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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
So this is the sole criteria used to state there was no evidence of explosives in the seismic data?


I guess I didn't know how to answer this question.




I am still asking by what method anyone was able to determine explosives weren't used, as they read the seismic data. If explosions cause ground vibrations and seismographs read ground vibrations then I was able to determine the seismographs are evidence explosives weren't used. My method was this: straight line= no ground vibrations squiggily line = no ground vibrations. Every expert who has looked at the seismograph has said the same thing.



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

I did read it. It points out how inaccurate the comission report was. It also presents the seismograph as evidence. The same seismograph that shows no vibrations prior to the collapse of the twin towers. The same seismograph that 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

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

Can anyone point me to a truther seismograph expert who can refute the claim "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers"?



Why does it have to be seconds?

Because in the 298357987 demolition videos i've watched in my research the explosions all happened seconds before the collapse. I never could find explosions then the collapse 15 minutes later. The 2958 witness who say they heard explosions said they heard explosions after the airplanes hit.


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?

Because the airplane hit high in the air and it generated 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.

I'm attempting to use science, and experts who do not disagree, to present evidence against one demolition theory. (explosive demolition)




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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?


All excellent questions. I suggest we research them all thoroughly and then present them to the LDEO.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

So where do they show their work? Hmmmmmmm?


web.mit.edu...

MIT investigated the collapse. I feel that they show their work very well. It does not change the fact that there are experts who say different.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I never could find explosions then the collapse 15 minutes later.

That's because you keep thinking the WTC demolitions were conventional. They were not.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
I never could find explosions then the collapse 15 minutes later.

That's because you keep thinking the WTC demolitions were conventional. They were not.


Non-demolitions are certainly not conventional in any sense of the meaning since they don't exist.

No mystery there.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
I never could find explosions then the collapse 15 minutes later.

That's because you keep thinking the WTC demolitions were conventional. They were not.






Then after your research please tell me specificaly what demolition materials the science and evidence show were used to demolish WTC7 so that I may research them in my quest for the truth.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence.

You've already been refuted:




Let's examine the above comparison more closely.

The screenshot from a video of a "building implosion" comes from Implosionworld.com located among a series of implosion videos here:

www.implosionworld.com...

The one _BoneZ_ used is the "Southwark Towers."

It is ironic that _BoneZ_ used an example from Implosionworld. Implosionworld sponsors the paper,

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com

www.implosionworld.com...


It is worthwhile to look at all of the videos to get a sense of what happens in normal building demolitions and compare it to the collapse videos of WTC 1 and 2:

www.youtube.com...

The differences are many:

- Many "implosions" have internal explosions go off before the final explosives take the structures down.

- Many explosives were used on these much-smaller towers than WTC 1 and 2.

- Detonations shown have several distinct characteristics:
1. Loud sounds.
2. Many explosives.
3. Many "squibs". These "squibs" all have the same characteristics: Short duration and quick dissipation of the resulting smoke.
4. Post-2001 explosive demolitions are the same type as pre-2001.

Numbers 2 and 3 are distinctly lacking from the videos of the much taller WTC 1 and 2 towers. What are claimed to be "squibs" in WTC 1 and 2 are long-duration, completely uncharacteristic of instantaneous explosions of the actual explosive demolitions from implosion.com.

For #4, there are no differences in explosives and their effects after 2001 than before 2001. We cannot assume some "special" explosives were used on 9/11 that were unknown after 9/11.

For #1, videos of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were taken from long distances and did not record the sounds very well. So in that we cannot use the sounds from videos as evidence that there were no sounds characteristic of explosive demolitions. We can only rely on the thousands of people that were within close range and heard the collapses, none of whom reported any of the characteristic sounds of explosives prior to collapse initiation as would be expected. After that point the tremendous noise of the actual collapses would probably mask detonation sounds - we don't really know.

A careful study of the videos from implosionworld.com and their own paper showing that the towers were not brought down by explosives just confirms that claims of "explosive demolition" cannot stand up to the evidence.





[edit on 13-5-2010 by jthomas]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 




A careful study of the videos from implosionworld.com and their own paper showing that the towers were not brought down by explosives just confirms that claims of "explosive demolition" cannot stand up to the evidence.


