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.

 

Somebody called me a "Truther" for the first time.

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What we learned in a few threads is that neither bsbray11 nor _BoneZ_...has dealt with how the massive volume of air could get out of the towers in the short collapse times of WTC 1 and 2 without a tremendous amount of pressure.


Anyone reading these threads can see I posted this and you never refuted any of it:


www.abovetopsecret.com...


- The ejections from the towers are not just air but dust and small debris, which is what makes them appear visible and white or light brown in photos and video.

- There is nothing airtight to compress the air into a pressure front in the first place. The falling debris was as air-tight as swiss cheese, and even solid debris was flying out by the tons. So you can imagine how easily air was flowing through the same space, decompressing the building and causing an upwards "sucking" pressure front that survivors have even testified to.

- Even if there was an airtight front pushing air like a piston and forming a pressure front, which as I've said is impossible and so your whole explanation is impossible, but even if this was possible, the compressed air would have to get from the vertical shafts inside the core structure and make a 90 degree angle turn to blow through intact office space, still carrying all the dust and debris with them so far ahead of the rest of the collapse, and then still manage to blow out windows, taking the dust and debris and all. Why does the pressure front exit the shafts on these particular floors in the first place, and not others? How does the dust and debris manage to stay with it? How does the pressure front then move through intact office space to get to the windows, and why one particular direction and not a thermodynamic decompression in all directions like a sphere instead? All these questions regarding the physics that your theory cannot answer.


Considering these and the fact that the theory has no supporting evidence to begin with, only conjectures and more baseless theories to prop it, a more reasonable man than yourself could easily come to the conclusion that your explanation has been sufficiently refuted.



As far as explaining how so much air got out of the towers, I have asked repeatedly, do you not see the large solid debris flying out of the building too? That's where the air is also escaping.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Bsbray11 is free to support his claims anytime but he hasn't. He just repeats them. Speculation is not evidence.

It is clear from all of the videos of the collapses that Truthers have to deal with the massive expulsion of air in the undamaged portions of WTC 1 and 2. No Truther has been able to quantify the pressures and velocities of the air ejections or deal with the air at all.

Magically hand-waving away over 1,000 tons of air in each tower as if it were nothing at all is quite indicative of a lack of knowledge of the subject matter and an inability to deal with actual evidence.

Bsbray11 and other will now have to demonstrate the physics of moving all that air to eliminate it as the explanation for what is seen. It's just more homework Bsbray11 will have to do to at least attempt to scientifically deal with that massively inconvenient evidence.

Will bsbray11 step up to the plate or just continue to repeat his unsupported claims? Let's hope he will step up to the plate.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I'm not a seismograph expert. I don't believe that you are either. I know who is a seismograph expert. The team of people at The Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory including:

Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist
Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director
Mary Tobin, senior science writer

source:
www.popularmechanics.com...

Now that experts have analyzed the same seismograph that you presented to me and said:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,"
Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director of The Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory


www.mgs.md.gov...

Now I believe that is an example sience discrediting the idea that explosions caused the collapse of the WTC towers. I can't help but notice that I found that many truther sites use that exact same seismograph as evidence of explosives. Yet the expert speaks. He said:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers"

This brings me back to my original question.

2. Why did no explosions show up on either of the seismographs in the area of the WTC towers to indicate demolition?


Why do you disagree with the conclusion that there was no evidence in the seismograph records when the same seismograph you presented was analyzed by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and found to provide "no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers"?


www.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Your whole post is nothing but rhetoric.


Still waiting for you to address your rebuttal:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I'm not a seismograph expert. I don't believe that you are either. I know who is a seismograph expert. The team of people at The Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory including:


The people at NIST are "experts" too but they still did an awful job.

There is an easy way to tell if someone is yanking your chain, even if you aren't an expert: they don't show their methodology or reasoning.

It doesn't take expertise in anything to ask someone to take your word for something. The expertise comes in, when they are able to explain themselves and show their work. That's what they are paid to produce.


Now I believe that is an example sience discrediting the idea that explosions caused the collapse of the WTC towers. I can't help but notice that I found that many truther sites use that exact same seismograph as evidence of explosives. Yet the expert speaks.


