anymore its been proven that they are liers.


Your kidding me right? Politicians lying? What world do you live in?



Our Country has lost it way, our Government has been highjack!

I agree, but clearly not in the same way you do.


We have a president who has tried to destroy our freedom and our Congress.


Tell me what freedoms do you not have now that you did have before? Has anyone prevented you from saying the things you want, doing the things you want, listening to the things you want, etc ?


This Country is being destroyed by a group of Necons and they are winning.


Your country is being destroyed by people who want to be taken care of from cradle to grave instead of doing the right thing and taking care of themselves.


Millions of AMERICAN believe our Government had somting to do with 911.


And millions of people look for any reason to demonize the present president.


And if they did then its up to us the truth movement, to weed through the lies, to find out who did what, and make sure justice is served.

Well if its up to the "truth" movement to find any truth, my hopes are not very high



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i'd like to point out to the 'new' member, that many posters here are aware of propaganda techniques.


Your propaganda techniques seem to be in full swing. You claim that I am not a new member when that is utterly false.


one of them is to lump everything together.


The reason I do lump them all together is because they are all equally rediculous.


And I am sure you have never claimed that anyone that doesn't share your opinion is working for the government, disinfo agent, part of the conspiracy etc.. Right



like, for example, saying 'the truth movement believes _________'. the truth movement is very diverse, and not all twoofers(LOL) believe the same thing. some believe there were no planes. in turn, some believe no-planers are government shills "poisoning the well".


And I believe they are all equally rediculous.
Strictly my humble opinion of course.


some are hard-wired into their own pet theory. others just know something is rotten in denmark, and will follow any and all theories to see which of the various theories is strongest(i count myself in this group).

Should you not test your theories against those theories that could disprove your theory? What if it doesn't stand up? Are you too afraid to look? That was a genuine question.


some believe the government made it happen on purpose, and some believe they let it happen on purpose. (referred to as MIHOP, and LIHOP)


And I believe the government at the end of Clinton's presidency and first year of Bush's, they should have listened to the what the intelligence community was telling them. In that way yes I believe that they let it happen because of inaction.


i watched a little of the first movie you posted, and it was mostly appealing to emotion, not logic.


I do have to agree in both of those longer videos I posted, the filmmakers in both of the videos let their emotions get in the way. But if you can ignore the emotional stuff there is alot of information that should cause you to question the "truth" movements' claims.

I really do hope you do watch both in full. If you don't, I do understand.


i got as far as the angry pro-official story radio personality saying "i want to believe", and the cop saying the building was leaning, because the bottom was missing.
the building would have fallen like a tree if this were remotely true.


Please don't tell me you are calling this man a liar. And no it would not fall over instantly. There are many many firefighters, police and civilians that were there all saying the same thing. That building is leaning and it is coming down.


it totally ignores the FACT that people were walking around warning others that the building was about to "BLOW UP",


Actually no it proves that many people knew it was going to collapse.


and it completely ignores the rate of descent of the building, and more importantly, the GEOMETRY of the descent. it also ignores the report of a BLOODY COUNTDOWN to implosion.


And thats why it was important that you watched the second video in full. Everyone knows that the buildings did not collapse at freefall speed. Everyone knows WTC7 collapsed on to its south side. As for your countdown claim.

9/11 Debunked: WTC7 "Radio Countdown" Disproven



"i want to believe" that i'm safe from a runaway totalitarian police state, but, that ain't the case.


There is no police state coming no matter how much you want it to.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by spookjr
To everyone! I would like to point out that the evidence of all three buildings being brought down by controlled demolition is right in front of us.


9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible



I explain- in the most immediate footage shown after the collapse, the main steel support columns of the WTC 1&2,which were made of a strong formulation of structural steel are clearly visible. Also clearly visible are the diagonal cut marks where these were cut with Thermate prior to the collapse.


You are really not going to like this one.


9/11 Debunked: Columns Cut not by Thermite



Free fall speeds during the collapse are not physically possible without explosive augmentation.


You are absolutely right! That is why the towers did not fall at free fall speeds.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed


Once again I dare you to watch this video from beginning to end. Yes yes I know he does bitch alot but please ignore that and judge the content and the links provided during the film.

Google Video Link


[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 

This is what you do all day long, what a wast of time!


WOW! talk about being Delusional and negative and one sided, thats all you post is one sided the Government side only.


WHY dont you show us some Scientific evidence of how WTC 7 imploded on it self in under 10 sec.