Show me how there is any credibility in Implossion Worlds Paper about the Twin towers? The person who wrote the paper for Implosion World is a writer and photographer, plus he uses not ONE CITATION in the article. He is NOT an Engineer nor explosives expert!

Now how does this prove to be anything scientific?

Ohh I see your misleading things again!

Like your figures for the WTC air based upon a bright sunny day...

My god jthomas please quit with your misleading data, and facts.

But from what I can see, that is all you do on ATS.







[edit on 13-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
www.implosionworld.com...

So it looks like Truthers should not use Blanchard's knowledge nor videos nor trust Implosionworld as _BoneZ_ did - according to the above poster.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I say, when will you use correct data? The implossion world article is nothing more that OPINION! Not one citation, ohh since he isn't an engineer that is no suprise. There is no facts it is just he points of view that he wanted included in the article.
Source


Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.


1.) Richard Blanchard is Operations Manager
2.) He is a writer, and a Photgrapher as I stated above
3.) He is NOT An enginner nor explosives expert

Now jthomas you claim that he wrote an article about the WTC collapse that your say is the tell all?

He is a writer, he gets paid to WRITE!

Use correct data Jthomas you misleading and bringing false data to the forum.

I have had to point this article out numerous times, since you "debunkers" tend to do whatever you can to prove other theories wrong, including lying!

Hmm now haven't we seen that attitude alot with the whole 9/11 issues, tons of lies!

Jthomas stop misleading the forum!



[edit on 14-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
 



Hmm now haven't we seen that attitude alot with the whole 9/11 issues, tons of lies!

[edit on 14-5-2010 by theability]


I agree. Lies on both sides of the field.


John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Are all of those people lying when they say (after an independant investigation to find the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers)

""we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help. This is the point of view that has been given almost no attention or thought. At the same time, several arguments are introduced later in this article that support the theory that the North Tower collapse was facilitated by fire."


I note the part where they said "we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help."

Source: web.mit.edu...

Are Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Arthur Lerner-Lam associate director Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Mary Tobin senior science writer Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University



Are all of those people lying when they say, and show seismographs,

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

source: www.popularmechanics.com...

Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and director of Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering
civil engineering assistant professor Ayhan Irfanoglu
civil engineering assistant professor Santiago Puiol
civil engineering doctoral student Oscar Ardila
civil engineering doctoral student Ingo Brachmann

Are all of these people lying when they say (after an independant investigation to find the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers)

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

I refuse to cite sources from websites like 911wasdemolished.com and debunk911theories.com. I find that often times debunker and truther websites are full of quotes taken out of context and contain un expert opinion attempted to be passed off as fact.

www.purdue.edu
www.popularmechanics.com
web.mit.edu



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The differences are many:

- Many "implosions" have internal explosions go off before the final explosives take the structures down.

There were many explosions that went off before the final take-down. One only needs to read the First Responder Oral Histories for that.

For instance Craig Carlsen, FDNY firefighter:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. We then realized the building started to come down."

When Craig Carlsen was specifically asked if he had heard any explosions when the north tower collapsed, he had this to say:

"You did hear the explosions. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it."


He says "about" ten, but there were actually 9, recorded by Rick Seigel and presented in "9/11 Eyewitness" from almost 2 miles away:






Originally posted by jthomas
- Many explosives were used on these much-smaller towers than WTC 1 and 2.

That would be false also. There were hundreds of explosives used in all three WTC buildings on 9/11 as evidenced by all available videos.



Originally posted by jthomas
3. Many "squibs".

There are only 4 "squibs" per building in the Implosion World video. Without slowing down the WTC 1 collapse video you posted, I can count at least 7 or 8. So, right there that's already double in the small section of the part of WTC 1 that's visible in the video.



Originally posted by jthomas
After that point the tremendous noise of the actual collapses would probably mask detonation sounds

Remember that the next time you ask why the detonation sounds aren't audible in the videos from close to the WTC. Besides, you'll discover from my documentary that the tremendous noise of the collapses is the detonation sounds.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
The differences are many:

- Many "implosions" have internal explosions go off before the final explosives take the structures down.



