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.

 

Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


No problems at all


I'm not affiliated with any movements and, in fact, hadn't critically looked into anything 9/11 related until exactly 1 year ago which coincides with me joining ATS primarily for black aircraft project info and UFO reports.

I admire your work on the seismic data but I'm just not in sync on the conclusions as to the source - well not yet anyway.




posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Of course you don't see any holes. I never, for one second, thought that you would.

Because this is exactly what you want to hear......



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Nice rant.

Well, this is typical. As I explained in another post, the desire to be right outweighs logic in many people. You are a fine display of this.

Back to the topic:

I read all those threads already. I find no calcs at all. The closest there is from you is some vague claim that a demo expert is wrong, and that nearly a ton of C-4 equivalent must be used. This is just a guess from you.Note that this is not a clac. I was asking for calcs.

Also, the main point is that you cannot time reference this hypothetical ton of explosives going off, for any of the 3 buildings, in any of the many, many videos available.

Again... DO THE CALCS. FIND VIDEOS THAT HAVE THESE HUGE EXPLOSIONS ON THEM. Don't claim that they could be easily muffled without explaining how. Don't claim that they might have been underwater due to "flooding" in the basements, when "flooding" is a useless term - how much is flooded - 1/2"? 1/2'?1/2 meter? "Flooding" is a weak term, it needs to be defined. Calcs need to be shown as how deep the water would need to be in order to be an efficent "muffler" that would silence the Db level enough to NOT be registered on videos.

Again, I don't expect you to agree that there are some huge holes in your "thesis". But isn't it curious that since there are some unanswered questions, that were thought of AFTER the NIST came out, and CTerz take this as proof that the NIST is a lie...... that YOU now take the stand that even though there are holes, alternate explanations, and unanswered questions about your "thesis", that you refuse to apply this same standard to your own work?

Probably not.......



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
A piss-poor try at wriggling out from under my seismic facts.

I'll use your own deliberate delusional technique, back on you :

I proved without doubt, there is a huge energy event 14.2 seconds before WTC 7's global collapse started.
With a substantially bigger amplitude on the seismic charts than the following total global collapse of WTC 7.

Prove to me with your own solid calculations, how on earth the instigators of that event, could have placed any kind of silent explosives in WTC 7, and then you calculate how many kilograms were used, and what sort of explosives was used.
And then explain to us, how they could have ignited and exploded those explosives, without leaving an audible trace on any one video YOU have heard from, or ever seen.
Remember, we have the undeniable fact of that huge energy event to begin with, so on you the burden to find a method to obfuscate for the global audience, all the explosions sounds.


You don't dare to confront me on my calculations for the WTC 7 energy event, so you choose to confuse the audience by introducing the same worn-out adagio as you and your followers use against the CIT and Pilots for Truth Pentagon video facts about Flight 77's flightpath, told by witnesses, by shouting in every post : "show me calculations."
The plane flew north of Citgo gas station according to more and more eyewitnesses interviewed on camera, thus not a chance on earth it could have hit all 5 "downed" light poles on a south of Citgo officially promoted flightpath.
They all saw the plane fly in that NoC spot, if you accept this identical observation from all CIT interviewed eyewitnesses, why the need for calculations? You know there is something very wrong then.

Why on earth should I have to offer additional guesswork on a solid proof seismic case?
It won't be calculations, it will be guesswork you ask for, and you know that very well, that's why you use these kinds of diversifications.

You should be the one to try to come up with theories how such a huge energy event has been kept from the public eyes and ears.
Or, instead, confront me on the undeniable facts of my thesis.

Did it ever occurred to you, that all of 9/11 was a carefully redacted event, with stringent scenarios and timescales to be followed by military editors placed in the few newsrooms that relayed ALL of the 9/11 footage to all other stations, nation and worldwide?

And some of these "military propaganda agents" were f.ex. placed in the CNN editing room; we have talked about that in several threads in this forum. And these people edited out the incriminating audio parts with explosion sounds in it, before sending it through to all the networks.
That's one very reasonable explanation why you hear no explosion sounds in the official main network videos.

The same military propaganda agency payed those so called "neutral experts" to lie to us on national networks for 7 years, to feed us with pro-military "professionalism" on all events after 9/11.
Damn compulsive liars.

Btw, you can hear all the very-low frequency explosion sounds, coupled to visual white smoke clouds rising at the base of the towers, in the Siegel videos. You asked for audio coupled to video.