Lets see what you are going to use from the Government web sites that You call proof!



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 

This is what you do all day long, what a wast of time!


No I work. Today I worked until 10:30. Yes I do leave my computer on all the time and alot of the time still logged onto ats. And for your information I am much more interested in reading than writing.


WOW! talk about being Delusional and negative and one sided, thats all you post is one sided the Government side only.


That is your opinion nothing more, nothing less.


WHY dont you show us some Scientific evidence of how WTC 7 imploded on it self in under 10 sec.


Here you go.

Here is a very lengthy paper that explains in detail why the other two towers collapsed.


Lets see what you are going to use from the Government web sites that You call proof!


You guys keep repeating that line. To me when I see this, it is the most childish of behaviours. Anytime someone has evidence you just cover your ears and eyes and keep yelling "lalallalalalla... government....lalallalalal.....Bush.....lalallala.... if I don't look at it, it's not there...."


You know the great thing about truth is that it is an immovable object, it never changes. It never goes away. No matter how much you wish it isn't the truth, it always will be.

How many times has the "truthers" story changed? Seems to me if it is indeed the truth, then it should stand up to criticism.


[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
This is about evidence of WTC7 demolition. If you want to discuss the other towers, there are other threads on those. So far, Labtop's work is the best evidence we have of the WTC7 demo. If you can accept his findings on building 7, you can then apply it to the other tower's demolition as well.
Please try to stay on topic, and refrain from posting your propaganda clips that you are posting in every thread, it is not evidence.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

This is about evidence of WTC7 demolition. If you want to discuss the other towers, there are other threads on those. So far, Labtop's work is the best evidence we have of the WTC7 demo. If you can accept his findings on building 7, you can then apply it to the other tower's demolition as well.
Please try to stay on topic,


My apologies for straying off topic. And no I do not accept Labtop's findings.

To believe his findings, you have to conveniently ignore the evidence available and believe his conclusions.

There are people in this thread that have already refuted his claims IMO.


and refrain from posting your propaganda clips that you are posting in every thread, it is not evidence.


And there in lies the problem. I still have not seen anyone try to refute the claims in those videos. Instead you conveniently declare it to be propaganda so you don't have to deal with what you are seeing.

Anyway, I will refrain from posting in this thread. Have fun folks.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
well, i watched the 'debunking videos', except for the THREE HOUR one.
they all offer nothing but speculation, and are no better than conspiracy theories.
for example, the 'beams cut on an angle' and 'no sound' arguments.

IF the clean-up operation shows that a thermite torch cutting on an angle is the best way to bring down a column, it doesn't 'debunk' that columns cut with thermite look exactly the same(and thermite is not loud, either)

the collapses were 'really loud and could be heard for miles', so saying that a constituent of that sound was not explosions, especially when every major news outlet on the scene reported 'massive', 'huge', "SECONDARY"(meaning the were INITIAL) explosions, is not just illogical and wishful thinking, but also simply wrong. especially when witnesses say, "bang, bang, bang," (while chopping sideways at the air imitating sequential 'bangs' coming from higher to lower floors) "like they were deliberately demolishing a building"

i'm sorry if you actually are a new member, but, the fact is, you sound exactly like a guy i know who makes lots of sockpuppets and LOL's at 911 conspiracy theory twenty five hours a day, eight days a week with these exact same weak arguments where speculation parades as proof, and every "power of persuasion" technique is employed.

exactly.

things like 'twoofer' and rinky dink silent film comedy piano music, and 'guilt by association', and 'bait and switch', and whatnot are NOT good arguments. they are peer pressure 'bandwagon' techniques.

because someone can imagine blinds flapping out of broken windows, that is 'proof' that it wasn't 'squibs'. typical debunker 'debunking' and 'proof'.

i will openly admit to spreading propaganda, but at least i'm not hiding it. even the truth is propaganda.


Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion


that said, there is 'good' propaganda(ie. the truth) and 'bad' propaganda(the partial truth mixed with spin and outright lies). my intent is to let the truth unfold in a truth-friendly environment.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 



What you have shown is nothing more than "Hypothesis" based on a therory, nothing more.

You have not shown Scientific proof.

You also have not shown where the true resources of your Hypothesis are from, like what web site for instance.

Please stop with Pancake therory, no one is buying that anymore.

where YOUR science has failed with that Conspiracies therory, is You cant have a Pancake collaps at the speed the building fell.