There were many explosions that went off before the final take-down. One only needs to read the First Responder Oral Histories for that.



I watched a lot of videos of the WTC collapse. I saw a lot. I'm sure you have to. Can you please link me to a WTC collapse video that shows any explosions within 5 minutes of the collapse?

Is it possible that a collapsing building sounds like explosions? Is it possible that there were explosions and they were not demolition explosions?

I saw a video of what could have been an explosion after the tower (or towers) collapsed. It's impossible for me to tell what it was that exploded thought.

Why did the "explosions" people heard not show up on seismographs prior to the collapse?


[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
 




A careful study of the videos from implosionworld.com and their own paper showing that the towers were not brought down by explosives just confirms that claims of "explosive demolition" cannot stand up to the evidence.


Show me how there is any credibility in Implossion Worlds Paper about the Twin towers? The person who wrote the paper for Implosion World is a writer and photographer, plus he uses not ONE CITATION in the article. He is NOT an Engineer nor explosives expert!

Now how does this prove to be anything scientific?

Ohh I see your misleading things again!

Like your figures for the WTC air based upon a bright sunny day...

My god jthomas please quit with your misleading data, and facts.

But from what I can see, that is all you do on ATS.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by theability]


Well contributions were made by earl gardner, gary mcgeever, michael golden, and john golden.

Now you have a team of protec employees.

"For over 30 years, Protec personnel have studied the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations."

Source: www.protecservices.com...

A team of people who work for a company that works closely with demolitions doing noise and vibration monitoring and video documentation know a lot more about explosive demolitions than you or me.

Source: www.protecservices.com...


A team of people who work for a company that monitors demolitions knows something about demolitions.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Can you please link me to a WTC collapse video that shows any explosions within 5 minutes of the collapse?

Did you not read my post just above yours? I have a screen shot from the video showing 9 explosions in the 3 minutes or so before collapse of the south tower. I even posted the testimony of an FDNY firefighter that corroborated that same number of explosions just before collapse.

Since you asked for a link, I'll post it, but after reading my post, you could have easily found it yourself:

Part 1: video.google.com...#
Part 2: video.google.com...#
Part 3: video.google.com...#



Originally posted by iamcpc
Is it possible that there were explosions and they were not demolition explosions?

Those have to be some powerful explosions to be heard from almost 2 miles away.



Originally posted by iamcpc
Why did the "explosions" people heard not show up on seismographs prior to the collapse?

Seismographs usually only record vibrations deep in the ground, not vibrations above ground.



Originally posted by iamcpc
A team of people who work for a company that monitors demolitions knows something about demolitions.

And I would say that someone who used to work for a demolitions company and is licensed to handle explosives, knows something about demolitions as well.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc




Originally posted by iamcpc
Why did the "explosions" people heard not show up on seismographs prior to the collapse?

1. Seismographs usually only record vibrations deep in the ground, not vibrations above ground.



Originally posted by iamcpc
A team of people who work for a company that monitors demolitions knows something about demolitions.

2. And I would say that someone who used to work for a demolitions company and is licensed to handle explosives, knows something about demolitions as well.



1. I would agree with this but:
-these same seismographs (protec and the earth observatory) recorded the airplanes hitting the buildings which impacted several floors above ground. Sending vibrations down the buildings into the foundation and earth.

-Protec uses seismographs specifically to monitor " the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations." and their seismographs had similar results.

This is why I push for the truther movement to tripple it's credibility and come forth with one single truther theory of demolition instead of having the 10 or so theories that pull the experts in different directions.

2. Anyone who tries to say there are not a good amount of experts who support truther theories is someone who has not done enough research.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
-these same seismographs (protec and the earth observatory) recorded the airplanes hitting the buildings which impacted several floors above ground. Sending vibrations down the buildings into the foundation and earth.

That's highly unlikely. Vibrations in steel tend to dissipate over distances. I doubt there would be any significant vibration a quarter-mile down from the impact point.

There were, however, basement-level explosions that caused significant damage to the lobby and lower levels. The lobby was damaged so much that firefighters commented that it looked like the plane hit the lobby.

