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.
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.
- 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.
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:
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.
2. Why did no explosions show up on either of the seismographs in the area of the WTC towers to indicate demolition?
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]
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.
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.
Originally posted by iamcpc
I'll explain the reasoning of the seismograph.
Originally posted by iamcpc
Do you agree or disagree with the statment explosions cause seismograph spikes?
Originally posted by iamcpc
Seismographs that you have presented show no ground vibration prior to the collapse of the twin tower
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.