WTC 7 fell so fast, it exploded in-less than 10 seconds.
There was no resistance from the floors hitting and breaking away and then hitting the nexe floor and then the nexe.

Thats not what happened!

So if you want to go with that Therory please explain how a 40 story building falls in-less than 10 seconds with a pancake.

I dont have the exact proof what happened to WTC 7 but I know it didnt come down the way YOU AND THE GOVERNMENT WANT US TO BELIEVE!

My own eyes do not deceive what we all see in the videos of WTC 7 exploding straight down.

I not in here to debate your Government Conspiracies therories I already know they are lies that dont stand up to Science.

I have been reading in these 911 threads for years, I know what is the truth.

Maybe you should try to do a little more research befor you post on the subject of WTC 7.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
well, i watched the 'debunking videos', except for the THREE HOUR one.
they all offer nothing but speculation, and are no better than conspiracy theories.


It really is a shame you did not watch the 3 hour one because it presents both sides at the same time.


IF the clean-up operation shows that a thermite torch cutting on an angle is the best way to bring down a column, it doesn't 'debunk' that columns cut with thermite look exactly the same(and thermite is not loud, either)


Nobody claims that they used thermite at all except you. Thermite torch? The workers in the pictures seem to using same old oxy-acetylene.

Did you skip the part where the cleanup crew was in the helicopter?


the collapses were 'really loud and could be heard for miles', so saying that a constituent of that sound was not explosions, especially when every major news outlet on the scene reported 'massive', 'huge', "SECONDARY"(meaning the were INITIAL) explosions, is not just illogical and wishful thinking, but also simply wrong. especially when witnesses say, "bang, bang, bang," (while chopping sideways at the air imitating sequential 'bangs' coming from higher to lower floors) "like they were deliberately demolishing a building"


Emphasis mine. I admit, that day I thought the same thing everyone thought "those look like a deliberate explosions like those to bring down empty buildings." But I was wrong because in actuality there are no trademarks of a controlled demolition at either building.

Yes the eyewitness that your talking about said that and I'm sure that is what it looked like to him and he was trying to make sense of the tragedy before his eyes.


but, the fact is, you sound exactly like a guy i know who makes lots of sockpuppets and LOL's at 911 conspiracy theory twenty five hours a day, eight days a week with these exact same weak arguments where speculation parades as proof, and every "power of persuasion" technique is employed.


I could say the same about CT'ers and in my opinion it would be more truthful.


things like 'twoofer' and rinky dink silent film comedy piano music, and 'guilt by association', and 'bait and switch', and whatnot are NOT good arguments. they are peer pressure 'bandwagon' techniques.


Things like paid/ disinfo/ government/ conintelpro/ agent/ sheeple...etc and if someone has a differing opinion they must work for the gov...

Taking quotes out of context and making false claims are trademarks of the "truth" movement.

Another trademark is the straw man. Example, "truthers" continue to say that the OS states that the fires in the the towers "melted" the steel. No where in the official story does it say this. It says that the steel was weakened by the fires but clearly did not melt.

You used that same tactic above with the thermite. No where in the official story was thermite used.

Perhaps you should read the reports before making claims about what they say.


i will openly admit to spreading propaganda, but at least i'm not hiding it. even the truth is propaganda.


Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion


that said, there is 'good' propaganda(ie. the truth) and 'bad' propaganda(the partial truth mixed with spin and outright lies). my intent is to let the truth unfold in a truth-friendly environment.


Sorry. That made me chuckle.

I think I should explain a little about myself to clear things up a little. One year ago I thought exactly like the "truthers" did. I blamed Bush for everything wrong with the world and blamed the attacks on him. I took Alex Jones at his word and called everyone else sheeple or ignorant for not seeing the "truth". I called the war on terror fake and believed there was a police state coming right around the corner.

The more and more I looked at the evidence for the official story, the more I realized that the "truth" movement did not hold any water. The more I read regarding the present situation in the world, the more the CT's did not hold up.

They rewrite history and known facts and skew information to support their world view.

I came to realize their worldview was complete and utter bs. This "movement" is dying down because facts and logical thinking are getting in the way and the "movement's" only answer is more fantastical claims.

I now know why people say posting in the 9/11 forum is useless because all it is is the same arguments over and over again for the last 7 years. All it is is singing to your particular choir where few people actually jump ship from their stance.