What were you just saying about there being "experts" on both sides of the issue? Now you are ignoring your own arguments.

First you were playing agnostic, but not anymore.


2. Why did no explosions show up on either of the seismographs in the area of the WTC towers to indicate demolition?


I am still waiting to see the proof!


Why would I disagree with an expert? For the same reasons you do. The "experts" themselves are in disagreement.

So where do they show their work? Hmmmmmmm?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by iamcpc



2. Why did no explosions show up on either of the seismographs in the area of the WTC towers to indicate demolition?


I am still waiting to see the proof!




I guess you will never have proof. You can look at the seismograph and see no spikes to indicate an explosion prior to the collapse of the twin towers. You can have experts say there is no scientific evidence that there were explosions. You can have a team of experts say there is no scientific evidence of explosions. That's still not proof to you.

To me it says where can i find a truther to refute this scientific evidence and expert testimony? I want to find it.


Why would I disagree with an expert? For the same reasons you do. The "experts" themselves are in disagreement.

I can't find the experts disagreement on this particular issue that the seismographs indicate there were not explosions prior to the collapse of the twin towers.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I guess you will never have proof. You can look at the seismograph and see no spikes to indicate an explosion prior to the collapse of the twin towers. You can have experts say there is no scientific evidence that there were explosions. You can have a team of experts say there is no scientific evidence of explosions. That's still not proof to you.


If none of them ever explain their reasoning or show their work, you're absolutely right.

I don't understand why you don't have the same standard. It seems you have no interest in how they prove something, only their stated opinions, which as I said, vary.


At least you can stop pretending that you're impartial. It's obvious to me that you have no real curiosity here, as you are too eager to take conjecture and opinions without even seeing what it is based on. You aren't going to win any "converts" by pretending you're a fence-sitter. You have to actually demonstrate something we want addressed.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by iamcpc
I guess you will never have proof. You can look at the seismograph and see no spikes to indicate an explosion prior to the collapse of the twin towers. You can have experts say there is no scientific evidence that there were explosions. You can have a team of experts say there is no scientific evidence of explosions. That's still not proof to you.


If none of them ever explain their reasoning or show their work, you're absolutely right.

I don't understand why you don't have the same standard. It seems you have no interest in how they prove something, only their stated opinions, which as I said, vary.


I'll explain the reasoning of the seismograph.

A weight, usually called the internal mass, that can move relative to the instrument frame, but is attached to it by a system (such as a spring) that will hold it fixed relative to the frame if there is no motion, and also damp out any motions once the motion of the frame stops.
A means of recording the motion of the mass relative to the frame, or the force needed to keep it from moving.
Any motion of the ground moves the frame.

I know you know what a seismograph is. I know you know how a seismograph works. I know you're smart enough to not have someone explain to you how a seismograph works.

Ground moves = seismograph spikes.


I am very intersted in how the seismograph indicates there were no explosions. I researched how seismographs work and I researched explosives. I researched how explosives and explosiions have been registered on seismographs.

For the sake of the evidence lets igore the expert testimony. Lets just look at the seismograph. That way "they" don't have to "show their work".


I am impartial. I want answers.

What are you feelings about the seismograph that you presented having no explosion spikes spikes prior to the collapse of the twin towers?

Why do the seismographs show no spikes prior to the collapse of the twin towers?

How can a seismograph explain it's reasoning or show it's work?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I'll explain the reasoning of the seismograph.


You just explained how a seismograph works, not how anyone was able to tell on the readings that no explosives were present.


Want to give it another shot, sport?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Do you agree or disagree with the statment explosions cause seismograph spikes?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Do you agree or disagree with the statment explosions cause seismograph spikes?


They do when they are strong enough to generate ground vibration. That is what the seismograph reads: ground vibration, and the energetic magnitude of this vibration.

Now would you finally like to explain how they were able to conclude that these readings showed no signs of explosives?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Seismographs that you have presented show no ground vibration prior to the collapse of the twin tower

you even said yourself "There were none (none meaning no ground vibrations) before the collapses of the Twin Towers except those that were associated with the plane impacts.""