The parking garage in the basement level was heavily damaged. A 300-pound steel and concrete fire door was blown off it's hinges and wrinkled up on the floor. A 50-ton hydraulic brake press in the machine shop "disappeared". Walls were caving in and ceilings were coming down in the basement levels. Survivors in the basement levels talked about numerous explosions. Survivors also talked about people dying or becoming severely injured from the basement explosions.



Originally posted by iamcpc
This is why I push for the truther movement to tripple it's credibility and come forth with one single truther theory of demolition instead of having the 10 or so theories that pull the experts in different directions.

There is only one demolition theory. The three WTC towers on 9/11 were brought down with conventional explosives. Although thermite/thermate may have been found in the dust samples sent to Dr. Jones, we have no idea of where, how, or what capacity it was used.

Anyone who says the WTC's were brought down solely by an incendiary, has no idea of what they're talking about and likely unresearched.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
-these same seismographs (protec and the earth observatory) recorded the airplanes hitting the buildings which impacted several floors above ground. Sending vibrations down the buildings into the foundation and earth.

That's highly unlikely. Vibrations in steel tend to dissipate over distances. I doubt there would be any significant vibration a quarter-mile down from the impact point.



Explosives is the theory that I felt was getting the most backing via expert sources and studies. Now why can't the truther movement put forth the answers to all the questions about explosive demolition theories in a nice little package.

I've tried to find expert sources to refute the seismographs as presented as a possible piece of evidence against the explosives theory and I was unable to find one. You present what I consider to be a logical arguement but I am not a seismograph expert and I don't know if you are. If you can find the expert source to help refute the protec and earth observatory seismographs please let me know or pm to me. Finding experts to refute that as a source would be a significant gain for the demolition via explosives truther theory.


Now I have to start the long and tedious process about learning about modern explosives when used in WTC scale demolitions AND research explosives when used in WTC scale demolitions in 2001. Specifically answers to these questions:

What are the different types of explosives/charges that are able to be used in a demolition of a WTC sized building?

How many explosives are needed where would the explosives have to be placed in order to mimic the WTC collapses?

Which of the 3 towers were the basement level explosions heard at?

Wouldn't basement level explosions show up on a seismograph?

When, according to video footage, are the audible explosions heard in comparison to when the planes crashed?

When, according to video footage, are the audible explosions heard in comparison to when the towers collapsed?

What are the decibles for all the different types of explosives that can be used to do a WTC demolition?


[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
"If you can't find those isolated ejections in any other building collapse besides controlled demolitions, you will continue to remain refuted. "

That's because a building of that size, the way in which it was brought down ("explosion", damage caused by impact at high levels) will probably never, ever be seen in our lifetime again. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. You sit there and go "we've seen it in controlled demolitions time and time before, so it has to be a controlled demolition!"

There is no other airplane hitting building causing it to collapse video out there other than the WTC attacks. OH wait though, there is a comparison video. Both buildings collapsed in the same manner. Both were hit by large objects at high levels, causing a collapse. Sure, from grainy videos, it sort of looks similar to a controlled demolition.

The floors pancaking and imploding upon themselves would damn well create the illusion of "controlled explosions." Yes, loud enough to be heard 2 miles away.

And while the inside is falling, crushing each floor upon one another, obviously that's going to create the squib effect. Not just explosives create this effect, as shown in the WTC attacks.

And before someone mentions something about building 7, the collapse was caused by roughly the same manner as the WTC towers. Debris from the WTC towers, and the towers themselves falling created structural instability that finally caused the building to come down some 6 or 7 hours after the WTC collapse.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jbalon
The floors pancaking

I'll just stop right there. NIST did away with the "pancake" theory years ago.



Originally posted by Jbalon
And while the inside is falling, crushing each floor upon one another, obviously that's going to create the squib effect.

Again, NIST did away with the pancaking, floor upon floor effect, theory years ago. There was absolutely nothing in those towers the way they were designed that would cause any kind of "squib" effect. "Squibs" are never seen anywhere besides controlled demolitions. If you can't provide an image or video of a "squib" that is not from a controlled demolition, then there's nothing more to debate on this subject.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join