But I guess we can all hope



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


I have and I have looked at all the evidence on both sides and your side does not stand up. I used to believe your theories, but facts and logic got in the way.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 



Butz: Wrong.

www.agu.org...

In addition, even though the demolition lasted 8 sec, analysis of the unfiltered seismogram recorded at the Federal Building indicates that most of the seismic energy generated by the demolition was released about 5 sec after it started. Comparison of timed video coverage of the demolition with the seismogram indicates that explosives were completely detonated about 2.5 sec into the demolition and did not generate as much seismic energy as the collapse of the building.

And a graph to show that your guy is mistaken.

www.agu.org...



Let’s first get that word “Wrong” you use, out of the way.

Let’s follow a line of logical interactions:
1. You agree with the Dr. Holzer theory? I assume that’s affirmative.
2. Then you assume that the third wave train (3) is an “echo” from the second one (2).
3. Then we observe the graph you offered, the Dr. Holzer fig 4b, FNO Portable Seismograph portion of it, from the May 23 demolition:




I see a lot of seismic energy in 4b OBSERVED, shown as amplitude, in the first 5 seconds of both wave trains, whereas the second wave train shows the biggest amplitudes in the first 2.5 seconds.

I see even more distinct biggest amplitudes in 4b SYNTHETIC, in the first 2.5 seconds of the second wave train.
The 4a BOMBING graph is just as telling, specifically the first 2.5 seconds of the third (3) amplitudes.

Remember the “echo” effect promoted by Dr. Holzer et al.
Damn strange “echo”, where the (3)-echo energy is far stronger than the originating energy depicted in the (1)-first and (2)-secondary wave trains.
And where signal-(1) has no echo at all….

So, what again, exactly was “wrong”?


[edit on 9/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
www.agu.org...

That EOS piece you come up with is exactly the publication, in which Dr. Raymond L. Brown didn’t want his name mentioned in.
They still mentioned him, but in the well-known vague manner, used by scientists who are forced by the power structure to publicize, but do not have the real meat to do so, by using the term “personal communication”, which has no paper trail, which can be used, because the other person does not agree to the proposed theory. See this excerpt from EOS:


A generalized velocity model (R. L. Brown, personal communication, 1995) indicates that the tops of the Arbuckle limestone, which has a P wave velocity of 6.1 km/s, and crystalline bedrock, which has a P wave velocity of 6.2 km/s, are at depths of 2.7 and 3.6 km, respectively.


Dr. Thomas Holzer does not explain further what they communicated personally, and if Dr. Brown concluded the same scenario as he did.
He did not.

Dr. Raymond L. Brown and Dr. Charles Mankin of the OGS, Brown's boss, concluded to the contrary:


"Everybody that has looked at the signal has said a refraction (an echo) would really be strange because there's absolutely no loss of energy in the recorded seismic signal. The second event has the same amplitude as the first… The arrival time is wrong for a refracted wave… We've ruled out reflections, refractions, and the air blast… We determined that these two records of these two events corroborate our interpretation that there were two explosions."[74]


See for the above explanation why Dr. Brown didn’t want his name in there, my last post on page 11 from my NIST challenge thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It originates from a, now at last fully, online book describing meticulously all the circumstances around the Oklahoma City, Murrah building disaster.
Note the dates for the following references, from this Endnotes page:
www.constitution.org... en.htm
There are dates in there, far later than the Dr. Holzer et al, EOS publication date, October 8, 1996.
The controversy still lingers on to this date, between the 1 and 2 blast proponents.
It’s also one of the main reasons, why a second, thorough investigation is called for in Congress.

I will explain my stand on the controversy following the next excerpts.
I combined the full text from this page:
www.constitution.org... \ocbpt_01.htm
With the text from the above linked to, Endnotes page, to clarify the arguments used by the writer.


Then on March 20, 1996,Strategic Investment Newsletter reported that a Pentagon study had been leaked which backed up General Partin's analysis:
A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City last April was caused by five separate bombs. The two experts reached the same conclusion for the same technical reasons. Sources close to the Pentagon study say Timothy McVeigh did play a role in the bombing but peripherally, as a "useful idiot." The multiple bombings have a Middle Eastern "signature," pointing to either Iraqi or Syrian involvement.[60]

60. (46) "A classified Pentagon study determines Oklahoma bombing was caused by more than one bomb," Strategic Investment Newsletter, 3/20/96.