9/11 Eyewitness Audio Reveals Hundreds of Explosive Pops! (Must See)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There's an atomic clock hourly radio signal in all the Siegel footage, so we can clock his events to the NIST atomic clocked video events.
Nice, ain't it.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I'll re-write some of my lines with some additions, to make things more understandable for fresh readers of my thesis :

"" So don't even dare to come up with the same ridiculous explanation NIST came up with, that a single failing column was the source of the failure of the whole building.
LDEO seismic recordings proved that to be utterly nonsense.
How can one breaking column show a far bigger energy than the breaking of all columns? Totally impossible, a fairy-tale indeed.

What more evidence do any of you need to see that some entity was involved with the demolition of WTC 7 on 9/11? ""

What do you expect to see on a seismogram of the event, in case of a naturally occurring gravitational collapse, initiated by one failing column?
In fact, the words and explanation of the NIST people.
Right, one preceding small amplitude seismic peak, followed by a much bigger amplitude pack of peaks, depicting the global collapse.

But that's not what we see in the ACTUAL WTC 7 global collapse seismogram.
There we see a preceding seismic peak with much bigger amplitude , followed by substantially smaller amplitude packs of peaks from the following global collapse.

Give me one other intelligent explanation for the deviance from a natural caused collapse, than added energy in the form of some sort of explosives.
And you know now from my link to my last post on page 11 from my NIST rebuttal thread, that explosives are much better in exciting the seismic needles from a seismograph, than following, partial or total gravitational collapses.

In the above 3 last links I posted, there is a post of mine with lots of links to my thermobaric bomb thoughts on this subject.
Thermobarics were still very secret black projects around 9/11/2001, but since I and only a few others have been posting details about them, suddenly more military info popped up about them, as if this info already existed for a long time.
Believe me, before 9/11 there was only one public source where you could find any info on them, and I posted that source, a book, in my very first thread in this forum, in 2005. I knew about them far before that date.

These type of devastating building demolishing devices are the main candidates for the actual form of used demolition of the three WTC towers.
They fit the whole profile of known facts of the three collapses.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Still no calcs.

Without them, your "thesis" is without merit, and should be treated as such. This is the truth that you're avoiding.

Just do them. Then find the videos that corroborate it, and you'll have a convert.

Until then, you're just trying to bluff your way through the discussion.

That only works in troofer world. (see Gage, Jones, Griffin, Hoffman, Ryan for examples of this)



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I find it amusing that the same people who adamently call for calcs from Labtop, CIT, etc. are the same people who blindly accept NIST's report without one single calculation to back it up.

I wonder why that is?



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Because in this case, it is easy to find out this info. Matter of fact, I already did. that's why I asked in the first place, cuz when she does this, she will find out how ridiculous her "thesis" is. See, I never ask a question like this unless I already know the answer, cuz i KNOW that if the troofer in question actually did some research, it would be more than just a little educational, and perhaps open their eyes to how stupid and ridiculous their ideas about 9/11 are.

Similar to when I asked you about the tchnology behind finding out where the sulfur came from in the sulfided steel. it took me 2 days to get 3 independently corroborated answers.

And yet, you haven't done a damn thing.

That's what I call irony...........



[edit on 30-7-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Similar to when I asked you about the tchnology behind finding out where the sulfur came from in the sulfided steel. it took me 2 days to get 3 independently corroborated answers.


But yet, never posted any of this evidence? If you have and I missed it, I'd like to see it. Until then, I call BS on your "educating" us. Like how you "educated" me when you claimed that the columns either had gypsum wall board or spray-on fireproofing and never both? When I showed you in the architectural drawings where most columns had both spray-on and then encased with wall board? But, I'm sure you'd like to forget that eh?



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Seymour, so why don't you post your calcs then? Then you can show everyone how ridiculous our thoughts on 9/11 are? What do calcs have to do with LabTop's thesis anyway?

[edit on 30-7-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
What do calcs have to do with LabTop's thesis anyway?


A strawman attempt to obsfucate the facts. Just my guess of course though.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


You haven't done a damn thing, have you Griff....

If you only knew what an utter fail this is on your part, you'd leave forever.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Seymour, so why don't you post your calcs then? Then you can show everyone how ridiculous our thoughts on 9/11 are? What do calcs have to do with LabTop's thesis anyway?

[edit on 30-7-2008 by PplVSNWO]


What's important is whether or not he will actually do the work or not.

I suspect not, since to do so might shatter the ego that he's built for himself. You never know, the calcs may indicate something unezpected, but even the thought that he may have to face reality pervents a troofer from even taking the first step from going from a "troofer", to a "truther".