If explosions cause ground vibrations and "There were none (none meaning no ground vibrations) before the collapses of the Twin Towers except those that were associated with the plane impacts.".

Why did the explosions not show up on the seismographs? I'm asking the same question over and over and I'm not getting an aswer. I'm also not being pointed in a direction where I can find an answer.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Seismographs that you have presented show no ground vibration prior to the collapse of the twin tower


So this is the sole criteria used to state there was no evidence of explosives in the seismic data?

What size blasts would you be looking for and how far in advance of the collapses? Minutes? Seconds? Fractions of a second?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Here's some questions:

Why do the two tower collapses not have seismic spikes for the first nine seconds or so of the collapses?

Wasn't the energy released from the supposed falling top of the building much greater than any explosives?

why would explosives attached to columns have to cause seismograph spikes when they explode and destroy columns yet, according to NIST, the massive weight of the top of the building crushing down on the columns and destroying them would not?

So if the energy released from the top falling is not enough to cause spikes but only when the debris started hitting the ground was, then why can't one assume that much smaller explosions also would not cause any spikes but only the debris hitting the ground after the explosions would?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
So this is the sole criteria used to state there was no evidence of explosives in the seismic data?


I don't know what other method we have of obtaining seismic data than a seismograph.

What size blasts would you be looking for and how far in advance of the collapses? Minutes? Seconds? Fractions of a second?


I would be looking for blasts that would be large and strong enough to demolish the world trade center. The airplane didn't have enough energy to demolish the twin towers so something bigger than that. In terms of how far in advance. Seconds.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
And then if we take these questions further:

NIST in their reports on the towers implies that the collapse of the buildings did not cause any spikes, but only the debris hitting the ground did.

So if we take this as a precedent and travel on over to their report on WTC 7 we now see they are forgetting all this when the comparatively tiny floor sections around column 79 collapsed and cause a seismic spike. Yet the comparatively miniscule debris in this building never contacted the ground at all, it only reached the 5th floor, according to NIST that is.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
So this is the sole criteria used to state there was no evidence of explosives in the seismic data?


I don't know what other method we have of obtaining seismic data than a seismograph.


Ah, I can see that I'm just wasting my time and you aren't taking this seriously.

I am still asking by what method anyone was able to determine explosives weren't used, as they read the seismic data. Sit and think about this for a few minutes before responding, just so it sinks in and you fully understand what I am asking.



I would be looking for blasts that would be large and strong enough to demolish the world trade center. The airplane didn't have enough energy to demolish the twin towers so something bigger than that.


You should read this regarding the impact seismic signals: www.studyof911.com...


In terms of how far in advance. Seconds.


Why does it have to be seconds?

And if explosives or any other sort of device is going off within the building 1000+ feet in the air, what makes you think they will generate significant vibration at ground level?

In fact your whole argument assumes conventional explosives and a conventional demolition. This isn't even relevant to unconventional methods.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Why did the explosions not show up on the seismographs? I'm asking the same question over and over and I'm not getting an aswer. I'm also not being pointed in a direction where I can find an answer.


It's the nature of the beast.

Bsbray11 cannot support his claims and has conceded that he cannot demonstrate there were any "explosive squibs." Or evidence of explosives.

As predicted.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Here's some questions:

why would explosives attached to columns have to cause seismograph spikes when they explode and destroy columns yet, according to NIST, the massive weight of the top of the building crushing down on the columns and destroying them would not?


Would you not expect evidence of explosives use where explosives were attached to the columns?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I think it’s funny that you can not debunk any of my claims, yet you call them Myth.

I do not think it's funny at all to misrepresent dead NYFD firemen and hurt their families. You started right off with one of the earliest, nastiest, and debunked claims, the same myth that ae911truth.org used in a fund-raising video to which I linked.


Would you care to demonstrate how I “misrepresent dead NYFD firemen” and hurt their families? In fact, did a NYFD call your house about my post and tell you my posting on ATS hurts them?

This thread is not about “A&E fund- raising,” or how you failed to prove anything fraudulent about it.


Have you ever been called a Truther?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join