Finally, in the spring of 1997, explosives experts at Eglin Air Force Base's Wright Laboratory Armament Directorate released a study on the effects of explosives against a reinforced concrete building similar to the Federal Building. The Air Force's test closely matched the conditions under which the government contends the Murrah Building was destroyed.

The Eglin Blast Effects Study, or EBES, involved a three-story reinforced concrete structure 80 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 30 feet high. The building constructed for the test, the Eglin Test Structure (ETS), while smaller than the Murrah Building, was similar in design, with three rows of columns, and six-inch-thick concrete panels similar to those in the Murrah Building. Overall, the ETS was considerably weaker than the Murrah, which had five times the amount of steel reinforcing than the ETS, and 10 times the amount of steel in its columns and beams. As New American editor William Jasper noted in regards to the EBES:
“” If air blast could not affect catastrophic failure to the decidedly inferior Eglin structure, it becomes all the more difficult to believe that it was responsible for the destruction of the much stronger Murrah Building.””

The experts at Eglin conducted three tests. They first detonated 704 pounds of Tritonal (equivalent to 830 pounds of TNT or approximately 2,200 pounds of ANFO), at a distance of 40 feet from the structure, equivalent to the distance the Ryder truck was parked from the Murrah Building. The second test utilized an Mk-82 warhead (equivalent to 180 pounds of TNT) placed within the first floor corner room approximately four feet from the exterior wall. The third test involved a 250-pound penetrating warhead (equivalent to 35 pounds TNT), placed in the corner of a second floor room approximately two and a half feet from the adjoining walls.

The first detonation demolished the six-inch-thick concrete wall panels on the first floor, but left the reinforcing steel bars intact. The 14-inch columns were unaffected by the blast — a far cry from what occurred at the Murrah Building. The damages to the second and third floors fell off proportionally, unlike that in Oklahoma City. The 56-page report concluded:

Due to these conditions, it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck-bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO. In fact, the maximum predicted damage to the floor panels of the Murrah Federal Building is equal to approximately 1% of the total floor area of the building. Furthermore, due to the lack of symmetrical damage pattern at the Murrah Building, it would be inconsistent with the results of the ETS test [number] one to state that all of the damage to the Murrah Building is the result of the truck-bomb. The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the structure....

It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck-bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself.... The procedures used to cause the damage to the Murrah Building are therefore more involved and complex than simply parking a truck and leaving ....[61]

61. (47) William Jasper, "Multiple Blasts: More Evidence," The New American, date unknown.


Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was forced to conclude that 4,800 pounds of ANFO could have not caused the so-called crater in Oklahoma City. FEMA's report, published on August 30, 1996, inadvertently concluded that the bombers would have had to use approximately three times the amount reportedly used in Oklahoma City.[62]

62. (48) "The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improved building performance through multi-hazard mitigation," FEMA, quoted in Relevance magazine, April, 1997.

(63. and 64. are not of interest for this argumentation.)


According to these individuals' accounts, if the truck-bomb — the alleged sole bomb — had detonated first, how would they have felt a rumbling, had time to think about the situation, then dive under their desks? The resulting blast wave from the truck-bomb would have been immediate and total. Such an account could only be indicative of demolition charges placed inside the building.[65]*

65. (1:18:*) David Hall, manager of KPOC-TV in Ponca City, who has done considerable investigation into the bombing, told me that two Southwestern Bell employees called him and claimed they had a surveillance tape that showed the Murrah Building shaking before the truck bomb detonated.


A caller to the Oklahoma Radio Network related the experiences of his friend, a Federal Government worker, who had witnessed the blast first-hand. "He was approximately five blocks from the building whenever the building went up. He claims that the top of the building went up like a missile going through it. The debris was coming back down when the side of the building blew out. He said third and last, the truck blew up on the street."[67]

67. (52) Jeff Bruccelari, Oklahoma Radio Network, interview with Dr. Ray Brown, 2/18/97.


On April 19, a tape recording made during a conference at the Water Resources Board directly across from the Murrah Building appears to indicate a succession of blast events, spaced very close together.[71]

71. Although the tape was confiscated by the FBI it was later returned, likely altered, just as the FBI likely altered the famous Zapruder film of the JFK assassination by reversing the frames that showed the president's head being blown back.


Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms, knew and talked to people inside the building at the time of the blast. "My first impression was, this was a demolition job," said Brown. "Somebody who went in there with equipment tried to take that building down."