The same goes for Griff. The truth may or may not validate his thoughts, therefore, there will be NO effort to find out the truth.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

A strawman attempt to obsfucate the facts. Just my guess of course though.


Not only are you afraid to do some research because it MIGHT invalidate your thoughts, but you don't know what a strawman argument is.

Guess I need to school you again:

He's given an estimate on the amount of explosives - in another thread - needed to produce the seismic events, but with no back up. I'm asking for calcs.

See, now if he never mentioned explosives at all and how they resulted in the seismic events, then I would be using a strawman argument, since he would have never mentioned that in his argument.

Got it?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Here you go again posting a whole lot of meaningless junk. As stated several times, whatever calcs you are asking for has no bearing on Labtop's thesis, it is complete. Any calculations on how much and what type of explosives would be speculation and possibly set up for a strawman.
Why aren't you posting your calculations, since you've already done them. Or at least show that it's possible to calculate exactly how much explosives were going off in an unknown part of the building based upon seismographs.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You haven't done a damn thing, have you Griff....

If you only knew what an utter fail this is on your part, you'd leave forever.


And yet, we're still waiting for you to post your evidence/calcs to "school" us. I wonder why you haven't posted them yet?


BTW, I'm not married to any conspiracy unlike you claim I am. If you can prove your stance then I'll listen. So far, you've done a piss poor job. I'm sure most will agree.

[edit on 7/31/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Still not willing to look for the truth yourself, eh?

This is to be expected. Troofers will not seek out the truth if they even think that it MIGHT go against their beliefs.

It's much easier to ask others to provide you with info, because then it allows you the oppurtunity to reject it out of hand cuz you can claim that the person supplying the info is "biased". And of course, after this claim of bias is leveled, it will be proof for the troofer that their beliefs are true, cuz why else would all the "disinfo agents" be trying to muddy the waters.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Here you go again posting a whole lot of meaningless junk. As stated several times, whatever calcs you are asking for has no bearing on Labtop's thesis, it is complete.


Sure it's complete.

It's also miserably wrong.

And he can't answer the questions asked of him:

1-how much explosives
2-how deep for the water
3-how deep WAS the water
4-why didn't the survivors in 1's stairwell not hear explosives
5-why did the cores remain standing if explosives were used
6-why don't any audio recording have those blasts on them
7-why didn't Protec's seismo's show anything
8-and on and on

Again, this just shows how willing you are to accept something as seriously flawed as this tripe.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by Griff
 




This is to be expected. Troofers will no....................

it will be proof for the troofer that their beliefs are true, .




The lack of quality, immaturity, and insults in your posts have revealed your ingnorance and reason for being on ATS. You insult good americans who seek truth and answers for the death of their loved ones with tactics that would make joseph goebbels sad.

So seymore, I guess your happy 911 happened, Bush lied us into war with Iraq, Afghanistan and now your on 911 forums calling people names for learning and researching the reason why they dont have a daddy or mommy.

You and the other resident pseudo skeptic debunkers should beg Skeptic Overlord to shut down his "Stupid troofer" forums down because we are all whack job toofers.

Grow up Captain Obvious/SeymoreButtz or go back to randi forums.

People do take this very seriously. 911 was not some joke and if you think people are going to let this issue go, you have miles to go before you sleep and miles to go before you sleep.

Let people investigate or go somewhere else.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Here you go again posting a whole lot of meaningless junk. As stated several times, whatever calcs you are asking for has no bearing on Labtop's thesis, it is complete.


Sure it's complete.

It's also miserably wrong.
-Why is it wrong, because you say so? Why haven't you provided anything to prove it's wrong?
And he can't answer the questions asked of him:

1-how much explosives
Has nothing to do with the thesis
2-how deep for the water
Has nothing to do with the thesis
3-how deep WAS the water
Nothing to do with the thesis
4-why didn't the survivors in 1's stairwell not hear explosives
I don't know, do you have any interviews with them where they were asked if they heard explosions?
5-why did the cores remain standing if explosives were used
Why were they in such a big hurry to get to the cores to tear them down? There were walls standing that posed more danger to workers than the core.
6-why don't any audio recording have those blasts on them
Why didn't you listen to the audio in the links that Labtop posted? Just because you can't hear the explosions on your crappy computer speakers doesn't mean the rest of us with good subwoofers can't hear them...
7-why didn't Protec's seismo's show anything
I don't know what protec's siesmos are. Do you have a link?
8-and on and on

Again, this just shows how willing you are to accept something as seriously flawed as this tripe.
Again, when are you going to show how this is flawed? Just keep posting baseless and meaningless rubbish, maybe somebody will believe your disinfo.




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join