Not so, according to the U.S. Geological Survey's analysis. The USGS put out a press release on June 1st, entitled "Seismic Records Support One-Blast Theory in Oklahoma City Bombing."

The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City produced a train of conventional seismic waves, according to interpretations by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).

Scientists from those agencies said the seismic recordings of the May 23 demolition of the building reproduced the character of the original, April 19th seismic recording by producing two trains of seismic waves that were recorded on seismometers near Norman, Oklahoma.

"Seismic recordings from the building's implosion indicate that there was only one bomb explosion on April 19," said Dr. Thomas Holzer, a USGS geologist in Menlo Park, Calif. Holzer is one of several USGS and OGS scientists who analyzed the shock waves created by the April 19 explosion and the May 23 implosion.[72]

72. (55) William Jasper, "Seismic Support," The New American, 8/7/95, 1995.


Holzer added that the two distinct waves from the April 19 explosion(s) were the result of the same wave traveling at two different speeds through two separate layers of the earth's crust. The "illusion" of a double explosion was simply the result of the building's collapse, he claimed. "So the bottom line then," said Holzer, "is I think these observations are totally consistent with a single explosion. It doesn't require multiple explosions to do it."[73]

73. (56) Nolan Clay, "Scientists Debate Meaning of Bombing Seismograms", The Daily Oklahoman, 11/21/95.


Dr. Brown has an honest difference of opinion with folks at the U.S. Geological Survey. "I will candidly say that we are having trouble finding that velocity difference," said Brown. "We have not identified a pair of layers that could account for the ten-second difference.

"Whatever the USGS saw in that data convinced them that the original blast was one bomb," he added. "I find that hard to believe…. What was uncomfortable and might be construed as pressure is that they were going to come out with a press release that says we have concluded that data indicates one bomb. It puts us in the uncomfortable stance of saying that we, too, have concluded that, and we haven't."

Yet the USGS press release said that Dr. Charles Mankin of the OGS, Brown's boss, was "pleased with the work performed by Dr. Holzer and his USGS colleagues in the analysis of the seismic records." Yet Mankin had actually urged Holzer to delay the press release. "Everybody that has looked at the signal has said a refraction (an echo) would really be strange because there's absolutely no loss of energy in the recorded seismic signal. The second event has the same amplitude as the first… The arrival time is wrong for a refracted wave… We've ruled out reflections, refractions, and the air blast… We determined that these two records of these two events corroborate our interpretation that there were two explosions."[74]

74. (57) Moore, Op Cit., p. 223.


The mainstream media, of course, jumped on the USGS's findings, with headlines like "Single Bomb Destroyed Building" and "Seismic Records Shake Murrah Multiple Bomb Theory." "The news media even reported two bomb blasts initially," said Dr. Mankin, "but later changed their story."

"The USGS's conclusions are not supported by either data or analysis," added Dr. Brown, who asked that his name be taken off the report. Although Dr. Brown cautions that his own conclusions are far from conclusive and require "more thorough investigation," the most logical explanation for the second event says Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

"Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck-bomb] explosion."[75]

75. (58) William Jasper, "Seismic Support", The New American, 8/7/95, 1995.
Dr. Brown later added that the one-fourth of the building collapsing on 4/19 could have created a larger pulse if it had help, say, from high-explosives, "so you wouldn't need quite as much building to be collapsing to cause the same sized pulse that we observed on the day of the explosion."


LaBTop:
What Dr. Brown is hinting at, is the fact that the seismic pulse sizes for the building-part collapses (so NOT for the detonations part!) were registered as having the same size on the attack date of the 19th of April 1995 which collapsed 1/4th of the Murrah building, and on the 23 of May, when the demolition of the remaining 3/4th of the building took place.
Ain’t that weird, two same size pulses for two very different building parts?
What he meant with “help” is the detonation of secondary HE charges after the initiation event on 19 April, so during the collapse itself of that first 1/4th of the building. That would create a larger seismic pulse for the collapse part of the seismogram. Which pulse we do observe again on the demolition seismogram on the 23 of May for the remaining 3/4th of the building.

Some more endnotes:
76. (59) William Jasper, "Were There Two Explosions?", The New American, 6/12/95.

77. (60) Washington Post, 4/23/95.

78. (61) Moore, Op Cit., p. 223.

79. (62) Hassan Muhammad, interview with author.

80. (63) "William Jasper," OKC Investigator Under Attack," The New American, 6/23/97; video deposition of Jane C. Graham, 7/20/97, copy in author's possession.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The whole theory of Dr. Holzer ‘et al’ is based on a double refractive layer under the surface of Oklahoma City and surrounding counties. They proposed two layers (which info they say they got from private communication with Dr. Brown.). The following drawing will give you a roughly drawn indication what they imagined, and one thing they conveniently left out, absorption:


1………2….....3.
.\\\\../......../
_\\\\/_____/________ 2.7 km depth, Arbuckle limestone, P wave velocity of 6.1 km/s.
...\\\........//\
..…\\\.....//...\
.…..\\\...//......\
_4._\\\//_____5._____3.6 km depth, crystalline bedrock, P wave velocity of 6.2 km/s.
…..…..\
….…..…\
….…..….6.

NOTE: 2 and 3 are refractions, while 4, 5 and 6 are absorptions.


They did not take in account the absorption of parts of the seismic signal in the two layers in such a refractive model. As we can see in their drawings, something is wrong with their 1 bomb model.
The two FNO signals have the same energy; the second signal has not lost part of its strength due to absorption.
Thus we take a look at the drawings from Dr. Holzer et al, firstly their fig 3a, the FNO seismogram.

Now there’s another problem with their theory.
When the 2 LF wave trains exist because of a refractive layer, why doesn’t a second HF wave train exist?
That HF wave train (1) should show a second “echo” wave train (1a), timed apart the same as the 2 LF ones (2) and (3). But it doesn’t. Suddenly the refractive layers are frequency dependent?

Source: www.agu.org...



To see it even clearer, look at the FNO seismic signals in their fig 4a - top part.
That bombing wave train (3) shows even more total energy than the preceding wave train (2).

And the demolition wave train is totally out of sync with their theory; the last wave train is the strongest, with the biggest amplitude, which is in total denial of their theory. The last wave train (the “echo” of the first) should have lost part of its energy through absorption in their proposed two layers refraction model.

Source: www.agu.org...



As we know too well by now, the US ruling class has lied its way through the last decennia, and forced many persons to follow their explanation of history. So this piece is another “Popular Mechanics” hit piece, written by scientists with a fairly elastic view on scientific truth, and fiction. And they got the benefit of higher wages, promotions and certain notoriety in circles of power, which helped tremendously with their careers.


[edit on 9/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Take a damn good look at this Oklahoma City remains DEMOLITION 4b OBSERVED graph again :



What does it remind you of?

This one, the DEMOLITION of WTC 7 :



So, we are back at my thesis, start to read this post, and try to prove me wrong on my WTC 7 pre-collapse energy outburst:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: One of the reasons why I was a few days absent on this forum, is this highly interesting JREF-debate between TheLoneBedouin and the whole wolfpack of civility-lacking ADHD posting monkeys.
Luckily a few civic and intelligent posters are giving the thread the necessary intelligent injections from time to time :
forums.randi.org...
See post nr 433 for an interesting bolded snippet about the manipulation of the 2 Pentagon parking boot cameras footage, with the so called official frames-proof of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
Exactly the few frames showing the explosion, and the few before it, were clearly manipulated.

[edit on 9/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Fantastic work, LaBTop!! Starred!!


The demolition signature looks too similar between the two buildings. It's an inescapable fact.

People keep being dismissive of the early reports of the WTC7 collapse, but they keep failing to recognize that it isn't normal to report on something such as a building collapse before it has actually occurred. Because it should be a statement of fact, no "normal" reporter would be in a position to report it as it hadn't happened. The reason is because its collapse was planned, but for some reason the reports occurred before the collapse (problem with collapsing the building?). Of all the buildings in lower Manhattan - they report that specific buildings collapse 23 minutes early?

I think it's clear what occurred. The seismic data is an inconvenience to those who wish to tow the OS.

Another question is why are NIST being so slow at releasing their report on Building 7? They seem to be so sure of WTC 1 and 2, yet are having to really "investigate" WTC7? Are they having a tough time trying to explain away the seismic data?



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


For some reason, I can't quote. So bear with me.

Could the reason the siesmic data are comparable for the first 1/4 and the demolition of the remaining 3/4 of the Murrah building be due to the building (remaining 3/4) only having one column holding it up? So, less explosives would be needed than an intact 3/4 structure?

Stacey from CDI is reported as saying in her interview with PBS that there was "literally one column holding that building up".

Just a thought. But, I'm not knocking your thesis at all.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join